3.2 Confessions of a doctoral supervisor: valuing interdependence  (Page 7/12)

I hesitated to respond right away so the student could reflect on the situation, hoping that the inner drama involving interdependency, independency, and independency might surface. I gave this individual a few days to think about what was happening without prompting reflection. From my own perspective, the student had been functioning in this instance, just like all of the others previously, in an interdependent manner, albeit it with a high degree of dependency; however, this individual was in a state of denial, possibly feeling deprived of personal effectiveness, spirit, or force. The student had wanted to assert a level of independence in this situation that was misleading and simply inappropriate given the reality of the circumstances. I wondered if this individual had overly personalized the rule that the major professor is to be cc’d on all official correspondence—it was as though I was being perceived as controlling or unreasonable.

Another possibility is that I was being seen as equivalent to the school employees within this person’s charge. The use of plural first person perspective (i.e.,“our next steps”) surfacing in the student’s lexicon struck me as discordant—this may have simply been intended as nothing more than a polite gesture, but then again it may have been a strategy to motivate me to do this person’s thinking and work, which would have contradicted the assertion of independence made earlier.

Two days following the student’s email asking about our next step, I received a more demanding one asking if I had heard from the staff member in question. I wrote back what is for me a dispassionate message:“Since I was not cc’d, you will need to follow up with [XYZ] and let me know—communications pertaining to one’s degree program are generally the responsibility of the student.”A statement to this effect appears in the graduate student handbook. A few minutes later the student responded,

Thanks for the information. I understand your position and I will inquire from [XYZ] when I have the opportunity. Please note that you were not included on the request since I assumed that it was my responsibility alone. I hope that you were not offended by either the incident or the attempt at humor in the successive emails.

This communication did not ring true—each and every embedded claim can be unpacked. In response to“I understand your position and I will inquire from [XYZ] when I have the opportunity,”the student had always leaned on me to make inquiries on this individual’s behalf and, by way of extension, to conduct follow-up. I find that my students who work full-time as over-extended administrators often function in this way. This student had completed a degree program and thesis with me earlier. Whenever I had requested that this person follow up with staff or faculty members, this typically did not occur, leading to delays in the student’s progress and complications as I made follow up inquiries. Regarding“Please note that you were not included on the request since I assumed that it was my responsibility alone,”I felt baffled as this student knew the ground rule and that the reasons for it had been explained. Moreover, the student was not in fact taking responsibility for personal actions because of the dependency on me to explicate what to do and to communicate with others on this person’s behalf. Finally, the assertion“I hope that you were not offended by either the incident or the attempt at humor in the successive emails”evokes more thought—the claim involving independence in the earlier email message produced a barrier that could have been avoided. However, as it turned out, the reflective space that I had given the student combined with my personal distance and dispassionate tone seemed to have the desired effect: subsequent to these episodes I had been“cc’d”on all official correspondence. The student has since made the expected progress in the academic program whereas earlier there had been stymied activity only.