|
The Case: The Dissertation |
|
Bruce was fit
to be tied. A graduate student with only his
dissertation to go before he earned his Ph.D.,
Bruce found himself unable to make progress,
despite his diligent work habits and
accomplishments.
Why? |
 |
The Players
Bruce, a bright, industrious 27-year-old graduate student at a major university.
The Advisor, a 51-year-old academic who was not particularly helpful or supportive, despite his words to the contrary. |
 |
 |
 |
The Problem
Bruce has been in graduate school for three years.
He was finishing the research for his thesis,
and beginning the write-up phase. However, there
seemed to be endless roadblocks in his path; his
advisor continually sent him back to the drawing
board to do more research, and revise earlier
drafts. Meetings with him and other faculty
members were frequently cancelled, and there
seemed to be continual miscommunications that
cost Bruce precious time. Bruce constantly asked
himself what he was doing wrong. |
|
|
|
 |
The Smart Relationship Insight
As it turned out, Bruce wasn't at fault; after a
number of sessions, we discerned that the
problem lay with the dissertation committee in
general, and his first reader in particular.
These folks consciously engaged in unpredictable
and sadistic behavior towards Bruce, making
things as difficult as possible. Their chief
modus operandi was to frustrate momentum
with frivolous criticisms, busywork, and long,
unannounced absences during which students could not
get drafts and changes approved, and were
therefore stymied. Only when the faculty members
sensed they'd caused enough grief did they allow
students to proceed.
We gained insight into the faculty members
by interviewing former students, who attested to
the fact that the committee indeed had a habit
of tossing up as many roadblocks as possible.
Our academic connections validated this
conclusion.
On the basis of our data gathering, we
realized that the committee members were
simulating a rite of passage for their students,
akin to a "prove-you-can-survive" stint in the
jungle. Once Bruce understood the game, his
suffering diminished; he was not the problem. We
then devised a plan to neutralize the faculty
members' behavior—we would have Bruce enact
simulated pain to keep the committee happy.
The idea was to feign the suffering, and thus
appear to fulfill the requirements of the rite
of passage. First, I had Bruce discuss with the
first reader, in a troubled voice, his
frustration with the various snafus, and his
profound wish to be a better student. The
apparent rise in suffering seemed to delight the
first reader, who bought Bruce's acting job
hook, line, and sinker.
The second part of the plan involved Bruce's
secretly charging ahead with the outlining of
probable thesis chapters, even as he protested
how stuck and upset he was, and even as his
first reader rejected his drafts. This tactic
allowed him to make advances, no matter what
direction the reader's approval went. |
|
|
|
 |
Outcome
After six months, there was no further need for
Bruce's charade. The advisor finally felt he'd
put Bruce through enough, and gave him a written
"go ahead" to write the final drafts of his
thesis—a process that usually takes an
additional six to twelve months. Unknown to the
advisor, the "hard time" he'd given Bruce had
not been a hard time at all. In reality, Bruce
had been extremely productive. He handed in the
final draft just five weeks later,
becoming the second fastest graduate of his
program in its forty-five year history. |
|
