July
1st 2014 was the anniversary of my enrollment as a doctorate student
at the University of Auckland. This day was the start of my second year and, if
my doctorate committee had followed the rules of their job, this day should
have represented a return from my fieldwork in the Philippines. When I
transferred, I had laid out my timetable for my first year with the explicit
intention of completing my doctorate thesis at the two year mark – July 1,
2015. This desire to complete in two years was not only allowable as described
in the university statutes, but also understandable as I did not want to
needlessly borrow money if I did not get a scholarship during my tenure as a
doctorate student. Besides, I had already painstakingly written three draft
chapters and had prepared my field questions, which meant that the only thing
left to do was to write the full research proposal. Hence, I saw no need to add
on a third year while at Auckland.
My committee saw it differently, not because their vision
made more sense than mine, but because they truly had difficulty with
comprehending my research. Specifically, they were challenged by the
connections between the most pertinent elements of my research and how these
elements were relevant to the central thesis of my topic. I cannot say I did
not see this coming; as early as October 2013, I began to detect signs of skill
level issues in my committee. These issues became evident when they failed to
understand the objective of my research, but also when they failed to see the
theoretical framework. Although one can see from reading even early drafts of
my research proposal that I am doing a study on resilient food systems in the
Philippines, they kept asking me throughout the year if I was doing a food
security study. Moreover, they could not comprehend the utility of a tool I
adopted to do the analysis – a matrix – which would allow me to map out the
interactive dynamics of learning and adaptive capacities of food system actors.
Such dynamics are the focus of my study and would give insight into how the learning
capacities in two food system communities foster recovery and adaptability
(resilience). As months passed, it became increasingly obvious that my
doctorate committee failed to see how the layers and components of my research come
together to answer the framing research questions, which had been carefully
laid out for the reader in my research proposal. Moreover, despite having broken
down the phases and research instruments of my study, and explained how and
what data I would need to do to conduct my analysis, my committee still could
not see how these key elements were connected to the research objective. I
tried to resolve this impasse by asking two resilience specialists read my
research proposal, only to be told what I already knew: that the goal and
method of my study was both comprehensible and clear.
However, instead of moving forward, when I submitted
another revision to my committee in late January 2014, my supervisors pointed
out the same problems, claiming that the research objective was not clear
(though, I should note, it was determined to be clear by the resilience theory
specialists), but they did acknowledge the presence of the definitions, which
clarify the terminology I use in my study. I highlight this acknowledgement as
being important, as it leads into the revelation of the political game, which I
was told by one of my supervisors to play on November 27th, 2013.
The revelation that I was indeed (unwillingly) entwined in a political game was
made known in a subsequent e-mail containing feedback, which claimed I had to
define key terms soon after being told that I had done so. The contradiction in
these comments was repeated in a more recent discussion about my research
proposal, whereby the focus of my study was criticized as being too broad, and
then too narrow.
In May 2014, I resolved again to change the problems with
my supervisors by requesting the Dean of the Faculty of Arts to allow me to
shift into the PhD in Development Studies. Since one of my specializations in
the planning discipline is international development planning, the transition
would have been easy, and I supposed the planning and development academics would
see the alignment in my research and these disciplines. The Dean of Arts
suggested I speak with a food systems scholar, who has published fairly
extensively in his field. After agreeing to a meeting date, the food systems
scholar agreed to supervise me. Happily, I went to the Faculty of NICAI and
obtained the necessary form, filled it out, signed and then sent it to the
scholar. Then, to my dismay, when I followed up on the form the following
Monday, the food systems scholar explained that after speaking with the
disciplinary committee, he had decided against being my supervisor. This
rejection was simply too convenient and implied that someone in power was
pulling the strings.
Since
I began blogging about the problems I have had with supervising, I have disclosed
the experiences of other international students, who were also not treated well
by the University of Auckland and Massey University. Like me, these students
were subjected to road blocks not of an academic nature to impede their academic
progress, but a nature that indicated the possible practice of poaching the
doctorate thesis of international students. As a friend said, it appears that international
students are told their research is not good, and then when the student returns
to their home country, their thesis is used by possibly an academic staff
member, who has not yet earned a doctorate degree.
On August 5th 2014, I received the comments
from the postgraduate review committee (PGRC). To my disappointment, the
comments revealed that the problems of comprehension were institutional and
further alluded to the possibility that the political game was also
institutional rather than individual. The PGRC, like my supervisors, could not
understand the relationship between my research questions and the objective. The
comments merely exposed the failure of the PGRC to carefully read my research
proposal, as the alleged absence of key information (i.e. does not explain how
the data will be analyzed) were even then in fact present in my researchproposal.
When the Head of School called me to her office and
informed me of my supervisors’ review of my academic progress, she supported my
supervisors’ assessment, indicating an allegiance with her staff rather than displaying
educational objectivity. When I asked her if she had read my research proposal
to verify the validity of my supervisors’ criticisms, she admitted she had not.
Then, she proceeded to tell me that my research was not a doctorate thesis,
clearly implying that she believed she could make this decision based on her
institutional standing, and therefore clout, rather than on
internationally-recognized, objective criteria of originality and contributory.
I countered her point of view, pointing out that what gives this thesis its
doctorate quality was its knowledge and theoretical contribution, which is
explained in the last paragraph of the method section in my research proposal.
I also pointed out my having completed four draft chapters are further
indications of academic progress. Any well-reasoned intellectual would see
that. Not surprisingly, this meeting with the Head of School did not result in
a progressive outcome.
The content of this discussion, however, paralleled that
of the one I had with the Dean of the Faculty of NICAI sometime in July this
year. After listening to my concerns about my committee’s cognitive skills, this Dean simply mirrored them. She said the research proposal really needed framing
questions and the methodology had to be broken down for clarity. Turning to the
draft version, which I had brought with me to this meeting, I flipped to the
relevant pages and pointed to the location of the information she deemed to be
important in my research proposal. "They're there," I said.
On top of the apathy exhibited by the academic staff
towards resolving this impasse, my supervisors had lied to the financial aid
coordinator about my academic progress on the US Federal Loan eligibility form.
In the statements made by the PGRC, it was suggested that I resubmit, an
outcome that I intend to contest as I saw it as an erroneous and inaccurate
assessment of the academic work I had produced. This outcome is neither a
failure nor probationary, but my supervisors had written “not satisfactory” on
the federal loan eligibility form, contradicting the opinion of this supposedly
“objective” body (the PGRC). Keep in mind that in New Zealand, the final review
of the research proposal is left to an external committee. The supervisors
guide then comply with the decision of this external body. To my supervisors, I
pointed out the suggestion from the PGRC and informed them that this decision
was not an unsatisfactory outcome. They subsequently retracted the “not
satisfactory” notation rendered on the federal loan eligibility form, after
which I sent this correction to the financial aid coordinator by e-mail. However,
in her response, she claimed that the supervisors had informed her that my work
was not satisfactory. I replied with a more extensive explanation, attaching
the needed documents to prove that the outcome was a resubmission rather than a
failure, but my response bounced back to me as undeliverable. The copies I sent
to the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs and to the Associate Dean of
Postgraduate Studies were also returned to me with the same notification. I knew
that blocking a student from posing concerns about academic misconduct violates
New Zealand federal law regarding the pastoral care of students, so last week I
made a discrimination complaint to the Human Rights Commission on the grounds
of ethnic origin.
Despite the retraction from my supervisors, their conduct
was a revelation that need not be said in words: this committee wanted to see
me fail. While I am protected from whatever the underground agenda are of some
academic staff, as ulterior motives are considered violations of the US Federal
Law 34 CFR 668.34 governing the educational conduct of all partner universities
of the US Federal Loan program, including that of the University of Auckland, accountability
takes time to enforce. Let it be known that the actions of the University of Auckland are certainly
not without consequence to me. Because my PhD committee had pushed the review
of my academic progress and my research proposal to the start of my second
year, and then lied to the financial aid coordinator about the lack of truthfulness regarding the outcome
of the review of my academic progress, my federal loans have not been
processed. As a result of the mishandling of my federal loans by the financial
aid coordinator, I have not been able to pay my tuition and concomitantly have
not been able to access my living allowance. I am now living on the remaining
NZ$1,100 of my living allowance until those responsible fix their mistakes.
This amount continues to dwindle while I send e-mails, accompanied by
evidentiary documents, to those in power who can help me.
In
my view, the undelivered e-mails to key persons at the University of Auckland
along with the road blocks impeding my doctorate advancement stipulated that I was
fighting a political game that protruded as far up the food chain as the Chancellor’s
office and quite plausibly the University Business Council. I may even be
embedded in an extensive professional network protecting the jobs of academics
not fit to be so. In the next blog, I will discuss how I came to be so
suspicious of these professional interests. The one, thereafter, will highlight
the culpability of the US Department of Education.
