Countering Supervisor Exploitation

Abstract

Some academic supervisors take undue credit for the work of their research students, causing damage to their careers and morale. Students should consider whether to acquiesce, leave, complain, or resist. Students should be prepared for supervisor tactics of cover-up, devaluation, reinterpretation, official channels, and intimidation. Options for addressing exploitation include prevention, negotiation, building support, and exposure.

Full text

Countering Supervisor Exploitation
1
brian martin
Some academic supervisors take undue credit for the work of their research students,
causing damage to their careers and morale. Students should consider whether to
acquiesce, leave, complain, or resist. Students should be prepared for supervisor
tactics of cover-up, devaluation, reinterpretation, official channels, and intimida-
tion. Options for addressing exploitation include prevention, negotiation, build-
ing support, and exposure.
Keywords: supervision, exploitation, research students, plagiarism, universities,
co-authorship
Fran was a PhD student in a research team. She became highly produc-
tive but was distressed that she had to share credit with non-contributors.
Hersupervisorputhisnameoneverypaper,evenwhenshehaddone90
per cent of the work, and often her supervisor added one or two other
names. In one case she had never heard of her nominal co-author.
Peter, a PhD student, made a discovery, which he eagerly shared with
his supervisor. Six months later, his excitement turned to dismay and
disgust when he spotted a recent article. His supervisor had published
the results without even mentioning Peter’s role.
Selena was preparing a postdoc application and obtained some useful
feedback from her supervisor. She was startled, however, when he told
her that he had put in a grant application in exactly the same area,
with the same plan and hypotheses, in collaboration with a colleague.
He had never before done research in this area.
Jim was a data-collection assistant for a professor at an elite univer-
sity. Jim’s degree was from a lower-status university, and the professor
refused to write him a reference for undertaking an advanced degree
at a more prestigious one. After ten months, the professor asked Jim
to analyse the data and write a paper for a conference that Jim would
present as his own. However, when the professor saw the high quality
of Jim’s paper, he demanded to be listed as the author.
Journal of Scholarly Publishing October 2013 doi: 10.3138/jsp.45-1-004

These are examples of exploitation by academic supervisors. The super-
visors took credit for their students’ ideas and research work, sometimes
sharing the credit further with others in what is called gift authorship or
honourary authorship, which is designed to curry favour with collabo-
rators and patrons.
2
In this sort of exploitation, the ideas and work of
students and subordinates are expropriated to serve the supervisor’s
career and reputation.
Other targets of this sort of exploitation include spouses, research
assistants, and undergraduate students. Exploitation is sometimes accom-
panied by other forms of abuse, such as bullying, racism, and sexual
harassment. The focus here is on exploitation of research students by
supervisors; much the same analysis applies to other situations in which
a researcher takes advantage of someone in a subordinate or dependent
position.
Academic exploitation is a type of plagiarism: The ideas and work
of one person are used by another without adequate acknowledgement.
Exploitation can be so highly entrenched in some academic cultures that
it is treated as standard practice. It can be called institutionalized plagia-
rism,
3
and it has persisted for decades.
In some scientific circles, research team leaders expect to be co-
authors on papers by anyone in their laboratory as a matter of custom,
irrespective of the leader’s contribution. It is a type of tribute to the
sponsor, a way of repaying the person who brings in the money. The
team leader may need to be listed as the author of lots of papers to
maintain the sort of publication track record necessary to compete for
research grants. A research leader who renounces the practice of gift
authorship is disadvantaged in the competition for funding.
Some supervisors expropriate the work of their students and sub-
ordinates as a personal advancement strategy, in defiance of norms against
this behaviour. The prevalence of exploitation varies considerably across
institutions, research units, and individuals. In some countries, exploita-
tion of students is widespread and simply taken for granted. Senior male
academics are the most common exploiters.
Commercial imperatives can lead to exploitation: Academics use stu-
dent research to obtain grants and patents and even to set up and
support businesses. David Dickson provides an example: ‘A graduate
student at Stanford University . . . complained to the university that her
faculty adviser had informed a company for whom he consulted of her
Countering Supervisor Exploitation 75

work, and the company had subsequently put a team on the problem
and solved it before she was able to.’
4
When research is not a high priority and does not bring much money
or status, exploitation is less likely. Pressure to publish papers, obtain
grants, and build a reputation can bring out competitive behaviours,
and students are prime targets. They are mostly naive, trusting, and rela-
tively powerless.
There are many honest supervisors who wish the best for their stu-
dents and are horrified by exploitation. However, few of them ever speak
out about the problem. There is a small amount of writing about aca-
demic exploitation, spread across a range of newspapers and journals.
5
consequences
The impact of supervisory exploitation is often severe. Students, believ-
ing in the standard rhetoric about the intellectual goals of universities,
are unprepared for unscrupulous practices. The result can be dismay
and disillusionment. Some students acquiesce; others leave, quitting aca-
demic careers. Scholarship thus loses some of its most committed and
idealistic prospects.
Exploitation also affects the ongoing operation of scholastic endeav-
ours. The possibility of losing a proper share of credit leads many re-
searchers to say little about their work, in case others would run away
with the ideas. This undermines the collegiality and open exchange of
ideas that is so valuable for stimulating creative endeavours.
It should be recognized that it is very difficult to give detailed attribu-
tions for all research ideas. It is desirable to do so as a form of courtesy
that fosters a healthy social system for research,
6
but it is seldom possible
to acknowledge every source, such as overheard conversations or media
stories. Frequently, researchers hear or read things and then forget they
have done so, imagining the ideas to be their own.
7
However, the cases of exploitation relevant here are something quite
different. Supervisors interact with their students on an ongoing basis
and should be completely aware of their students’ topics, methods, and
findings as they emerge. Supervisors cannot accidentally forget that their
students are working in a particular area. It is the supervisor’s responsi-
bility to respect the student’s contribution and to fairly negotiate over-
lapping contributions in the area, including via co-authorship.
76 Journal of Scholarly Publishing

There is nothing new about exploitation in scholarly work. It is
unfair, yet it is usually taken for granted by most of those involved.
However, just because supervisor exploitation is commonplace does not
mean it is acceptable. As with other inequities such as sexual harassment
and child sexual abuse, awareness and action are needed.
options
Students, when they realize they are being exploited, have several options:
1. Join in. This involves accepting some exploitation and trying to
become an exploiter by claiming credit for the work of others,
such as junior students.
2. Acquiesce. This means staying and not protesting about ill
treatment.
3. Exit. This includes finding another supervisor, moving to another
institution, and quitting studies altogether.
4. Complain. This includes making formal complaints to one’s
supervisor, administrators, grievance committees, or professional
associations.
5. Resist. This means refusing to cooperate with exploitative
practices, instead seeking to expose or challenge them.
Option 1, joining in, is unethical. Option 2, acquiescence, may be the
only way some students can survive. Due to financial or personal reasons,
exiting may not be possible, and complaining or resisting too risky.
Option 3, exiting, is often a good idea, especially early in your studies,
before you have invested too much effort in a line of research. However,
leaving does not challenge the system of exploitation nor prevent your
supervisor from exploiting other students.
Option 4, complaining, sounds like it should be effective. If your
supervisor did not realize what was happening, or its impact, then per-
haps there is a chance of a different pattern of behaviour. However, if
your supervisor is not responsive, complaining to higher authorities is
nearly always a dead end or worse.
8
Option 5, resisting, is the strongest response, but the most risky. It
has the greatest potential for bringing about change, but also the greatest
likelihood of leading to reprisals.
Countering Supervisor Exploitation 77

supervisor tactics
When supervisors are aware that their behaviour is dubious and could
be questioned, they can take steps that reduce the risk of any adverse
consequences to themselves. Students need to be prepared to react to
five common tactics.
9
1. Cover-up
Information about exploitative practices is hidden. Usually this means
that information about who had ideas, who did the work, and especially
the inadequate contributions of some co-authors is never shared beyond
the supervisor or the research team. When colleagues know about ex-
ploitative practices, very seldom do they reveal what they know to wider
audiences. As a result, exploitation has continued for decades as a
subterranean practice. Many students only find out about it when they
become victims.
2. Devaluation
Students, who are the victims, are frequently denigrated personally and
their contributions to research projects dismissed as small, unoriginal, or
insignificant. Students can be labelled as ungrateful, egotistical, difficult,
misguided, or any of a wide range of other derogatory terms. The tactic
of devaluation operates to discredit students as unworthy. Hence, any-
thing done to them seems of little concern.
3. Reinterpretation
Supervisors and their colleagues often give explanations or justifica-
tions for their actions. Sometimes they lie about the magnitude or quality
of their own contributions to research. They sometimes claim that the
damage to students is not all that great. They might blame someone —
such as a colleague or higher management — for decisions about co-
authorship. Finally, they might sincerely believe that supervisors deserve
co-authorship just for being supervisors, regardless of the level of their
input.
4. Official channels
If a student makes a formal complaint to a manager, grievance com-
mittee, human resources unit, journal editor, or professional association,
a favourable outcome is unlikely. Official channels usually favour those
78 Journal of Scholarly Publishing

with more power. Official channels are usually slow and operate accord-
ing to rules and procedures rather than fairness. If a complaint is
rejected, the supervisor’s behaviour essentially receives a formal stamp
of approval.
5. Intimidation and rewards
Students are sometimes threatened, implicitly or explicitly, to agree to
exploitative practices. They may fear losing their scholarships or receiv-
ing a bad reference. In the worst scenarios, a vengeful supervisor will
sabotage job applications by contacting potential employers. On the
other hand, students who agree to exploitative practices may be promised
help getting grants and jobs.
prevention
The best option is to avoid supervisors, departments, and universities —
and even countries — where exploitation is common. Before you begin
a degree or a postdoc, it is vital you find out about a supervisor’s be-
haviour and track record. If possible, talk to the potential supervisor’s
current and previous students, including any who dropped out. You might
also seek advice from student representatives. If an academic seems overly
keen to supervise you or is reluctant to recommend alternative supervisors,
you should be cautious.
Arrabella carefully investigated supervisors before beginning her PhD.
She talked with several academics, looked at their publication records,
talked with several of their current and past students, and had several
long sessions talking to Dr Jones, her best prospect, about expectations
and practices. Only after several months did she make a decision and
enroll. She did well.
If you know about exploitative supervisors, you can warn others. This
is best done discreetly. For example, if you are an academic and your
colleague has a terrible record with students, you can advise potential
new students to talk to other students first, without mentioning your
colleague’s name.
If you have been the victim of an exploitative supervisor, you can
warn others. This needs to be done carefully. If you know other students
who have been treated badly and the abuse is clear and obvious, you can
be forthright. If the problems are less clear-cut, it is better to be cautious
Countering Supervisor Exploitation 79

in your comments. The safest advice is to recommend talking to other
students first.
As a supplement or alternative to spreading news about supervisors to
avoid, you can recommend supervisors who are fair, supportive, and
generous, and who have supervised many students to graduation. As
well as giving your own endorsement, you can suggest talking to this
supervisor’s other students.
negotiation
When Sal started her thesis under Professor Alexandra, she asked for a
session to clarify expectations about authorship and collaboration. At
the meeting, she said she expected that every co-author should make a
significant contribution to the research and that the nature of the contri-
bution be specified in writing. Sal and Professor Alexandra signed a
statement about authorship expectations; later on, as Sal prepared work
for publication, they had discussions about appropriate authorship.
Negotiation is a desirable approach to authorship matters. It is best to
raise this matter early in your candidature or job. However, sometimes
issues only arise later on. If you are a major or significant contributor to
a paper, you can say you refuse to accept extra authors or inappropriate
authorship. It is valuable to take notes on all meetings, to document
your own contributions, and to make written agreements. For example,
if you have an informal discussion about authorship, you can send
around an email summarizing decisions made so that there is a record.
Negotiation can start or restart at any time. When you or someone
else proposes a research project or publication, you can spell out expecta-
tions concerning who does what and how people’s contributions are to
be acknowledged. If you have a reasonable relationship with your super-
visor, then you should query anything you think might be inappropriate.
It can be useful to spell out principles or rules for authorship and for
the order of authors. For example, you can ask each person involved
what they think are the expectations for being a co-author or for being
the first author. Sometimes co-authors have different ways of thinking
about authorship, or they have not carefully thought through the appli-
cation of their principles. If your university, profession, or research
system has guidelines for authorship, it can be useful to review these
and discuss how they apply to your circumstances.
80 Journal of Scholarly Publishing

In case of a serious disagreement, it can be useful to consult a dis-
interested person who can recommend a resolution or even be an arbi-
trator. This person should be acceptable to all parties, known for his or
her independence and integrity, and knowledgeable in the field.
Negotiation is usually the best way to deal with authorship matters. It
requires a degree of openness and trust.
build support
Marni inadvertently discovered that her supervisor had recently presented
a paper to a conference, reporting results from the project she had been
working on for two years. He presented the work as his own, though he
did mention her input. Before taking action, she decided to investigate
further by tracking down his other conference presentations and papers.
In this way, she located three former students and research assistants for
whose work he had taken credit. Armed with statements from two of
them, as well as records of their published work and his conference talks
and papers, she was prepared to confront and expose him.
If your supervisor takes credit for your work and you try to challenge
this, it can sometimes be a matter of your word against your super-
visor’s. This is a losing proposition, because supervisors usually have
more credibility and influence within the research hierarchy. If you can
find others willing to support or join you, you are in a much more
powerful position.
As well as finding others who have been poorly treated, it can be very
helpful to find established researchers who, on the basis of documenta-
tion, will vouch for your case. Independent opinions count for a lot.
Building support can be difficult. Many will sympathize with you but
will be afraid to speak out, fearing reprisals. Some have budding careers
they do not want to jeopardize. So don’t expect a lot of enthusiastic
support. Some may even be afraid to be seen talking with you.
Often the most promising approach is to first track down others and
talk to them informally. If there is one individual willing to take a stand,
by joining you or providing documentation, your position is greatly
strengthened. Then you can approach others saying that two of you are
working together. With greater numbers, others may be willing to join
you or provide you with more information.
Countering Supervisor Exploitation 81

Sometimes an outsider does the organizing—for example a journalist,
a social researcher, or an integrity campaigner. The outsider might have
his or her own agenda — a journalist will be interested in a story— or
might simply want to promote fairness while operating behind the
scenes. It is possible to learn from the experiences of community organ-
izing, though the context is quite different.
10
Exploited students can use-
fully think of themselves as an oppressed group and learn from the
struggles of other oppressed groups.
exposure
Cath knew about the problems with Dr Zel, who was notorious for
taking credit for his students’ work. She talked to several students and
wrote an account of several episodes, changing names and some details,
and posted it on a blog under a pseudonym. After alerting Dr Zel’s
students, the blog post was soon known around the department.
Exposing abuses is a powerful way to challenge them. This means telling
people about the problem in an informative, credible way.
Case studies, in which names and details are revealed, can be highly
effective but also risky due to the possibility of legal action. So some-
times it is better to write anonymous accounts.
Journalists are often interested in stories about plagiarism and aca-
demic fraud, and sometimes will write articles about exploitation. How-
ever, mass media are receptive to only certain types of stories, specifically
ones that are current and local and contain some shock value.
Social media are more accessible. Using anonymous remailers, it is
possible to send an email without being identified. Another possibility,
also anonymous and admittedly more extreme, is graffiti in restrooms.
Because exposure of exploitation is so powerful, extra care needs to
be taken to be absolutely sure of all facts. This is vital to avoid harming
an innocent academic and to avoid being discredited by mistakes.
In ethical terms, exposing abuses anonymously is less than ideal. How-
ever, if the usual response to open disclosures is disbelief and reprisals,
then it is quite understandable that disgruntled students will take the
path of anonymous disclosure. This is in the tradition of whistleblowers
leaking documents.
11
82 Journal of Scholarly Publishing

a devious option
If your supervisor has a record of publishing your text without giving
you any credit, you can make such behaviour risky by salting what you
write with plagiarized material or factual mistakes. There are some
prominent instances in which politicians and other public figures — and
even the occasional academic — have been embarrassed by allegations of
plagiarism. They never gave credit to their assistants and speechwriters,
and therefore were expected to take responsibility when the work was
not up to scratch.
12
Note that skill is needed to undertake this option.
summary
If you or someone you know is the target of academic exploitation, you
are in a difficult situation. Your bargaining power is low because of your
junior status. Sometimes it is better to leave and curtail the damage. It
is important to know there are options. Preventing problems and using
negotiation to address ongoing disagreements is the best option. If these
do not work, building support and exposing abuses can be effective. The
more who resist, the easier it becomes for others to join.
appendix 1: record-keeping tips
13
Keep meticulous records of your research work, including copies of
work in progress, and all correspondence. You can use a mobile
phone’s camera to record copies of lab notes, documents, and other
relevant information with dates and times.
Email copies of your work, including draft articles, to yourself or
friends so you have record of what you did and when you did it.
Make notes on all meetings, including every meeting with your
supervisor.
After significant meetings, send a summary to one or more of the
people who attended.
Keep copies of all your work, correspondence, and records in
multiple locations, some of them off-site.
appendix 2: advice for supervisors
If you are a supervisor, you have advantages over students and sub-
ordinates. They depend on you for guidance, advice, knowledge of the
field, and sometimes funding. Unfortunately, it is very easy to take advan-
tage of a position of power to exploit others.
14
Therefore, a general rule
Countering Supervisor Exploitation 83

for responsible supervisors is to make extra efforts to avoid taking
advantage of students and subordinates. Give them the benefit of the
doubt in assigning authorship or first authorship.
If you have a track record in the field, giving extra credit to students
and junior colleagues is a win-win option. As the senior author, others
are likely to give you more credit than the formal authorship line alone
would indicate. Therefore, having your student be listed as first author
or even sole author gives the student maximum credit while you still
receive considerable recognition.
15
appendix 3: on overestimating contributions
It is important to realize that researchers commonly overestimate their
contributions to joint projects. When two co-authors are asked, inde-
pendently, what percentage of the work they contributed, the two figures
usually add up to more than 100 per cent.
Does this mean each collaborator is trying to grab undue credit? Not
necessarily. Each collaborator knows intimately exactly what he or she
contributed to the project but usually knows comparatively little about
what other collaborators did. One’s own effort looms large whereas the
efforts of others are unknown or invisible.
One way to counter this problem is for each collaborator to write
down what they have done, perhaps indicating the amount of time or
effort involved. This can raise the contributors’ awareness of their con-
tributions. It is important to realize that equal time does not necessarily
mean equal significance. An experienced researcher can accomplish
some tasks much more quickly. Writing half the text for a paper is
equally significant whether it takes one hour or ten hours. Expressing
contributors’ work as percentages of different research components —
such as project formulation, literature review, data collection, analysis,
and writing up — can be helpful. The exercise of making explicit the
contributions of collaborators can help counter the tendency toward
overestimation.
brian martin is professor of social sciences at the University of Wollongong,
Australia. He received his PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Sydney
in 1976. He is the author of a dozen books and hundreds of articles on dissent,
nonviolent action, scientific controversies, democracy, higher education, and other
topics. He is vice-president of Whistleblowers Australia and editor of its newsletter,
The Whistle. He has an online presence at http://www.bmartin.cc/ and can be
reached by email at bmartin@uow.edu.au.
84 Journal of Scholarly Publishing

notes
1. I thank the many students and others who have told me their stories and helped
me understand the dynamics of exploitation. For helpful comments on drafts, I
thank Jerry Ravetz, Lynne Wright, and others who prefer to remain anonymous.
2. See Marcel C. LaFollette, Stealing into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism, and Misconduct in
Scientific Publishing (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press 1992), 91– 107.
3. See Brian Martin, ‘Plagiarism: A Misplaced Emphasis,’ Journal of Information
Ethics 3, 2 (Fall 1994), 36–47.
4. David Dickson, The New Politics of Science (New York: Pantheon 1984), 78–9
5. For example, Anjana Ahuja, ‘ I’ll Take Credit for that, Thanks — Science,’ The
Times (25 February 2002); Damien Kingsbury, ‘Junior Academics Too Often
Plagiarised,’ The Australian (8 February 2012): 29; Peter A. Lawrence, ‘ Rank
Injustice,’ Nature 415 (21 February 2002): 835–6; Brian Martin, ‘Academic Ex-
ploitation,’ in Brian Martin, C. M. Ann Baker, Clyde Manwell, and Cedric Pugh,
eds., Intellectual Suppression: Australian Case Histories, Analysis and Responses
(Sydney: Angus & Robertson 1986): 59–62; Eugen Tarnow, ‘An Offending Survey,’
Salon (14 June 1999), http://www.salon.com/1999/06/14/scientific_authorship/; Ron
Witton, ‘Academics and Student Supervision: Apprenticeship or Exploitation?’
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 9, 3 (1973): 71–3. The problem is
also mentioned in passing in various publications. For a bibliography on co-
authorship, see http://coauthorship.com/.
6. See Jerome R. Ravetz, Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems (Oxford:
Clarendon Press 1971), 256–7.
7. The technical term for this is ‘cryptomnesia.’
8. For more on this, see Brian Martin, ‘ Plagiarism Struggles,’ Plagiary: Cross-
Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification, 3 (2008), http://
www.bmartin.cc/pubs/08plagiary.html.
9. For more on this framework, see Brian Martin, Justice Ignited: The Dynamics
of Backfire (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield 2007); ‘Backfire materials,’
http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/backfire.html.
10. The classic reference is Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals (New York: Random
House 1971). See also Robert Fisher, Let the People Decide: Neighborhood Organ-
izing in America (Boston: Twayne 1984); Eric Mann, Playbook for Progressives: 16
Qualities of the Successful Organizer (Boston: Beacon Press 2011).
11. See The Art of Anonymous Activism: Serving the Public While Surviving Public
Service (Washington, DC: Project on Government Oversight, Government Ac-
countability Project, and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
2002), especially 7–16; and Kathryn Flynn, ‘The Practice and Politics of Leaking,’
Social Alternatives 30, 1 (2011): 24–8.
Countering Supervisor Exploitation 85

12. For an academic case, see Jacob Hale Russell, ‘ A Million Little Writers,’ 02138
Magazine (November/December 2007): 78.
13. I thank an anonymous reader for suggesting the creation of a list of these points.
14. For research on the corruptions of power, see David Kipnis, The Powerholders
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1976).
15. Robert K. Merton and Harriet Zuckerman, ‘ Age, Aging, and Age Structure in
Science,’ in Robert K. Merton, The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical
Investigations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1973), 497–559. The phe-
nomenon by which those who are well known gain more than their share of
credit is called the Matthew effect, about which there is a body of writing.
86 Journal of Scholarly Publishing