The supervisor as Lacanian mirror

The psychoanalyst Jaques Lacan posits the theory that the infant discovers itself as a separate entity through its experience of the 'mirror stage', a phase through which it passes before entering language, the Symbolic Order, and becoming a full subject able to participate in the social formation (1992: 1-7).

The mirror phase, in Lacanian thought, is something which the child enters as part of the process of subjectivity, and this imaginary mirror (it can be a real mirror providing a real reflection, or it can be other people) provides an imaginary unity when the infant's experience of its body is fragmentary (Benvenuto and Kennedy,1988: 54-8).

It has been argued that this is not a process confined to infancy, but a process which repeats itself throughout life (Bowie, 1991: 21).

Academic supervision, I would argue, is one of those repetitions of this process: in terms of the supervisor/student relation, the research student looks to the supervisor for an image of him/herself as s/he becomes an `academic'. That which the supervisor reflects back - outside the actual textual feedback which takes place in a supervision - is part of what forms the student's confidence in him/herself as an academic, as someone capable of thought and worthy of serious consideration. Ideally, the reflection is a positive one, but such is not always the case. The supervisory 'family' in which the research student (almost literally) finds him/herself is rarely perfect, and the student often finds him/herself the 'child' of 'parents' who perpetuate (probably unwittingly) a cycle of emotional abuse.

The dysfunctional family as metaphor

The supervisory relation may be likened to that of a dysfunctional family where learned behaviour of 'parent' is perpetuated, and the 'child' learns how to do the same, perpetuating abusive behaviour patterns, believing them to be successful.

Feeling - an emotional response - would appear to be problematic. In a family relationship, feeling is something (however positive or negative) which is expected; in a supervisory relationship the boundaries are rather less clear. The supervisory relation seems to evoke a certain amount of nervousness, mainly around the issue of distance: there appears to be concern that the supervisor/parent may become too close to the student/child, compromising the critical distance by the introduction of feeling. Certainly an inappropriately close relationship would impede objectivity, but perhaps such nervousness is due in part also to concern about becoming too closely associated with the work, as any outside examination and judgement of the work might then extend to the performance of the supervisor too? An inappropriately distant relationship, however, can be equally paralysing.

How far is the supervisory relationship one of distant teacher/student, and how far one of friendship and support? At the end of the process it is the student's work which is being assessed, and it is not being finally examined by the supervisor. The supervisor is there to facilitate the academic development of the student. But that development is not simply academic in isolation from the person as a whole. How far can the supervisor be responsible for the development of the student as an academic whole? How far should the responsibility rest with the supervisor? And is there more to be done by the institution in support of this process?

In purely practical terms, the 'value' placed by the institution on this activity and the time it requires would appear to be minimal in that supervision, in terms of staff timetabling, is not always regarded as contact, or teaching, time. This practical detail would appear to compound the difficulty in drawing appropriate boundaries around supervision. In a sense, supervision is cut loose from its frame and occupies a space within the working week which is indeterminate.

In more general terms, academia often appears to be a masculine discourse, one which prioritises logic over feeling (Moi, 1988: 104). The criteria of success concern the student's ability to pass the required examinations but appear to have little regard for the state of a student's sanity in the process of achieving that goal. Academia is usually associated with absence of feeling: it is associated with the cold, the reasonable and the measurable. Academic supervision appears to be regarded largely in terms of intellectual activity. Human beings, however, are generally not solely intellectual beings, and a great deal is lost in addressing only the intellectual.

There is a need, in academic supervision, for space to 'feel' a way through the academic minefield which the process of gaining a doctorate entails. But with feeling comes risk, in terms of the unmeasurable, the uncharted, and personal involvement. This personal involvement is nevertheless inevitable; if not consciously recognised, it still exists on an unconscious level, for both student and supervisor, both of whom bring to the supervisory relation their own personal (and often unacknowledged) emotional 'baggage'.

The 'academic family' relation/the `real family' relation

It could be suggested that, within the supervisory relation, there is an unconscious replication/simulation of familiar, familial dynamics of interaction: the relation must be sustained over a long period of time; it is a relation with an implicit power balance; it is a private relation, and one which is often not discussed either within the relation or outside it; it is a relation where the student looks to the supervisor for guidance and direction.

For the student, finding a supervisor with whom s/he is comfortable is a psychically complex process; as an adult, finding a guide or mentor in whom one has sufficient confidence to approach the writing of a thesis is no easy task. Academically the supervisor must be working sufficiently within the field of interest to be able to provide guidance but, more than that, the student's experience of guidance is perhaps likely to draw him/her to particular personalities, with whom she feels - at that moment in time - most able to communicate

With regard to the instigation of this relation, the process of matching a supervisor and student is an interesting one, as there seem to be no particular 'rules'. Generally the match is related to a subject area. Personality seems to be involved only in that a student may gravitate towards a particular academic. The reasons for such gravitation, beyond the common interest in a subject area, appear complex. Several of the academics with whom I have discussed the process have observed, when asked to consider any particular similarities between supervisory relation and real family relation, that, in retrospect, they (unconsciously) looked for qualities in their supervisor similar to those experienced in a parental relation as they had lived it. These qualities were not always positive ones; there was a sense of living out, in the academic relation, the failings of the parent/child relation.

In Lacanian thought the infant - in order to enter into the Symbolic - has to tolerate and live with a separation or lack which s/he spends the rest of his/her life trying to bridge with language (Moi, 1988: 100). Perhaps the supervisory relation, once again, is an unsuccessful attempt on the part of the student to gain that which has been lost, and is - as such - an inevitable failure; the thesis representing the objet a, a small part of that to which the student aspires (see Benvenuto and Kennedy, 1988: 176).

Failing better: how necessary is a dysfunctional relation to the artistic/academic project?

Samuel Beckett once commented, in the face of failure, 'No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better' (1999: 7). It could be argued that the dilemma for the artist is that s/he wants to finish the work but if the work is finished what else is there? If something is wholly successful, it is over, finished, dead. The notion of failure is perhaps a driving force. Perhaps a dysfunctional relation is necessary to the artistic/academic project? One has only to look to history to note the number of artists emerging from dysfunctional backgrounds.

However, in terms of learning it could also be argued that the position of the learner is a fragile one, and that in order to learn one has to have the confidence to admit that one does not know. Such confidence arises from a sense of self-esteem, which arises from a 'safe' environment. In terms of the real dysfunctional family, one does not have to look far to find evidence of learning which has been restricted by the emotional environment in which a child has developed: ask any Learning Support Service or Special Educational Needs department. By extension, if one regards the supervisory relation in the same way, research students may 'get by' with academic support alone, particularly if their real relations in the world are supportive ones, but, without the encouragement to take on the identity of an academic, their potential to become an academic is restricted.

With the exception of the odd tortured genius who thrives on the angst generated by uncertainty and isolation (and it would be interesting to speculate on the reasons for this), my guess is that most research students benefit from a supervisor who has a genuine interest in and regard for the student and their work. A research student needs to grow, and for the supervisor the role in that process is a fine balance between objectivity and support.

Conclusion

There appear to be few guidelines as to how to supervise. Supervisors appear to be expected instinctively to 'know' how to do it effectively. The assumption appears to be that if they themselves have successfully completed a doctorate, then they must automatically know how to facilitate the process in others.

Learning is a difficult process on a personal level, at every stage of life, from school to doctoral thesis, because in order to be able to learn a learner has first to admit that s/he doesn't know, and that can be particularly difficult if the learner has little self-confidence. It can be made much more difficult if the element of self-doubt (either on the part of the student or on that of the supervisor) is allowed to go completely unrecognised, unacknowledged and unaddressed. The most effective learning takes place in a 'safe' learning environment, where knowledge is something exciting and not just plain dangerous and disempowering.

How a student goes about finding a suitable supervisor (and vice versa) is also a process which requires some thought. It is easy, in retrospect, to recognise where things might have been better thought out, or where needs might have been more appropriately met. At the outset, however, both student and supervisor are feeling their way; a supervisor is at some advantage, knowing the process, but the pressures exerted by the university to take on supervision because it is in a particular academic field appear likely to outweigh personal considerations. And, while supervision is not about therapy, it does require more than a knowledge of a subject area if the research student is to emerge with sanity intact.

There are many versions of the dysfunctional family in supervision; what they mainly have in common is the secrecy of their dysfunction. The supervisory relation is a private one, and one which involves both a power imbalance and trust. Because it is private it is difficult to know what it should be, because there is generally little with which to compare it. Without wishing to expose the internal workings of each and every supervisory relation - and these relations are fragile - I feel that this area needs to be opened to further debate, if we are to understand better and perhaps, as a result, improve upon the existing supervisory relation. The critical distance between supervisor and student is just that: critical.

Afterword: some practical suggestions

The two main issues raised are (1) how a supervisor learns how to supervise, and (2) how students and supervisors are matched. With regard to the improvement of supervisory skills, I would make the following general suggestions:

1 A general raising of awareness that supervision is not simply an academic exercise.

2 Access for supervisors to appropriate courses in interpersonal relations (such as counselling skills).

3 The development, in consultation with both staff and students, of some general guidelines in terms of reasonable expectations.

4 A clear support network for supervisors (possibly the opportunity of regular supervision themselves in order that they have space to discuss their own concerns/seek guidance about the work/progress of the student).

5 A user-friendly student feedback system (one which does not become personal but can raise general points; a difficulty for research students is that of being seen to be critical of a supervisor who is ultimately in a position of power).

6 A clear support network for students (guidelines about what to do when things seem to be going wrong; facilitation of a student support network such as a postgraduate forum).

The problem of matching students and supervisors appropriately is a little more difficult. The equation is usually based on a matching of subject areas, and that is clearly an extremely important aspect of the academic process, which works in the interest of both student and supervisor. However, this consideration alone falls short of the whole problem. With regard to the matching of students and supervisors, I would make the following general suggestions.

1 A structure might be implemented enabling students and supervisors to discuss their expectations in a more comprehensive manner at the outset of the project.

2 Students might be encouraged to speak to other research students at different stages in the process (particularly at the outset) and encouraged to seek out a peer group. Active encouragement and support, by the institution, of peer-group work (e.g the allocation of a physical space for research students; a contact person on the staff team who is approachable and well informed; access to facilities for copying, mailing and advertising; encouragement of FRC membership) would ensure the existence of such a resource and the development of a research culture.

3 A supervisory team usually involves more than one supervisor; although the responsibility for the supervision would appear to rest primarily with one person, both students and supervisors might fruitfully be encouraged to allocate the responsibility more equally, resulting in more balanced feedback and a more supportive dynamic.

The difficulties inherent in the supervisory relation are not ones which can be resolved instantly but, having spent thirteen years working in education, ten of them with students with emotional/behavioural difficulties, often with real dysfunctional family environments, the correlation between 'real family' and 'academic family' seems obvious. For the 'real family' there are support networks in place; for the 'academic family' structure, however, the problem itself appears to remain - to a greater or lesser degree, among academic institutions - unnoticed or ignored. The experience of supervision, as a student, is not necessarily enough to equip the potential supervisor for the role.

The cycle of silence needs to be examined and - where necessary - modified, in order to facilitate the provision of supervisors who are equipped, not only academically but also emotionally, for the supervisory relation.

References

Beckett, Samuel (1983, 1999), Worstward Ho, London: Calder.

Benvenuto, Bice, and Kennedy, Roger (1988), The Works of Jacques Lacan: an Introduction, London: Free Association Books.

Bowie, Malcolm (1991), Lacan, London: Fontana.

Lacan, Jacques (1977, 1992), &rits: A Selection, London: Routledge. Moi, Toril (1988), Sexual/Textual Politics, London: Routledge.

Address for correspondence

School of Arts and Humanities, University of North London, 166-220 Holloway Road, london N7 8DB.

Copyright Manchester University Press Nov 2000
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved

Smith, Kathy "Academic supervision and the dysfunctional family: The problem of critical distance". Research in Education. Nov 2000. FindArticles.com. 28 May. 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3765/is_200011/ai_n8910400