PhD students’ relationships with their supervisors are pivotal; not 
only in terms of producing a good thesis, but ensuring academic and 
professional development. But while PhD
 candidates’ work is regularly checked by supervisors, it is far less 
common, to have formal checks made on the supervisors, with students 
assessing their performance.
The imbalance of power in these relationships needs to be 
acknowledged. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but only if supervisors 
use their position and privilege to empower students. When they say and 
do things that impede learning and advancement, it is an abuse of their 
authority.
One of the main duties of the role, for example, is to provide 
feedback on a student’s work. In my experience, this can range from 
general comments to close editing of sentence constructions and grammar.
 It can take the form of constructive feedback for improvement, or 
demoralising sarcasm. I have experienced the full range, and it has had a
 direct impact on my research. The most negatively couched feedback not 
only hampered my progress, but left me wondering if I should be doing a 
PhD at all.
Another vital aspect of supervision responsibility is to be, well, 
responsible. Unanswered emails only increase the anxiety of a student 
waiting for feedback on a discussion chapter. Unannounced departures for
 conferences, holidays and research projects are frustrating, 
particularly when they could have been discussed in advance.
A friend of mine had to deal with the sudden retirement of his 
supervisor, whose replacement then left after just six months in the 
role - he now has one who is on research leave with intermittent access 
to the internet (or is perhaps just intermittent with his responses).
The tensions and discomfort are more keenly felt by students, I 
suspect. We can’t simply turn away from an errant supervisor and go to 
another, but we can’t talk freely about how we feel – this is akin to 
bad-mouthing your boss.
I previously had to psych myself up for supervision meetings; the 
barrage of criticism I faced often left me feeling stupid. But this kind
 of thinking trapped me into becoming even more dependent on my 
supervisor for words of affirmation that came too little and too late. I
 constantly questioned whether I was good enough. After months of 
anxiety and stress, and with advice from others who suffered at the 
hands of the same supervisor, I made a decision to end the relationship.
Luckily I now have new supervisors who behave in more professional 
and responsible ways. I don’t believe that there is a perfect 
supervisor, but the ones I have are giving me the support that I need – 
being responsive, pre-empting future tasks, and most importantly, making
 me, a novice researcher, feel that I have a valuable contribution to 
make.
When students have horrible experiences with their supervisors, they 
tend to share them in private conversations with friends or in social 
media rants because there is often no formal channel to address them. My
 university seems shy about putting in place performance measures of PhD
 supervision, but is proactive about undergraduate students’ evaluations
 of papers and lecturers. Is there an assumption that PhD students and 
supervisors are mature enough to work out mutually satisfactory 
supervision arrangements?
As it stands, students are often left to manage tense relationships, 
find informal alternatives to make up for bad or non-existent 
supervision. Unless things become so strained that it is necessary to 
change supervisors (as it was in my case), students tend to put up with 
bad behaviour.
Maybe it’s because they think that’s the way a PhD is, or because 
they can’t see any face-saving way to remedy the situation. But it’s 
also because supervisors don’t appear to be accountable to anyone. When I
 have raised this with the academic staff who support doctoral students,
 I often get an evasive response – “It’s a tricky situation, isn’t it?” –
 or just an empathetic nod of the head.
There’s huge pressure on universities to produce research in order to
 prove their worth. If research is so important, then what about making a
 little more effort to nurture researchers-to-be?
Universities should not only implement performance evaluations of 
supervisors, but also cultivate safe spaces for doctoral students to 
share their issues, and have access to support staff who will be able to
 provide constructive advice and guide them towards workable strategies 
and solutions.
We need to get rid of the false notion of low-maintenance supervision
 relationships between consenting adults. These pairings are in fact 
high maintenance, and fragile. Ignoring the issues will not defuse a 
bomb that’s waiting to explode – one that could destroy promising 
careers.
From: 
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network