phd advisor is toxic

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

What can grad chairs/departments do to help senior PhD students under a toxic advisor?

My advisor has become increasingly toxic since the beginning of the pandemic. He makes belittling comments about my competence over small things like typos, shuts down my ideas as "bullshit" (and sometimes comes up with the same ideas "himself" a day later). Frequently skips our scheduled meetings, yet refuses to give comments/feedback on manuscript drafts unless we go through them together. He has been blaming the lack of productivity on my unwillingness to work weekends/late evenings (while he never comes in to work before noon) or on not being "proactive" and competent enough.

Some of my friends have encouraged me to go to the department. Our department seems to have an ok culture, and I feel like if I were to go to the grad chair with my concerns and incidents that I have documented, the department would want to help. However, I am close to graduating, so do not want to switch advisors, so I am not sure the department can do more than give him a mild slap on the hand and tell him to be a better advisor. I'm also terrified of him finding out this way that one of the students has complained about him, I can imagine things getting much worse for us after that. But I wanted to post this in case I'm missing something and there are ways for the department to help us out? My goals would be for my advisor to have more reasonable turnaround times so that I can publish my work faster and graduate and get out, or for the department to allow me to graduate without completing all of the projects in my proposal.

• graduate-school
• supervision

• 13 Sure, I'm not unsympathetic to the pressures that many profs are under, but I think 1) it is unprofessional to take personal issues or professional 'fires' out on students rather than taking time off or going to therapy. If you had a student who behaved like this to you or to other students, would you still be as sympathetic? and 2) this is directly affecting my graduation timeline and my career and personal goals. I have tried to work towards a constructive solution with him, but this is breaking down, so I am looking at other options. –  anon_de Commented Aug 22, 2022 at 20:08
• 18 @VitaminE: I can't help it but become somewhat sarcastic after reading your comment. This site is full of advice to numerous PhD students that bad phases during a PhD are common, that they need to focus on their work, that they should work hard, that they need to learn to behave professionally... But when a PhD advisor goes rogue, we should simply be empathic about the "fires" they might or might not be fighting all night? –  Jochen Glueck Commented Aug 22, 2022 at 21:04
• 3 @JochenGlueck there is always two sides to the story. I have students who have not made any progress for many years nor made any effort to help themselves. I have put out fires and had hoped that another 'fire' has been put out but to my horror it has not. This becomes critical when there are other stackholders, e.g., industry partners, on a project or a student is at risk of not graduating. My point is -- understand the cause of the supervisor's behavior and then maybe the student can solve it. –  Prof. Santa Claus Commented Aug 22, 2022 at 21:21
• 6 @VitaminE: personal issues can excuse some missed meetings or lack of productivity (if the supervisor owns up to the problems this causes their students). Personal issues absolutely do not excuse toxic behaviour, belittling/abusing others, and taking credit for their ideas. –  Greg Martin Commented Aug 23, 2022 at 17:17
• 1 @GregMartin Did I say anything about excusing the said behaviors? All I said was that both sides have issues. There are many ways in which these issues manifest themselves. –  Prof. Santa Claus Commented Aug 23, 2022 at 21:02

4 Answers 4

Given that you are close to graduation, and provided the supervisor isn't standing in your way, your best solution is probably just to struggle through it and ignore the negatives. Assume it is their problem, not yours, as long as your path remains open.

But, the worst case would be for you to complain and the administration to consider it a serious breach and fire the person, leaving you without an advisor.

I agree with the comment that the advisor seems to be under some pressure that they don't know how to deal with and lash out at everything. Try to separate your mental state from that.

At your state of completion, don't try to take responsibility for the woes of the other students. Prioritize finishing.

While the advisors supervisors (head, dean) can advise and discipline the person, it isn't likely to benefit you. They might actually need counseling, but that is not your call.

Another option, open to some students, is to have a chat with another (very) trusted faculty member who might offer advice and/or try to deal with the issue without you being involved. Another faculty member can talk to the head or the dean about issues of concern, where it is more risky for a student.

Let me also warn against making a complaint soon after you finish your degree. While it may seem satisfying, it can come back to haunt you. In your early career job search, especially in academia, you may need the support of your advisor, whether for postdoc or regular positions.

• 3 Thank you for your measured response, My plan is indeed to just finish and put this behind me and in the mean time focus on my own progress and mental health. But I admit at times the lashing out does get to me, and it becomes tempting to do something . –  anon_de Commented Aug 22, 2022 at 20:53
• 1 A talk with another trusted faculty member may also reveal the reason that the supervisor feels under fire. Maybe they are coming up for tenure, maybe they are going through a divorce, who knows. But for the vast majority of possible reasons their is nothing you can do about so this would be more for your own curiosity. –  quarague Commented Aug 23, 2022 at 6:53
• 1 Besides a "trusted faculty member" some universities also have a dedicated Ombudsperson who can be helpful in situations like this. They also can do similar things as the trusted faculty member. –  blues Commented Aug 23, 2022 at 12:21
• 4 My experience was that letters from the PI specifically rapidly became less important as you moved away from academia. A postdoc? Sure. National Lab? Probably. A company in your immediate field? Maybe--but someone on your committee could fill in. A data science job? They don't care AT ALL . –  Matt Commented Aug 23, 2022 at 15:24

Do you have any co-supervisors? If so, it may be beneficial for you to start relying more on them for support if you're not getting it from your main supervisor. Direct more of your queries to them, meet up with them if you can't get hold of your main supervisor. If your main supervisor complains, frame your response as sympathetic to their situation. Say something like "I know you are very busy at the moment, so I thought it would help you if I worked out this problem/got feedback on this report with co-supervisor X instead." This puts them in a situation where they're going to sound very ungrateful if they chastise you for trying to help them, so either they have to accept the situation and delegate more control to a co-supervisor, or improve their relationship with you.

I experienced a similar situation and here are my hints on how to prepare the ground for an explicit confrontation:

Look around for a possible new supervisor. Implicitly. "Dear professor XYZ, I am about to finish my thesis soon and would appreciate your high-level feedback. Would you mind spending one hour with me?" This conversation can help you to get oriented more objectively - where you are right, where your supervisor is right. It might also increase your courage in any possible direction. You will see to what extent the person is willing to help you and if you can trust him/her. You can be more open then and say: "Would you be able to finish supervising my thesis if the situation gets wrong?" This offer might be more attractive to them than you would expect. Yes, it might be a bit risky, but still. They can claim they have supervised one more Ph.D. and it will cost them weeks, not years.

Collect evidence about the improper behavior of your supervisor. What are the dates of missed meetings? What are the examples of arrogant communication? Turn the communication with your current supervisor into a written form as much as possible. Be factual and assertive. Use open questions if relevant like: "How can I finish my thesis without having your feedback on Chapter 3?"

One more hint: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B014DUR7L2/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89iQAAxBBaQ .

I was in a very similar situation. My advice is to take it on the chin and finish. In a couple semesters this will be behind you. You will never have to speak to this guy again.

Understand this: from the perspective of your department, your professor is an asset. You are a liability. There is no 'slap on the wrist' for him. There is a 'he cant work well with others' FOR YOU. Now, of course your department might be filled with bigger character integrities than mine (I certainly hope this is true), but the black and white is that you are an invited guest and the department is one meeting away from conspiring to get you out the door with not even a 'good luck' to show for it. He is valuable. You are not.

Everyone wants a PhD until its time to PhD. Take a big whiff. This is what it takes. God bless you, sir. You are not alone.

Edit: Here is what you should do. Approach a third party within your discipline. Do not mention you're having problems with your advisor. This third party should be a relatively established respected member of the department. Say something along the lines of, "Please join our regular group meeting as I am approaching graduation and I would greatly appreciate extra eyes and feedback on my work". A group dynamic should help reduced the toxicity. It is imperative they join as an extra observer. Do not mention any personal problems. Do not take no for an answer. Do not attend one on one meetings with your supervisor.

• 5 This answer is definitely not helpful; indeed, it's a similar type of belittling that the OP reports from their advisor. –  Greg Martin Commented Aug 23, 2022 at 17:19
• 2 @GregMartin go ahead and bring your personal problems to the department and see how that turns out for you! I am not the one responsible for creating economic inventive for departments to disavow students whose lives theyve single handedly destroyed. Its exactly your posture that allows this totally inexcusable behavior to have reached epidemic levels of damage in the usa. The department has economic incentive to completely absolve themselves of responsibility. Talk to them if you dont like it. My advice is sound. Make every conversation a group conversation. –  user198461 Commented Aug 23, 2022 at 18:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged phd graduate-school advisor supervision ..

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• How can I play MechWarrior 2?
• What is the nature of the relationship between language and thought?
• How to align rows within cell in Latex?
• When can the cat and mouse meet?
• How to clean a female disconnect connector
• Environment for verbatim boxes
• What are the most commonly used markdown tags when doing online role playing chats?
• Is reading sheet music difficult?
• How rich is the richest person in a society satisfying the Pareto principle?
• I'm not quite sure I understand this daily puzzle on Lichess (9/6/24)
• Nausea during high altitude cycling climbs
• Does a party have to wait 1d4 hours to start a Short Rest if no healing is available and an ally is only stabilized?
• Could a lawyer agree not to take any further cases against a company?
• Fusion September 2024: Where are we with respect to "engineering break even"?
• Wien's displacement law
• Can I use Cat 6A to create a USB B 3.0 Superspeed?
• Current in a circuit is 50% lower than predicted by Kirchhoff's law
• Why would autopilot be prohibited below 1000 AGL?
• how did the Apollo 11 know its precise gyroscopic position?
• What's the radius of Mars over Mount Olympus?
• Does the average income in the US drop by $9,500 if you exclude the ten richest Americans?
• Is the 2024 Ukrainian invasion of the Kursk region the first time since WW2 Russia was invaded?
• Why does the church of latter day saints not recognize the obvious sin of the angel Moroni according to the account of Joseph Smith's own words?
• In which town of Europe (Germany ?) were this 2 photos taken during WWII?

Bullying by supervisors is alive and well – now is the time to tackle it

The arrangements that trap PhD students in toxic relationships with abusive supervisors must be reformed – here’s how, says Timothy Ijoyemi

Timothy Ijoyemi

• More on this topic

You may also like

Popular resources

.css-1txxx8u{overflow:hidden;max-height:81px;text-indent:0px;} Change is coming, whether higher education likes it or not

Ai and assessment redesign: a four-step process, upgrade your teaching: four instant improvement tips, the cruel optimism of research careers: how to support contract workers, create an onboarding programme for neurodivergent students.

In recent years, a chorus of former PhD students have broken their silence over abusive behaviour suffered at the hands of their supervisors. Their horrifying accounts variously relate being belittled and humiliated in front of colleagues, having supervisors explode with anger upon hearing of scientific setbacks, even supervisors sullying their students’ reputations in the eyes of prospective employers. The toll of this sustained torment on students’ mental health can be devastating, with reports of anxiety and depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and even suicide having emerged.

Supervisor bullying deters talented students from pursuing academic careers. It can also compromise academic integrity by pressuring students to falsify data to avoid provoking backlash. This is a lose-lose situation for all of academia.

To make matters worse, the unprecedented demands of the Covid-19 pandemic risk diverting attention from nascent efforts to address supervisor bullying precisely when many of the conditions that feed into it, such as work frustration and economic inequality, have worsened. More optimistically, the state of flux created by the pandemic also presents an opportunity to finally get to grips with this issue requiring bold and urgent action.

But why focus on supervisor bullying of PhD students when bullying affects academics at all levels? While all forms of bullying must be eradicated, the power imbalance of the student-supervisor relationship makes students uniquely vulnerable to bullying from superiors who can destroy careers before they’ve even begun.

• So you want a novel way to support untapped research talent?
• Advice for early career researchers on handling workplace inequality, prejudice and exclusion
• Early career researchers can say no, too  

Indeed, once a student has progressed to a certain point in their PhD, their supervisor is usually so intertwined with the project that they are virtually indispensable to its completion. Students jumping ship partway through their PhD are likely to lose access to essential resources bound to their existing supervisor, including research funding and access to crucial lab equipment, not to mention their supervisor’s expertise. Any student raising the ire of a malicious supervisor also risks forgoing the glowing reference and authorship credit on papers that could be pivotal to landing their first postdoc. It’s little wonder that so few PhD students report their experiences of bullying.

The arrangements that trap students in toxic relationships with abusive supervisors are something that universities and other stakeholders can and must work together to reform. A key focus must be making it easier for students to change supervisor partway through their projects. Here, funders could make provision for finance allocated to PhD students to be transferred to a new supervisor if bullying has occurred. Where this isn’t possible, universities should have a fund available to plug or mitigate funding shortfalls that accrue to students decoupling from abusive supervisors.

Furthermore, investigative committees should have the power to force offending supervisors to continue providing access to equipment or other resources needed by a targeted student to complete their project, with conditions around this carefully set to eliminate opportunities for reprisal – for example, mandating that the former supervisor be absent during specified access times.

Any effort to ease supervisor transition must be paired with a robust anti-bullying policy that sets out disciplinary action to be taken against supervisors found to have bullied. Consequences for repeat or particularly egregious offenders should be severe, ranging up to dismissal.

Research has found that reporting of academic bullying is low largely because targets doubt that it will lead to meaningful action. To inspire greater confidence, anti-bullying policies must be communicated to incoming PhD students as a prominent part of their induction, with clear definitions given of what constitutes bullying, how complaints will be investigated, what disciplinary actions may result and what measures can be taken to minimise negative impacts on reporting students. To increase confidence further, at least one example should be given of a previous case where a complaint was upheld with a resolution favourable to the targeted student.

Ensuring that investigations are conducted fairly is essential to earning supervisor and student support. As such, investigative committees should be made up of individuals external to an accused supervisor’s department. This would help avert conflicts of interest that could otherwise impel investigators to protect or sabotage an accused colleague.

Beyond the university itself, there’s much that can be done to tackle supervisor bullying. Funding bodies should follow the lead of the Wellcome Trust by attaching conditions to their grants that allow funding to be withdrawn from supervisors found to have bullied. Where this occurs, funding should be transferred to another principal investigator from the same department to reduce impacts on others funded by the same grant. Funders could also collaborate with universities to obtain records of academic bullying by grant applicants and factor these into funding decisions.

Gatekeepers for academic metrics, including those that publish institutional rankings, could also collaborate with universities to incorporate bullying records into their assessment criteria. This would benefit gatekeepers by driving up standards in the institutions on which their existence depends, while those institutions would benefit from outperforming competitors on a metric bound to influence student enrolment. Most important would be the benefit to students now belonging to institutions better incentivised to root out supervisor bullying.

The stories of supervisor bullying that have emerged in recent times are a terrible stain on higher education. It’s past time for the multi-pronged effort needed to reform a system in which bullying has been able to thrive. In the ruins of the pandemic, opportunity for drastic change abounds. It would be grossly unjust to the next generation of PhD students if inaction prevails.

Timothy Ijoyemi has more than 10 years’ experience in higher education. He has a passion for equity, diversity and inclusion, and at UCL School of Management he researches and supports on various projects to improve student and staff experience. 

If you found this interesting and want advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,  sign up for the THE Campus newsletter .

Change is coming, whether higher education likes it or not

The iscanner app supports the academic community in information sharing and management, support students with caring responsibilities in he, step up to support students with disabilities, emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn, the secret to timely, relevant, inclusive communication with students.

Register for free

and unlock a host of features on the THE site

Ten types of PhD supervisor relationships – which is yours?

Lecturer, Griffith University

Disclosure statement

Susanna Chamberlain does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Griffith University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

It’s no secret that getting a PhD is a stressful process .

One of the factors that can help or hinder this period of study is the relationship between supervisor and student. Research shows that effective supervision can significantly influence the quality of the PhD and its success or failure.

PhD supervisors tend to fulfil several functions: the teacher; the mentor who can support and facilitate the emotional processes; and the patron who manages the springboard from which the student can leap into a career.

There are many styles of supervision that are adopted – and these can vary depending on the type of research being conducted and subject area.

Although research suggests that providing extra mentoring support and striking the right balance between affiliation and control can help improve PhD success and supervisor relationships, there is little research on the types of PhD-supervisor relationships that occur.

From decades of experience of conducting and observing PhD supervision, I’ve noticed ten types of common supervisor relationships that occur. These include:

The candidate is expected to replicate the field, approach and worldview of the supervisor, producing a sliver of research that supports the supervisor’s repute and prestige. Often this is accompanied by strictures about not attempting to be too “creative”.

Cheap labour

The student becomes research assistant to the supervisor’s projects and becomes caught forever in that power imbalance. The patron-client roles often continue long after graduation, with the student forever cast in the secondary role. Their own work is often disregarded as being unimportant.

The “ghost supervisor”

The supervisor is seen rarely, responds to emails only occasionally and has rarely any understanding of either the needs of the student or of their project. For determined students, who will work autonomously, the ghost supervisor is often acceptable until the crunch comes - usually towards the end of the writing process. For those who need some support and engagement, this is a nightmare.

The relationship is overly familiar, with the assurance that we are all good friends, and the student is drawn into family and friendship networks. Situations occur where the PhD students are engaged as babysitters or in other domestic roles (usually unpaid because they don’t want to upset the supervisor by asking for money). The chum, however, often does not support the student in professional networks.

Collateral damage

When the supervisor is a high-powered researcher, the relationship can be based on minimal contact, because of frequent significant appearances around the world. The student may find themselves taking on teaching, marking and administrative functions for the supervisor at the cost of their own learning and research.

The practice of supervision becomes a method of intellectual torment, denigrating everything presented by the student. Each piece of research is interrogated rigorously, every meeting is an inquisition and every piece of writing is edited into oblivion. The student is given to believe that they are worthless and stupid.

Creepy crawlers

Some supervisors prefer to stalk their students, sometimes students stalk their supervisors, each with an unhealthy and unrequited sexual obsession with the other. Most Australian universities have moved actively to address this relationship, making it less common than in previous decades.

Captivate and con

Occasionally, supervisor and student enter into a sexual relationship. This can be for a number of reasons, ranging from a desire to please to a need for power over youth. These affairs can sometimes lead to permanent relationships. However, what remains from the supervisor-student relationship is the asymmetric set of power balances.

Almost all supervision relationships contain some aspect of the counsellor or mentor, but there is often little training or desire to develop the role and it is often dismissed as pastoral care. Although the life experiences of students become obvious, few supervisors are skilled in dealing with the emotional or affective issues.

Colleague in training

When a PhD candidate is treated as a colleague in training, the relationship is always on a professional basis, where the individual and their work is held in respect. The supervisor recognises that their role is to guide through the morass of regulation and requirements, offer suggestions and do some teaching around issues such as methodology, research practice and process, and be sensitive to the life-cycle of the PhD process. The experience for both the supervisor and student should be one of acknowledgement of each other, recognising the power differential but emphasising the support at this time. This is the best of supervision.

There are many university policies that move to address a lot of the issues in supervisor relationships , such as supervisor panels, and dedicated training in supervising and mentoring practices. However, these policies need to be accommodated into already overloaded workloads and should include regular review of supervisors.

• professional mentoring
• PhD supervisors

Service Centre Senior Consultant

Director of STEM

Community member - Training Delivery and Development Committee (Volunteer part-time)

Chief Executive Officer

Head of Evidence to Action

Get the Reddit app

A subreddit dedicated to PhDs.

Is my advisor toxic? [First-year PhD student]

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue

Abuse and Exploitation of Doctoral Students: A Conceptual Model for Traversing a Long and Winding Road to Academia

• Original Paper
• Published: 31 July 2021
• Volume 180 , pages 505–522, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Aaron Cohen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8143-2769 1 &
• Yehuda Baruch   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0678-6273 2  

4633 Accesses

19 Citations

31 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This paper develops a conceptual model of PhD supervisors’ abuse and exploitation of their students and the outcomes of that abuse. Based on the literature about destructive leadership and the “dark side” of supervision, we theorize about why and how PhD student abuse and exploitation may occur. We offer a novel contribution to the literature by identifying the process through which PhD students experience supervisory abuse and exploitation, the various factors influencing this process, and its outcomes. The proposed model presents the Dark Triad, perceptions of goal blockage, and perceptions of ethical culture as potential characteristics of the PhD supervisor and implies the mediation of the perceptions of power and politics in the relationship between the Dark Triad and student abuse and exploitation. Institutional policies and practices concerning doctoral students and their characteristics are proposed as moderators in such a relationship. Finally, the model suggests that student abuse and exploitation may hinder or even end students’ academic careers. The manuscript discusses the theoretical and practical contributions and managerial implications of the proposed model and recommends further exploration of the dark sides of academia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

“I’m not the only victim…” student perceptions of exploitative supervision relation in doctoral degree

Profiles of doctoral students’ experience of ethics in supervision: an inter-country comparison

Leading by example: the influence of ethical supervision on students’ prosocial behavior, explore related subjects.

• Medical Ethics
• Artificial Intelligence

We refer to PhDs, but this applies to any doctorate, such as the Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) or Doctor of Science (DSc).

Acharya, S. (2005). The ethical climate in academic dentistry in India: Faculty and student perceptions. Journal of Dental Education, 69 (6), 671–680. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.0022-0337.2005.69.6.tb03950.x .

Article   Google Scholar  

Ali, J., Ullah, H., & Sanauddin, N. (2019). Postgraduate research supervision: Exploring the lived experience of Pakistani postgraduate students. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 13 (1), 14–25.

Google Scholar  

Anderson, M. S., & Seashore-Louis, K. (1994). The graduate student experience and subscription to the norms of science. Research in Higher Education , 35 (3), 273–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02496825 .

Anthun, K. S., & Innstrand, S. T. (2016). The predictive value of job demands and resources on the meaning of work and organisational commitment across different age groups in the higher education sector. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 38 (1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2015.1126890 .

Appelbaum, S. H., Deguire, K. J., & Lay, M. (2005). The relationship of ethical climate to deviant workplace behavior. Corporate Governance, 5 (4), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720700510616587 .

Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47 (7), 755–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679404700701 .

Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120 (3), 338–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.120.3.338 .

Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work . New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Baka, Ł. (2018). When do the ‘dark personalities’ become less counterproductive? The moderating role of job control and social support. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 24 (4), 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2018.1463670 .

Baloch, M. A., Meng, F., Xu, Z., Cepeda-Carrion, I., & Bari, M. W. (2017). Dark triad, perceptions of organizational politics and counterproductive work behaviors, The moderating effect of political skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 , 1972. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01972 .

Baruch, Y. (2013). Careers in academe: The academic labour market as an eco-system. Career Development International, 18 (2), 196–210. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-09-2012-0092 .

Baruch, Y., & Hall, D. T. (2004). The academic career: A model for future careers in other sectors? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64 (2), 241–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2002.11.002 .

Baskin, M. E. B., Vardaman, J. M., & Hancock, J. I. (2015). The role of ethical climate and moral disengagement in well-intended employee rule breaking. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 16 (2), 71–90.

Baruch, Y., & Vardi, Y. (2016). A fresh look at the dark side of contemporary careers: Toward a realistic discourse. British Journal of Management, 27 (2), 355–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12107 .

Becker, K. D. (2019). Graduate students’ experiences of plagiarism by their professors. Higher Education Quarterly, 73 (2), 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12179 .

Bégin, C., & Géarard, L. (2013). The role of supervisors in light of the experience of doctoral students. Policy Futures in Education, 11 (3), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2013.11.3.267 .

Berti, M., & Simpson, A. (2019). The dark side of organizational paradoxes: The dynamics of disempowerment. Academy of Management Review . https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0208 .

Boddy, C. R. (2006). The dark side of management decisions: Organizational psychopaths. Management Decision, 44 (10), 1461–1475. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0208 .

Boddy, C. R. (2014). Corporate psychopaths, conflict, employee affective well-being and counterproductive work behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 121 (1), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1688-0 .

Bruhn, J. G. (2008). Value dissonance and ethics failure in academia: A causal connection? Journal of Academic Ethics, 6 (1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-008-9054-z .

Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S. M., & Marchisio, G. (2011). Narcissism in organizational contexts. Human Resource Management Review, 21 (4), 268–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.007 .

Caplow, T., & McGee, R. J. (2001). The academic marketplace . New Brunswick/London: Transaction Publications.

Chen, C. C., Chen, M. Y. C., & Liu, Y. C. (2013). Negative affectivity and workplace deviance: The moderating role of ethical climate. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24 (15), 2894–2910. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.753550 .

Chernyak-Hai, L., & Tziner, A. (2021). Attributions of managerial decisions, emotions, and OCB. The moderating role of ethical climate and self-enhancement. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 37 (1), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2021a4 .

Cohen, A. (2016). Are they among us? A conceptual framework of the relationship between the dark triad personality and counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs). Human Resource Management Review, 26 (1), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.07.003 .

Cohen, A. (2018). Counterproductive work behaviors: Understanding the dark side of personalities in organizational life, Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315454818 .

Crane, A. (2013). Modern slavery as a management practice, exploring the conditions and capabilities for human exploitation. Academy of Management Review, 38 (1), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0145 .

Cyranoski, D., Gilbert, N., Ledford, H., Nayar, A., & Yahia, M. (2011). Education: The PhD factory. Nature, 472 , 276–279. https://doi.org/10.1038/472276a .

Davenport, N., Schwartz, R.D., & Elliott, G.P. (1999). Mobbing: Emotional abuse in the American workplace . Civil Society Publ., Iowa, IA.

Devlin, H. (2018). In the science lab, some bullies can thrive unchecked for decades. The Guardian , August 29, 1–3.

Devos, C., Boudrenghien, G., Van der Linden, N., Azzi, A., Frenay, M., Galand, B., & Klein, O. (2017). Doctoral students’ experiences leading to completion or attrition: A matter of sense, progress and distress. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32 (1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-016-0290-0 .

Dineen, B. R., Lewicki, R. J., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2006). Supervisory guidance and behavioral integrity: Relationships with employee citizenship and deviant behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (3), 622–635. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.622 .

Dupré, K. E., & Barling, J. (2006). Predicting and preventing supervisory workplace aggression. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11 (1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.11.1.13 .

Dziech, B., & Weiner, L. (1984). The lecherous professor . Boston: Beacon Press.

Editorial. (2018). No place for bullies in science. Nature, 559 , 151.

Eigenstetter, M., Dobiasch, S., & Trimpop, R. (2007). Commitment and counterproductive work behavior as correlates of ethical climate in organizations. Monatsschrift für Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform, 90 (2–3), 224–244.

Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower, 20 (1/2), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437729910268588 .

Erkutlu, H., & Chafra, J. (2019). Leader psychopathy and organizational deviance. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 12 (4), 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-12-2018-0154 .

Ferris, G. R., Adams, G., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., & Ammeter, A. P. (2002). Perceptions of organizational politics: Theory and research directions. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues. The many faces of multi-level issues (Vol. 1, pp. 179–254). Elsevier Science/JAI Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-9144(02)01034-2 .

Ferris, G., Ellen, B., McAllister, C., & Maher, L. (2019). Reorganizing organizational politics research: A review of the literature and identification of future research directions. Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6 (1), 299–323. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015221 .

Ferris, G. R., Gail, R. S., & Patricia, F. M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 143–170). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gardner, S. K. (2007). “I heard it through the grapevine”: Doctoral student socialization in chemistry and history. Higher Education, 54 (5), 723–740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-006-9020-x .

Golde, C. M., & Dore, T. M. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences of today’s doctoral students reveal about doctoral education. Wisconsin University: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) 63. http://www.phd-survey.org .

Goodyear, R. K., Crego, C. A., & Johnston, M. W. (1992). Ethical issues in the supervision of student research: A study of critical incidents. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23 (3), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.23.3.203 .

Gruzdev, I., Terentev, E., & Dzhafarova, Z. (2020). Superhero or hands-off supervisor? An empirical categorization of PhD supervision styles and student satisfaction in Russian universities. Higher Education, 79 , 773–789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00437-w .

Hall, D. T., & Chandler, D. E. (2005). Psychological success: When the career is a calling. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 26 , 155–176. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4093976 .

Harrison, E. D., Fox, C. L., & Hulme, J. A. (2020). Student anti-bullying and harassment policies at UK universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management . https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2020.1767353 .

Harvey, P., Stoner, J., Hochwarter, W., & Kacmar, C. (2007). Coping with abusive supervision: The neutralizing effects of ingratiation and positive affect on negative employee outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 18 (3), 264–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.008 .

Hauge, L. J., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2007). Relationships between stressful work environments and bullying: Results of a large representative study. Work and Stress, 21 , 220–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370701705810 .

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44 (3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513 .

Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Horner, J., & Minifie, F. D. (2011). Research ethics III: Publication practices and authorship, conflicts of interest, and research misconduct. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54 , S346–S362. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0263) .

Hu, H. H. (2012). The influence of employee emotional intelligence on coping with supervisor abuse in a banking context. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 40 (5), 863–874. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2012.40.5.863 .

Hsieh, H. H., & Wang, Y. D. (2016). Linking perceived ethical climate to organizational deviance: The cognitive, affective, and attitudinal mechanisms. Journal of Business Research, 69 (9), 3600–3608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.001 .

Ishak, N. K., Haron, H., & Ismail, I. (2019). Ethical leadership, ethical climate and unethical behaviour in institutions of higher learning. In FGIC 2nd conference on governance and integrity (Vol. 2019, pp. 408–422). KnE Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i22.5064 .

Jacob, R., Kuzmanovska, I., & Ripin, N. (2018). AVETH survey on supervision of doctoral students . ETH Zurich‏

Jacobson, K. J., Hood, J. N., & Van Buren III, H. J. (2014). Workplace bullying across cultures: A research agenda. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 14 (1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595813494192 .

Jam, F. A., Khan, T. I., Anwar, F., Sheikh, R. A., Kaur, S., & Malaysia, L. (2012). Neuroticism and job outcomes: Mediating effects of perceived organizational politics. African Journal of Business Management , 6(7), 2508–2515. http://www.academicjournals.org/AJBM .

Janke, S., Daumiller, M., & Rudert, S. C. (2019). Dark pathways to achievement in science: Researchers’ achievement goals predict engagement in questionable research practices. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10 (6), 783–791. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618790227 .

Johnson, C. M., Ward, K. A., & Gardner, S. K. (2017). Doctoral student socialization. In J. Shin & P. Teixeira (Eds.), Encyclopedia of international higher education systems and institutions . Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Jones, M. (2013). Issues in doctoral studies—Forty years of journal discussion: Where have we been and where are we going? International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 8 , 83–104. https://doi.org/10.28945/1871 .

Keashly, L., & Nueman, J.H. (2010). Faculty experiences with bullying in higher education: Causes, consequences, and management. Administrative Theory and Praxis , 32 (1), 48–70. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25611038 .

Khosa, A., Burch, S., Ozdil, E., & Wilkin, C. (2019). Current issues in Ph.D. supervision of accounting and finance students: Evidence from Australia and New Zealand. The British Accounting Review . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2019.100874 .

Kiley, M. (2019). Doctoral supervisory quality from the perspective of senior academic managers. Australian Universities Review , 61 (1), 12–21. http://hdl.handle.net/1885/186707 .

Kitchener, K. S. (1988). Dual role relationships: What makes them so problematic? Journal of Counseling and Development, 67 , 217–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1988.tb02586.x .

Kossek, E. E., Su, R., & Wu, L. (2017). “Opting out” or “pushed out”? Integrating perspectives on women’s career equality for gender inclusion and interventions. Journal of Management, 43 (1), 228–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316671582 .

Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Destructive leadership: A theoretical review, integration, and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 39 (5), 1308–1338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312471388 .

Lee, A., & McKenzie, J. (2011). Evaluating doctoral supervision: Tensions in eliciting students’ perspectives. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48 (1), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2010.543773 .

Lian, H., Brown, D. J., Ferris, D. L., Liang, L. H., Keeping, L. M., & Morrison, R. (2014). Abusive supervision and retaliation: A self-control framework. Academy of Management Journal, 57 (1), 116–139. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0977 .

Litalien, D., & Guay, F. (2015). Dropout intentions in Ph.D. studies: A comprehensive model based on interpersonal relationships and motivational resources. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41 , 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.03.004 .

Löfström, E., & Pyhältö, K. (2014). Ethical issues in doctoral supervision: The perspectives of Ph.D. students in the natural and behavioral sciences. Ethics and Behavior, 24 (3), 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2013.830574 .

Löfström, E., & Pyhältö, K. (2017). Ethics in the supervisory relationship: Supervisors’ and doctoral students’ dilemmas in the natural and behavioural sciences. Studies in Higher Education, 42 (2), 232–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1045475 .

Löfström, E., & Pyhältö, K. (2020). What are ethics in doctoral supervision, and how do they matter? Doctoral students’ perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64 (4), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1595711 .

Lyons, M. (2019). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy in everyday life . Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2017-0-01262-4 .

Mahmoudi, M. (2019). Academic bullies leave no trace. BioImpacts, 9 (3), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.15171/bi.2019.17 .

Mahmoudi, M., Ameli, S., & Moss, S. (2019). The urgent need for modification of scientific ranking indexes to facilitate scientific progress and diminish academic bullying. BioImpacts, 9 (5), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.15171/bi.2019.30 .

Mahmud, S., & Bretag, T. (2013). Postgraduate research students and academic integrity: ‘It’s about good research training.’ Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35 (4), 432–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2013.812178 .

Mainhard, T., Van Der Rijst, R., Van Tartwijk, J., & Wubbels, T. (2009). A model for the supervisor–doctoral student relationship. Higher Education, 58 (3), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9199-8 .

Malički, M., Katavić, V., Marković, D., Marušić, M., & Marušic, A. (2019). Perceptions of ethical climate and research pressures in different faculties of a university: Cross-sectional study at the University of Split, Croatia. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25 , 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9987-y .

Martin, B. (1998). Tied Knowledge: Power in Higher Education. Available (consulted 28 July 2006) at: http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/98tk/index.html

Martin, B. (2013). Countering supervisor exploitation. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 45 (1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.45-1-004 .

Mason, A., & Hickman, J. (2019). Students supporting students on the PhD journey: An evaluation of a mentoring scheme for international doctoral students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56 (1), 88–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1392889 .

Meng, Y., Tan, J., & Li, J. (2017). Abusive supervision by academic supervisors and postgraduate research students’ creativity: The mediating role of leader–member exchange and intrinsic motivation. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20 (5), 605–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2017.1304576 .

Meng, Q., & Wang, G. (2018). A research on sources of university faculty occupational stress: A Chinese case study. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 11 , 597–605.

Mendoza, P. (2007). Academic capitalism and doctoral student socialization: A case study. Journal of Higher Education , 78 , 71–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2007.11778964 .

Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Klebe Treviño, L., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65 (1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01237.x .

Morris, S. E. (2011). Doctoral students’ experiences of supervisory bullying. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 19 (2), 547–555.

Moss, S. (2018). Research is set up for bullies to thrive. Nature, 560 , 529–529. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06040-w .

Mulki, J. P., Jaramillo, J. F., & Locander, W. B. (2008). Effect of ethical climate on turnover intention: Linking attitudinal- and stress theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 78 (4), 559–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9368-6 .

Nilsson, W. (2015). Positive institutional work: Exploring institutional work through the lens of positive organizational scholarship. Academy of Management Review, 40 (3), 370–398. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0188 .

Nilstun, T., Löfmark, R., & Lundqvist, A. (2010). Scientific dishonesty—Questionnaire to doctoral students in Sweden. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36 (5), 315–318. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2009.033654 .

Oberlander, S. E., & Spencer, R. J. (2006). Graduate students and the culture of authorship. Ethics and Behavior, 16 (3), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1603_3 .

O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., & O’Boyle, A. S. (2011). Bad apples or bad barrels: An examination of group- and organizational-level effects in the study of counterproductive work behavior. Group and Organization Management, 36 (1), 39–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601110390998 .

Pagliaro, S., Lo Presti, A., Barattucci, M., Giannella, V. A., & Barreto, M. (2018). On the effects of ethical climate(s) on employees’ behavior: A social identity approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 , 960. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00960 .

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36 (6), 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6 .

Pena Saint Martin, F., Martin, B., Lopez, H. E. A., Moheno, L.Von Der W., (2014). Graduate students as proxy mobbing targets: insights from three Mexican universities. Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts - Papers. 1331. https://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers/1331 .

Perry, C. (2015). The “Dark Traits” of sociopathic leaders: Could they be a threat to universities? Australian Universities’ Review, 57 (1), 17–25.

Peterson, D. K. (2002). Deviant workplace behavior and the organization’s ethical climate. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17 , 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016296116093 .

Phillips, E. M., & Pugh, D. S. (2010). How to get a PhD: A handbook for students and their supervisors , 5th edn. London, UK, Open University Press.

Pyhältö, K., Toom, A., Stubb, J., & Lonka, K. (2012a). Challenges of becoming a scholar: A study of doctoral students’ problems and well-being. International Scholarly Research Notices . https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/934941 .

Pyhältö, K., Vekkaila, J., & Keskinen, J. (2012b). Exploring the fit between doctoral students’ and supervisors’ perceptions of resources and challenges vis-à-vis the doctoral journey. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7 , 395–414.

Rigler Jr., K. L., Bowlin, L. K., Sweat, K., Watts, S., & Throne, R. (2017). Agency, socialization, and support: A critical review of doctoral student attrition. In The 3rd international conference on doctoral education . University of Central Florida.

Robertson, M. (2019). Power and doctoral supervision teams: developing team building skills in collaborative doctoral research . Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge.

Roksa, J., Feldon, D. F., & Maher, M. (2018). First-generation students in pursuit of the PhD: Comparing socialization experiences and outcomes to continuing-generation peers. The Journal of Higher Education, 89 (5), 728–752. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1435134 .

Roksa, J., Jeong, S., Feldon, D., & Maher, M. (2017, November). Socialization experiences and research productivity of Asians and Pacific Islanders: “Model Minority” stereotype and domestic vs. international comparison. In Paper presented at the ASHE conference . ‏

Rosen, C., Chang, C., & Levy, P. (2006). Personality and politics perceptions: A new conceptualization and illustration using OCBs. In E. Vigoda-Gadot & A. Drory (Eds.), Handbook of organizational politics (pp. 29–52). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Rosenberg, A., & Heimberg, R. G. (2009). Ethical issues in mentoring doctoral students in clinical psychology. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 16 (2), 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2008.09.008 .

Scarborough, J. L., Bernard, J. M., & Morse, R. E. (2006). Boundary considerations between doctoral students and master’s students. Counseling and Values, 51 (1), 53–65.

Schyns, B. (2015). Dark personality in the work place: Introduction to the special issue. Applied Psychology, 64 (1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12041 .

Slaughter, S., Archerd, C. J., & Campbell, T. I. D. (2004). Boundaries and quandaries: How professors negotiate market relations. The Review of Higher Education, 28 (1), 129–165. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2004.0032 .

Smallwood, S. (2004). Doctor dropout: High attrition from Ph.D. programs is sucking away time, talent, and money, and breaking some heart, too. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A10.

Smith, S. F., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2013). Psychopathy in the workplace: The knowns and unknowns. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18 (2), 204–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.007 .

Spain, S. M., Harms, P., & LeBreton, J. M. (2014). The dark side of personality at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35 (S1), S41–S60. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1894 .

Spector, P. E. (2011). The relationship of personality to counterproductive work behavior (CWB): An integration of perspectives. Human Resource Management Review, 21 (4), 342–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.002 .

Stead, R., Fekken, G. C., Kay, A., & McDermott, K. (2012). Conceptualizing the dark triad of personality: Links to social symptomatology. Personality and Individual Differences, 53 (8), 1023–1028.

Strathern, M. (2003). Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy . London, Routledge.

Sullivan, L. E., & Ogloff, J. R. (1998). Appropriate supervisor–graduate student relationships. Ethics and Behavior, 8 (3), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb0803_4 .

Swazey, J. P., Anderson, M. S., & Louis, K. S. (1993). Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist , 81 , 542–553. https://www.jstor.org/stable/29775057 .

Taylor, S. G., Griffith, M. D., Vadera, A. K., Folger, R., & Letwin, C. R. (2019). Breaking the cycle of abusive supervision: How disidentification and moral identity help the trickle-down change course. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104 (1), 164–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000360 .

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556375 .

Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33 (3), 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300812 .

Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, R. A., & Duffy, M. K. (2008). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organization deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (4), 721–732. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.721 .

Thompson, B., & Ravlin, E. (2017). Protective factors and risk factors: Shaping the emergence of dyadic resilience at work. Organizational Psychology Review, 7 (2), 143–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386616652673 .

Tijdink, J. K., Bouter, L. M., Veldkamp, C. L., van de Ven, P. M., Wicherts, J. M., & Smulders, Y. M. (2016). Personality traits are associated with research misbehavior in Dutch scientists: A cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE, 11 (9), e0163251. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163251 .

Twale, D.J., & De Luca, B.M. (2008). Faculty incivility: The rise of the academic bully culture and what to do about it . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2009). The narcissism epidemic . New York, NY: Free Press.

Vähämäki, M., Saru, E., & Palmunen, L. M. (2021). Doctoral supervision as an academic practice and leader–member relationship: A critical approach to relationship dynamics. The International Journal of Management Education, 19 (3), 100510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100510 .

Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2016). Misbehavior in organizations: A dynamic approach . New York, London: Routledge.

Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33 (1), 101–125. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392857 .

Vigoda-Gadot, E., Talmud, I., & Peled, A. (2011). Internal politics in academia: Its nature and mediating effect on the relationship between social capital and work outcomes. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 14 (1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-14-01-2011-B001 .

Weidman, J. C., & Stein, E. L. (2003). Socialization of doctoral students to academic norms. Research in Higher Education , 44 , 641–656. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40197334

Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., and Stein, E. L. (2001). Socialization of graduate and professional students in higher education: A perilous passage? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report , 28. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Wisker, G., & Robinson, G. (2013). Doctoral ‘orphans’: Nurturing and supporting the success of postgraduates who have lost their supervisors. Higher Education Research and Development, 32 (2), 300–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.657160 .

Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Jobs, careers, and callings: People’s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31 (1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2162 .

Wu, R. (2017). Academic socialization of Chinese doctoral students in Germany: Identification, interaction and motivation. European Journal of Higher Education, 7 (3), 276–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2017.1290880 .

Wu, J., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). Reconsidering the dispositional basis of counterproductive work behavior: The role of aberrant personality. Personnel Psychology, 64 (3), 593–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01220.x .

Yamada, S., Cappadocia, M. C., & Pepler, D. (2014). Workplace bullying in Canadian graduate psychology programs: Student perspectives of student–supervisor relationships. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 8 (1), 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000015 .

Ying, L., & Cohen, A. (2018). Dark triad personalities and counterproductive work behaviors among physicians in China. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 33 (4), e985–e998. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.2577 .

Zadek, S., Pruzan, P., & Evans, R. (1997). Building corporate accountability . London: Earthscan.

Zhao, C. M., Golde, C. M., & McCormick, A. C. (2007). More than a signature: How advisor choice and advisor behaviour affect doctoral student satisfaction. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31 (3), 263–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098770701424983 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Division of Public Administration, School of Political Science, University of Haifa, 3498838, Haifa, Israel

Aaron Cohen

Southampton Business School, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

Yehuda Baruch

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aaron Cohen .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

We have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cohen, A., Baruch, Y. Abuse and Exploitation of Doctoral Students: A Conceptual Model for Traversing a Long and Winding Road to Academia. J Bus Ethics 180 , 505–522 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04905-1

Download citation

Received : 07 April 2021

Accepted : 25 July 2021

Published : 31 July 2021

Issue Date : October 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04905-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Destructive leadership
• Student abuse and exploitation
• Ethical culture
• Academic career
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

View the latest institution tables

View the latest country/territory tables

What can your PhD supervisor do for you?

4 ways to a more productive relationship.

Gemma Conroy

Credit: Thomas Barwick/Getty

31 March 2020

Thomas Barwick/Getty

An Australian survey of PhD students and supervisors has revealed an alarming mismatch between their expectations.

While the 114 PhD students surveyed thought publishing at least four papers and winning grants or awards was the most important outcome of their candidature, the 52 supervisors said critical thinking skills, written communication, and discipline knowledge were the greatest indicators of their students’ success.

More than 20% of the students said they received little or no guidance overall, but only 3% of supervisors said they left students to their own devices. The findings were posted on bioRxiv.

Problems in the relationship between supervisor and students can cost dearly, both for individual students and for the wider research system. In North America, it is estimated that up to 50% of PhD students drop out of their candidature due to feelings of incompetence and a lack of support from supervisors and other faculty members.

A 2019 survey of 311 European universities reported that 34% of PhD students fail to complete their doctoral studies within six years, with many students likely quitting altogether.

Adam Cardilini, a teaching scholar at Deakin University where the Australian survey was conducted, says that discussing expectations and goals early on can lead to a better PhD experience for both students and their supervisors.

“We need to do our best to support candidates and improve research outcomes,” says Cardilini, who led the study.

Below are his four recommendations to help students and supervisors maintain a productive working relationship.

1. Be clear about expectations from the start

Discussing expectations at the beginning is one of the simplest ways to ensure PhD students and supervisors remain on the same page throughout the candidature, says Cardilini.

While building critical thinking skills from the outset can lead to better quality research down the line, Cardilini points out that there also needs to be more focus on “identifying where those critical thinking skills are best displayed.”

For instance, if a supervisor prizes critical thinking skills over publishing papers or winning grants, they should help candidates develop these skills from the start, such as by requiring students to spend six months reviewing papers.

“It’s about helping a candidate know how to read peer reviewed research and be critical of it instead of taking it as gospel,” says Cardilini. “I don’t think we explicitly teach this.”

2. Agree on achievable goals

Setting clear goals ensures that PhD students and supervisors work towards the same outcome, says Cardilini. These could include developing a particular skillset, publishing a certain number of papers, or winning grants.

Cardilini says that learning how to set achievable goals also teaches students how to effectively manage themselves, an essential skill for a productive research career.

“Often these skills are assumed or left up to the student to think about,” says Cardilini. “But it really takes some time for people to learn how to set a goal. I think that’s probably true for some supervisors as well.”

3. Help students be independent and collaborative

Guiding students to think for themselves and team up with other researchers can help candidates stay motivated throughout their PhD. It can also help them become more productive and collaborative down the track, notes Cardilini.

One way to facilitate this development is by creating an open, supportive culture where students can thrive and grow, says Cardilini. For instance, if a student wants to learn a certain type of analysis that the supervisor isn’t well-versed in, they can encourage the candidate to reach out to another research group that can teach them.

“If candidates are open about what they need and supervisors are open about what they can provide, they can talk about where the student needs to be independent, or collaborative,” says Cardilini.

4. Keep communication open

While everyone has different styles of communicating, it’s imperative that PhD students and supervisors agree on a style that suits both their needs, notes Cardilini.

By maintaining open dialogue throughout candidature, students and supervisors can address any issues before they turn into bigger problems. This can lead to a more productive working relationship and can prevent students from dropping out of their program, says Cardilini.

“If you can confront issues and be open to discussing them, you can move forward and have a more productive relationship,” says Cardilini. “But if the candidate dreads going to work or is afraid about how their supervisor will react to their manuscript, it slows everything down.”

Sign up to the Nature Index newsletter

Get regular news, analysis and data insights from the editorial team delivered to your inbox.

• Sign up to receive the Nature Index newsletter. I agree my information will be processed in accordance with the Nature and Springer Nature Limited Privacy Policy .

When the relationship with your PhD supervisor turns toxic

Postgrads rely on their supervisors for help and support. But what happens when the relationship turns sour?

E mma Baker* felt like a failure when she quit her PhD after 18 months and started again from scratch. But the previously high-achieving student, who has a first-class bachelor’s degree in science, says she felt she had no choice when the relationship with her supervisor became toxic.

“My experiments weren’t working, which is fairly common,” she says. But, rather than sort it out with a bit of guidance, she was left to “bumble through” while her supervisor never showed up to the lab. After reaching breaking point, she pleaded with him for help, and it didn’t go well.

“He told me my experiments fail because I’m bad,” she says. Already overwhelmed, the comment knocked her confidence. After unsuccessful attempts to fix it with the help of an advisor, Baker left the “toxic lab environment” and restarted her PhD with a new supervisor. “There was this haunting feeling of ‘you’re a bad scientist’ over my head the whole time,” she says. She left science soon after graduating.

Supervision can make or break your postgraduate experience. The latest postgraduate experience survey , carried out by the Higher Education Academy, found that support from academic staff made the biggest difference to how students felt about their studies.

Many supervisor relationships break down, like Baker’s, be it due to conflicting working styles, micromanaging, or even bullying. So what does a toxic relationship look like? And what can you do about it?

A lack of support as a postgraduate can have a big impact on your life. Lucy Stewart got stuck with a supervisor who was disinterested in her work. He didn’t check in with her for months at a time, she says, leaving her isolated and stressed. “I developed an anxiety disorder,” she says. “I felt a lot worse about myself.”

In contrast, Hannah Richards felt bullied and micromanaged by her overbearing supervisor. “We have very different working styles and expectations,” she says. “She plans meticulously early on, but I prefer to pull things together at the last minute. And she isn’t flexible,” Richards says. “She forced me into this little box. I developed depression and didn’t finish my thesis in time.”

Most of the problems come down to poor communication, says Ian Fairweather, a researcher development manager at the University of Manchester. “So start a conversation early to set out expectations.”

But even relationships that start well can become tense. “There will be ups and downs, so know what’s normal,” says Darcey Gillie, from the careers service at the University of Sheffield. Don’t choose “the nuclear option” straight away; they may not be aware of the problem.

It helps to turn to other students for support, says Adam Dunn, an associate professor at the Australian Institute of Health Innovation. “Halfway through my PhD my dad was in jail, my girlfriend left me and started dating the guy in the lab next door. I felt isolated, stopped eating, and lost a lot of weight,” he says. “I assume my supervisor had no idea.” Because of his experience, he tries to be better with his students.

“Students tend to believe that everyone else gets on fine with their supervisor and it’s only them who doesn’t,” says Fairweather. “But most people have a disagreement at some point.”

If all else fails, you may be able to switch supervisors. Universities have different approaches to how and when you can do this. “Explain to your postgraduate coordinator why you think it’s not working,” Fairweather adds. “They’ll know how to go about it.”

If you have a co-supervisor, they may be able to swap roles with your main supervisor. Talk to someone impartial and confidential, like a careers adviser, to think through any implications for funding, scheduling and the relationships involved, says Gillie. Good supervision is a partnership and a mentorship. “Like a marriage”, she adds, it needs “honest communication, trust, understanding, shared goals, and the ability to compromise”.

If you’ve done all you can to fix a bad supervisory relationship, know you’re not alone and don’t blame yourself, says Baker. She eventually completed her PhD with the help of her new supervisor.

* Some names have been changed.

• Studying postgrad
• Guardian Students
• Higher education
• Postgraduates
• Universities

Comments (…)

Most viewed.