Professional-personal-private boundaries in a Supervisor - PhD student relationship - The influence of cultural backgrounds
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In any job that requires contact with people, there is a need to find a “healthy” balance between professional and personal life in order to function at work. In a way, the PhD student-supervisor case is not different from such jobs. As stated in a recently published article, “Because of the delicacy and complex power dynamics, supervisor- student relationships need clearly defined boundaries.” The requirements and understanding of where that balanced line or boundary lays might depend on the individual person, but those differences seem to be milder within a particular culture. In this sense, the PhD student-supervisor situation might be an extreme case due to the often multicultural environment of an international university. There is very little information in the Internet about specific boundaries between professional-personal-private life in a PhD student-supervisor context. Some information about how these boundaries differ between cultural backgrounds or nationalities can be found in the “Guide to mentoring graduate students across cultures” developed by the Western Teaching Support Centre, University of Western Ontario, Canada. 2 This handbook highlights general differences in personal- professional boundaries among different nationalities. For example, while in North America people distinguish between work friends and personal friends and socialize separately, students from Central America and Mexico expect supervisors to take care of them as part of an “extended family”. A parental supervision style is also expected among Chinese students, who find it appropriate to ask for a loan or to borrow the supervisor´s car. In return, these students show firm dedication to the supervisor´s work. In our work, we decided to conduct interviews with the aim to explore how specific boundaries might change for people, with a special focus on the cultural background of the interviewees. For this purpose we have developed two parallel questionnaires, one directed to graduate students and the other one directed to supervisors, to try to figure out if there were any changes in such boundaries regarding nationalities, gender, age and years of experience. The questions have focused in six different criteria, named 1-personal relationships, 2-dual relationships, 3-political view, 4-personal favors, 5- financial situation, 6-health. For each criterion, an open question and a yes/no question were asked. The latter was done to be able to quantify some of the answers. We have interviewed 11 supervisors (9 Swedes, 2 Non Swedes) and 14 graduate students (8 Swedes, 6 Non Swedes).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».