Negotiation is a process in which the student and the supervisor come together to discuss some issues concerning the research project. Every communication between the student and the supervisor involves some form of negotiation (Watt & Chiappetta, 2011). It is a continuous process in which the student and the supervisor agree on how to work at every stage of the research project (Gurr, 2005). Several scholars (Watt & Chiappetta, 2011; Gurr, 2005; Grant, 2005; James & Baldwin, 1999) argue that lack of negotiation in the student-supervisor relationship may lead to misunderstanding and hence a poor relationship between the student and the supervisor.
The process of negotiating the student-supervisor relationship is an important step in postgraduate supervision that should start at the beginning of the doctoral study (Bozeman & Feenay, 2007; Gurr, 2005). Negotiating the relationship early at the beginning of the research creates a sound foundation on which both the student and the supervisor can build that relationship over time (Gurr, 2005). It sets the stage for potential success and a long-term relationship which enables the student to complete the research project on time (Bozeman & Feenay, 2007). The supervisor and the student should be forthright to discuss all the issues of the academic relationship at this stage. Watt and Chiappetta (2011) argue that a clear negotiated relationship at the beginning of the project appears to prevent years of frustration between the student and the supervisor.
One of the paramount issues that need to be negotiated is the contribution of both the student and the supervisor in the relationship (Grant, 2005). The student-supervisor relationship should be a partnership in which both the student and the supervisor negotiate and re-negotiate their respective contributions to the research project (Pearson & Brew, 2002). This prevents feelings of dissatisfaction in the relationship (Pearson & Brew, 2002). Students commonly complain
47
that supervisors are not doing their part (Sambrook et al., 2008). Grant (2005) observes that supervisors should appreciate that students derive power from their legitimate positions as clients and thus, they evaluate their supervisor’s contribution. It is therefore important for the student and the supervisors to negotiate their level of contribution to the study (Watt & Chiappetta, 2011).
The frequency and the manner in which consultations occur need to be negotiated in the student-supervisor relationship (Detsky & Baerlocher, 2007). There should be a properly managed engagement between the student and the supervisor (Grossman & Crowther, 2015). Students can sometimes find themselves lonely in an erratic relationship where their supervisors are busy and unavailable for consultation (Grossman & Crowther, 2015). It is therefore important for the student and the supervisor to negotiate the frequency of meetings and the way consultations are to be done in the relationship. This gives the student an opportunity to work progressively and harmoniously with the supervisor (Detsky & Baerlocher, 2007).
It is also necessary for the student and the supervisor to negotiate on the academic writing and the time frame for submission of drafts and feedback (Watt & Chiappetta, 2011). There should be a negotiated time frame on the frequency of submission of drafts of written work and a time frame of feedback by the supervisor. This provides direction to the student on what to do at a particular time for a specific period of time before moving to the next aspect. It also enables the supervisor to provide timely feedback (Bozeman & Feenay, 2007). Negotiation on the students’ style of academic writing should also be done to enable the student and the supervisor to agree on the quality of written work and the extent of the role of the supervisor in editing the student’s work (Watt & Chiappetta, 2011).
48
Negotiating the balance of power is a key issue in a student-supervisor relationship (Grant, 2005; Manathunga, 2007). Power has been defined by Manathunga (2007) as doing what it takes to get others to do what you want and avoid doing what you do not want. Grant (2003) found that in most tertiary institutions, the power of the supervisor and the student is not equally constructed. Typically, the supervisor is perceived to be an established researcher who is highly experienced in a certain field of study while the student is seen as inexperienced and overwhelmed by the research (Grant, 2003). Grant (2005) differs from this point of view and believes that power should be negotiated between the student and the supervisor. According to Grant (2005) students also have expertise power in their personal knowledge and experience together with their developing scholarly knowledge in the field of study, as well as their legitimate position as university clients seeking advice and training.
According to Pearson and Brew (2002) supervisors should enable students to exercise their power in the relationship. Manathunga (2007) argues that the most important aspect of power that is often overlooked is empowerment, which is gaining power by giving it away. Grant (2006) is of the opinion that enabling a sense of agency in the student is the mark of a successful supervisor. Pearson and Brew (2002) point out that if the goal of supervision is to facilitate a student to become a scholar and an independent professional in their field, then enabling students to increasingly exercise their power as successfully functioning researchers is a strategic indicator of good supervisory practice.
Due to the inherent differences in power and authority between the student and the supervisor, it is advisable that the supervisor is the one to initiate negotiations (Gurr, 2005). Despite the power difference, it is essential for the student and the supervisor to be frank and open on issues being negotiated in the relationship (Petersen, 2007). The issues that seem obvious to the supervisor may not be so obvious to the student and this can constrain the relationship
49
(Gurr, 2005). Negotiations between the student and the supervisor can be challenging, however, openness and clarification of issues during negotiation forms the basis for regular communication and provides direction in the working relationship between the student and the supervisor (Petersen, 2007).
Negotiation is not complete before the student and the supervisor openly discusses the manner in which differences in ideology or opinion will be managed (James & Baldwin, 1999). The student and the supervisor have different personalities, opinions, beliefs and ideologies and it is therefore expected that differences can arise during the study period (James & Baldwin, 1999). There are several causes of differences between the student and the supervisor as discussed earlier in this chapter. It is therefore necessary to have a negotiated way of managing the differences between the student and the supervisor (Watt & Chiappetta, 2011).