LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE NEW ZEALAND EDUCATION EXPERIENCE (PART I)

          The decision to embark on a PhD program requires some thought, in which the pros and cons of taking on yet another higher education qualification are weighed. Foremost among these considerations is the cost of doing so. Certainly, the competition for these funds is high because there are more qualified students than there are funds available. Moreover, many of the scholarships are restricted to studying particular subjects, a fact that merely increases the competition for any one scholarship. As in my case, my publications were not considered by the universities and the New Zealand International Doctoral Research Scholarship to be strong enough reasons to warrant being given a scholarship. Therefore, I relied again on the US Federal Loans to finance my first year, after which I had anticipated continuing to look for other scholarships.

            Regardless of how one finances the PhD education, it is an investment in terms of time and effort, which can be draining - if not discouraging - if the supervisors involved in the student’s progress do not have the requisite qualifications or, more importantly, the educational philosophy to do the job well. This deficiency in qualification at Massey, I discovered rather quickly created obstacles to my progress; I am also discovering that competencies at the Auckland may be also a factor in my timely progress.

            It did not take long after arriving at Massey in late September for me to realize that I might have walked into a system that might not be aligned with the standards assumed and expected of academic institutions. Besides the false scholarship notification issued to me by the International Program Office (IPO), a point I raised in an earlier blog, I soon began to suspect that my primary supervisor did not have the thinking skills, nor the doctorate qualification, to be able to supervise a doctorate student. This suspicion was magnified when her guidance on the content of the literature review chapter was erroneous. There were other comments from her, which I interpreted as having been of a sexual nature, such as showing me provocative photos of an older woman and declaring they were of the Head of School of People, Environment, and Planning after going to the photo image printed on the bottom of one of my publications, and asking me how old I was in that photo. What was she implying exactly?  Perhaps I was misreading the situation, but that conversation on my fifth day in New Zealand (in 2012) made me uncomfortable. I, thus, interpreted these allusions to be inappropriate.

Moreover, all within my first week of studying in New Zealand, in meetings with her, she repeatedly brought up the desire to co-author, alluding also to my then to-be-published book as the target of her desired co-authorship. I refused her offer. However, this decision seemed to have triggered her subsequent abusive behaviour, which ranged from slapping me on the head, following me around campus and Palmerston North and periodically hitting me, going into my desk drawers and taking important medical documents, bills, and letters I needed to send to my creditors, tampering with my completed draft chapters to delay the pace of my academic progress, letting herself into our (doctorate students’) office and logging into her account on the computer assigned to me, and eventually entering my living quarters. I presumed the people holding the master keys were influenced or possible pressured into letting her in or giving her the key combination to enter my personal life, as I have sometimes heard her use her university lecturer position as leverage. 

         I became enlightened about the alliance between this senior lecturer and other influential staff at Massey in the late summer of 2013. An unprovoked encounter with her, in which she approached and whacked me on the side of my head while depressing coffee grinds in a coffee press in the third flour lounge of the Geography building evoked snickering from the vicinity of the couches. As I had never been treated so violently by a supervisor or academic staff at previous universities where I had completed degrees, this senior lecturer’s behaviour, in combination with her unhelpful instructions on the contents of the literature review, led me to start investigating her credentials.

Although she was listed as having earned a PhD thesis on the Massey library website, my requests for the hard copy of her dissertation failed to produce hard proof of this document. I also typed in the titles of her articles on Google.com and found the authentic publications, which did not have her name printed alongside the authentic author. In other words, she did not in fact co-author the articles. I verified this fact by going to the online journal, typed in the volume and issue numbers, only to learn that she was indeed not the author of these articles.

As I slowly worked my way through my PhD thesis, organizing readings, taking notes, I realized my situation would not improve if I did not get administrative and legal help. I approached the Head of School twice to ask for a different supervisor. I also clandestinely stepped into a law office of barristers and solicitors to ask for advice about obtaining a restraining order against this woman. Neither attempts resulted in an outcome favourable to me; rather, in both cases, they seemed to favour this senior lecturer. The Head of School wavered on pairing me up with a different supervisor, informing me that she would have to speak with this senior lecturer (as if this would resolve the abusive situation I had unsuspectingly walked into), and the barrister informed me that because my accusations were of a criminal nature, I would need to get legal representation, which could be very expensive. On my doctoral student loan budget for living expenses, I could not afford to pay for a decent, knowledgeable, and skilled lawyer. Otherwise, I would have been willing to get witnesses to come forward.

Such financial constraints, and the apparent alliance with this senior lecturer demonstrated by the top administrative staff, forced me to apply to transfer to another school. Because the University of Auckland had accepted me for the same year (late in 2012) as Massey had, I re-lodged my application with them. My acceptance there, I quickly learned soon thereafter, seemed to have incensed her because her violent behaviour escalated, culminating in her pulling out a lock of my hair with silver pliers. In another incident, again in the third floor lounge, she descended on me with a knife obtained from the utensils drawer and jabbed me in the back with the sharp point. It was clear this woman is unpredictable and possibly dangerous. (As I will explain in a subsequent blog, within a few days after transferring to Auckland Uni, it dawned on me that this senior lecturer too had professional relationships with the people in the School of Architecture and Planning, and had possibly contacted them ahead of time to plot to perhaps derail my academic progress.)

As a result of these happenstances, debilitating enough to seek out the assistance of a therapist, several questions have come to mind. Why would the School of Graduate Studies at Massey approve the pairing of this woman with me, a student who clearly demonstrates an earnest desire to publish, push the boundaries of her discipline, and carry out independent research? Why would Massey keep a woman like this employed for twenty two years? Are there not more qualified and more ethical individuals more committed to teaching, research, and possessed a stronger academic philosophy than this woman, who could replace her? I believe Massey University has long understood her state of mind. I also do not think my experience with her was isolated, as both she and another senior lecturer hinted at the possible abuse of another student in the PEP (presumably at the hands of this senior lecturer). A final question is was all this abuse simply an effort to get me to drop my PhD program after working through my research design and objective in order to help “get” either her or one of her colleagues a PhD thesis?   

What is the minimum doctorate students can expect from supervisors? What about from educational institutions? Academic staffs at other universities are required to include their degree, the institution from where the degree was earned, and the year earned on the staff page of the departments. Most of the time, they will include a link to their CV, which includes the two or three people who had supervised them on their PhD thesis. Universities should be obliged to post all this information in the interest of applicants, but at Massey and Auckland this is not common, an indication that the lecturers may not have the adequate qualification. I fail to understand why any university would retain the employment of individuals, who are only interested in punching the clock and making an appearance to work for posterity. Trust me when I say that getting through the PhD program entails lecturers with critical thinking and knowledge management skills, but not those who have no interest in teaching or supervising.

The university should also ensure that academic staffs exercise fairness in assessments and in other dealings with the students to ensure timely progress. On the occasion that these requirements are undermined, appropriate accountability measures should be in place with the intention of supporting the student’s continuation, rather than demoralizing the student. A PhD thesis is stressful enough without worrying about unfair treatment.

The lesson learned from this experience is to thoroughly investigate the lecturers in your intended department, and research testimonies of previous and current students’ experiences with the university. Do not take anything for granted. Although not all students are treated in such a heinous manner, the fact that one has been is a good enough reason to do your research. The next student could be you, after all.