1. Before the Swenson v. Bender case, there was no legal precedent for whether the faculty-advisor to student relationship should be identified as a fidiciary relationship. If there was still no precedent today, would you consider the faculty-advisor to student relationship to be a fiduciary relationship? Why or why not?
2. Although the courts found that Swenson and Bender were indeed in a fiduciary relationship, the Pavela Report authors disagreed. Who do you agree with - Pavela or the courts? Why? What kind of legal relationship did they have, if any?
3. Do you think institutions of higher education indoctrinate students? Why or why not?
#2. I agree with the conclusion of the courts in this case. I feel that the nature of the relationship between a doctoral candidate and his or her doctoral committee, specifically the committee chairman (which in my opinion Dr. Bender served as even though she did not bear that title), creates a "fiduciary type" relationship. This is a different relationship than one between an undergraduate student and his or her advisor and a master level graduate student and his or her thesis advisor, in my opinion. I say this because of the nature of the relationship as stated in the Pavella Report: .... based on three factors that are common in virtually every Ph.D. candidate's dissertation development-and-review process.
I will say though that I feel that based upon the report, Dr. Bender "walked a fine line" with Swenson. I don't feel that it was professional to discuss potential future engagements of the two during the dissertation process. In my opinion, this "clouded" the relationship and became more personal than professional.
2. The role of teacher/mentor is a complicated and sometimes difficult position. Equally, the role of a doctoral student who is relying upon the advice, mentoring, and editing of his or her chair (I agree with Misty that it would seem Bender played this role in this particular instance) is complicated and could potentially – as in this case – be confusing. Having said this, I believe that the roles of Bender and Swenson were not clearly understood by both, and a (possibly) weak or calulating student may have taken some advantage of her professor.
As Pavela states in the beginning of this report, “Fiduciary relationships may arise, “when one person trusts and confides in another who has superior knowledge and authority.” From this statement, it would seem clear that the role of a faculty member who serves as a member of a doctoral student’s dissertation committee is clearly one of fiduciary responsibility and a fiduciary relationship would certainly seem to exist. The faculty members certainly would have “superior knowledge and authority” over the doctoral student, and students know and expect this relationship to serve in this capacity. As defined by the online legal dictionary, “fiduciary relationship n. where one person places complete confidence in another in regard to a particular transaction or one's general affairs or business. The relationship is not necessarily formally or legally established as in a declaration of trust, but can be one of moral or personal responsibility, due to the superior knowledge and training of the fiduciary as compared to the one whose affairs the fiduciary is handling.
On the other hand, as defined further in the online free dictionary, “Mere respect for another individual's judgment or general trust in his or her character is ordinarily insufficient for the creation of a fiduciary relationship. The duties of a fiduciary include loyalty and reasonable care of the assets within custody. All of the fiduciary's actions are performed for the advantage of the beneficiary. This last portion of the definition does support Pavela’s argument that members of dissertation committees, while possessing “superior knowledge and authority” and acting in roles that should inspire trust and confidence from the doctoral student, are really employees of the university and as such have a stronger allegiance to the academic integrity of the university than to an individual student; therefore a fiduciary relationships does not exist between professor and student. (more to follow below...)
A professor sharing a copy of her own dissertation does not, on the surface, sound unusual; reviewing others’ dissertations before choosing a topic, or even while researching and writing one’s own dissertation is an expected and encouraged practice. For the student to have selectively “borrowed” portions of the professor’s dissertation and for the professor and an outside editor to have made so many changes that it was “questionable how much Ms. Swenson is primarily responsible for these documents” (Pavela, quoting Capella’s academic standards committee) is the real issue.
Many questions come to mind in reading this report. It seems to me that at the basis of this case is the question of how the professor-student relationship became so confused. Was the student very malleable or was she more cunning? Did she lack confidence in her own judgment, research, and writing skills, or was she lazy? Did the professor misunderstand her own role of dissertation committee member or was she controlling? Was the professor simply taking her role very seriously and was she simply providing suggestions and grammatical re-writing assistance that the student took as “gospel” and used? One wonders whether Swenson really had the capabilities to complete doctoral level work! Few doctoral students come into the dissertation process knowing how to do research; we gain this knowledge and experience from our professors, coursework, and much practice and critique. A doctoral student completing her dissertation should have expected - and welcomed – critiquing from her doctoral committee, but also should have been solid enough in her knowledge and confidence to disagree when she felt strongly about something, and not to blindly accept and incorporate others’ work as her own research and writing.
This case was one that, I suspect may happen, to some extent, all too often. The line between teaching, guiding, coaching, and mentoring could quite easily become fuzzy and the relationship misconstrued. Muddying the waters were the communications between professor and student regarding future collaborations on a business and a book. Again, I would imagine that these types of discussions might be a little more common that we think, and might not be out of line, depending upon the level of conversation, extent of collaboration, and the nature of the work. Questions would need to be asked and answered in advance regarding if the “collaborative work” was utilized in the student’s dissertation, how would that be noted and handled?
#3- I don’t think that higher education institutions indoctrinate students neither do I feel that this is their role. I think that providing a platform for diverse dialogue in a civil and safe environment is one of the roles of higher education institutions. It is understood that every admitted student brings with them a distinct set of experiences and a unique perspective that enhances and diversifies the learning environment. Now, I do think that there are basic values and ideals that institutions would like to “indoctrinate” into the minds of their students, which are typically found in mission statements. However, I also think that the over-arching goal is to help students identify who they are by either clarifying, adding to, or changing their perspectives according to knowledge that they have gained and interpreted for themselves. This can be a double-edged sword as some individuals may leave higher education institutions more confused than when they began.
1. I do not find a fiduciary relationship to exist between a faculty advisor and dissertation student. And this mostly has to do with the fact that the faculty's primary relationship is with the institution. As the Wikipedia site states regarding Fiduciary relationships - "In such a relation good conscience requires one to act at all times for the sole benefit and interests of another, with loyalty to those interests." The faculty advisor cannot act for the sole benefit of the student. The advisor is meant to be a supporting role to the student but the primary relationship is with the institution because that is whom the advisor represents.
2. I agree with the Court on appeal that this was not a fiduciary relationship. The student was in control of her committee - she changed it several times. This suggests to me that she had more of an independent stake in her dissertation work. Again from Wikipedia - "a fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another" - the Advisor in this case did not have that type of authority or even opportunity. The faculty committee member was an Advisor in a supporting role to the student - but the student had to advocate for herself, and thus a fiduciary relationship did not seem to exist.
I think that Jennifer E. has made an excellent point that the faculty's relationship is with the institution (and as an "independent contractor" not much of one with them either.) It is the student's responsibility, especially at the doctoral level, to do their own work and/or cite other's. Swenson did not do that...she needed to give credit to others..
1. The case of Swenson v Bender seems to be an issue that would arise quite frequently from this type of close relationship. It seems that a person typically chooses their committee members based on some kind of link that they have. Whether it is a focus on the same topic, a desire for collaboration with someone that you think you would benefit from, etc. It seems that the student would want this mentor person to serve as a fiduciary for them. However, due to the obligations of the faculty member to the university they are employed at, this does not seem reasonable. As the report stated, this should be known to the student that their member is still employed by the university and needs to uphold their conduct. I will say though that I think Swenson also added a lot to this problem by offering her dissertation as an example and discussing the desire for future collaboration.
2. I think in this case I would have to side with Pavella. While the courts decided differently, I think this is a great example of when academic deference should be applied. As we have discussed, many times, a jury is simply not equipped to decide matters that are specific to scientific work. If the question was whether this was Swenson’s work v. Bender’s, I think it would be hard for a jury to decide based on their readings. I think it would be very hard for a person without knowledge in this area(whatever it may be) to determine who owned the original work.
3. I do not think that institutions of higher education indoctrinate students, in fact, as it was discussed in the report, I think that a professor offering their opinion challenges the student to think about it they agree or disagree with the opinion that they are being told. If the course work is followed, the student should be able to pick up on what is fact and what is opinion from the readings, and what the professor is saying. I think the example of Darwin and his mentor, Henslow, was a great example of this. I also have to agree that some of the best friendships are born from an argument that both side is willing to fight for because it makes the other person continue to come back and want to learn more to support their “case.”
Donna B., Edna, and Sara - I agree with each of you about the purpose of higher education as not being one of indoctrination. I think you each captured the essence of the "process" of a doctoral student completing their dissertation (or at least my understanding of what it will be like) very well. Like Edna stated, we do have very diverse backgrounds and experiences and we bring that to the table. Donna B. highlighted some very insightful questions about the student and her motives/skills (was she malleable or cunning? etc.). I think, as Sara stated, that a student has the responsibility to discern fact vs. opinion in the readings and the professor's feedback. A student must be able to assess whether or not the feedback fits into their intent and perspective (as well as documented fact) vs. possibly being the professor's distinct perspective. To me, this is similar to when I critique an FWS student's resume. I may provide some feedback that the student thinks does not fit into how they want to represent themselves and the student should not take my suggestions as the end all and be all of resume writing! Since these students are very young and new to the concept of writing a resume and searching for jobs, I always explain to them that my suggestions are just suggestions and that they should decide what feedback they want to incorporate into their finished resume. I encourage them to do some research on resume writing in order to make their decision. Now, at the doctoral level, I think it is relatively reasonable to expect a student to assume this should be the case. However, I can see how a relationship with the professor could get clouded and possibly impact the student's comfort level with doing this. I also agree with Sara that this kind of decision should be left up to academia vs. the courts to decide.
As it noted in Pavela that, “Fiduciary relationships may arise, “when one person trusts and confides in another who has superior knowledge and authority” I can see where a lot of confusion would arise in a case like this. I would agree with the courts and find it hard to find Dr. Bender as having a fiduciary relationship as she was simply a dissertation advisor, not chairperson, and the committee was changed several times. I would also agree with previous comments noting that it is hard to tell if Swenson was naïve and just took Dr. Bender’s critiques as law, or if she was simply lazy and happy to use Dr. Bender’s suggestions and work as her own. I would venture to guess that it is likely that there was a lot of role confusion on the part of both Bender and Swenson, and a lack of a clear understanding regarding what proper lines were in their relationship. However, it is hard to determine where to start here, other than the obvious fact that one must give credit for work that isn’t their own, in terms of clarifying lines - as a student reviewing other dissertations and talking about joint research projects with professors at that level seems to be the norm. I would be curious to know if there is any standard manual for what is appropriate, or not, for student’s and professor’s at this level to draw from. I do think however that this is a matter that I don’t think the courts are equipped to determine and as such think that academic deference to the institution should be given here.
I do believe that some institutions do indoctrinate students. I do not think that the job of the institution is to indoctrinate. It is their job to provide the proper forum to mold students into the type of professionals they need to be in order to be successful in the world market. There is is a type of indoctrination that does exist by virtue of this fact because there is a process by which people gain their knowledge. I think it is more in terms of the individual teacher/professor who has direct contact with the student. I have seen situations where certain institutions are considered to be either right wing or leftist in their overall mission and the things which are allowed to be taught. That is very common in the Christian collegiate setting depending on the denomination the institution represents.
1. Before the Swenson v. Bender case, there was no legal precedent for whether the faculty-advisor to student relationship should be identified as a fidiciary relationship. If there was still no precedent today, would you consider the faculty-advisor to student relationship to be a fiduciary relationship? Why or why not?
ReplyDelete2. Although the courts found that Swenson and Bender were indeed in a fiduciary relationship, the Pavela Report authors disagreed. Who do you agree with - Pavela or the courts? Why? What kind of legal relationship did they have, if any?
3. Do you think institutions of higher education indoctrinate students? Why or why not?
#2. I agree with the conclusion of the courts in this case. I feel that the nature of the relationship between a doctoral candidate and his or her doctoral committee, specifically the committee chairman (which in my opinion Dr. Bender served as even though she did not bear that title), creates a "fiduciary type" relationship. This is a different relationship than one between an undergraduate student and his or her advisor and a master level graduate student and his or her thesis advisor, in my opinion. I say this because of the nature of the relationship as stated in the Pavella Report: .... based on three factors that are common in virtually every Ph.D. candidate's dissertation development-and-review process.
ReplyDeleteI will say though that I feel that based upon the report, Dr. Bender "walked a fine line" with Swenson. I don't feel that it was professional to discuss potential future engagements of the two during the dissertation process. In my opinion, this "clouded" the relationship and became more personal than professional.
2. The role of teacher/mentor is a complicated and sometimes difficult position. Equally, the role of a doctoral student who is relying upon the advice, mentoring, and editing of his or her chair (I agree with Misty that it would seem Bender played this role in this particular instance) is complicated and could potentially – as in this case – be confusing. Having said this, I believe that the roles of Bender and Swenson were not clearly understood by both, and a (possibly) weak or calulating student may have taken some advantage of her professor.
ReplyDeleteAs Pavela states in the beginning of this report, “Fiduciary relationships may arise, “when one person trusts and confides in another who has superior knowledge and authority.” From this statement, it would seem clear that the role of a faculty member who serves as a member of a doctoral student’s dissertation committee is clearly one of fiduciary responsibility and a fiduciary relationship would certainly seem to exist. The faculty members certainly would have “superior knowledge and authority” over the doctoral student, and students know and expect this relationship to serve in this capacity. As defined by the online legal dictionary, “fiduciary relationship n. where one person places complete confidence in another in regard to a particular transaction or one's general affairs or business. The relationship is not necessarily formally or legally established as in a declaration of trust, but can be one of moral or personal responsibility, due to the superior knowledge and training of the fiduciary as compared to the one whose affairs the fiduciary is handling.
On the other hand, as defined further in the online free dictionary, “Mere respect for another individual's judgment or general trust in his or her character is ordinarily insufficient for the creation of a fiduciary relationship. The duties of a fiduciary include loyalty and reasonable care of the assets within custody. All of the fiduciary's actions are performed for the advantage of the beneficiary. This last portion of the definition does support Pavela’s argument that members of dissertation committees, while possessing “superior knowledge and authority” and acting in roles that should inspire trust and confidence from the doctoral student, are really employees of the university and as such have a stronger allegiance to the academic integrity of the university than to an individual student; therefore a fiduciary relationships does not exist between professor and student.
(more to follow below...)
A professor sharing a copy of her own dissertation does not, on the surface, sound unusual; reviewing others’ dissertations before choosing a topic, or even while researching and writing one’s own dissertation is an expected and encouraged practice. For the student to have selectively “borrowed” portions of the professor’s dissertation and for the professor and an outside editor to have made so many changes that it was “questionable how much Ms. Swenson is primarily responsible for these documents” (Pavela, quoting Capella’s academic standards committee) is the real issue.
ReplyDeleteMany questions come to mind in reading this report. It seems to me that at the basis of this case is the question of how the professor-student relationship became so confused. Was the student very malleable or was she more cunning? Did she lack confidence in her own judgment, research, and writing skills, or was she lazy? Did the professor misunderstand her own role of dissertation committee member or was she controlling? Was the professor simply taking her role very seriously and was she simply providing suggestions and grammatical re-writing assistance that the student took as “gospel” and used? One wonders whether Swenson really had the capabilities to complete doctoral level work! Few doctoral students come into the dissertation process knowing how to do research; we gain this knowledge and experience from our professors, coursework, and much practice and critique. A doctoral student completing her dissertation should have expected - and welcomed – critiquing from her doctoral committee, but also should have been solid enough in her knowledge and confidence to disagree when she felt strongly about something, and not to blindly accept and incorporate others’ work as her own research and writing.
This case was one that, I suspect may happen, to some extent, all too often. The line between teaching, guiding, coaching, and mentoring could quite easily become fuzzy and the relationship misconstrued. Muddying the waters were the communications between professor and student regarding future collaborations on a business and a book. Again, I would imagine that these types of discussions might be a little more common that we think, and might not be out of line, depending upon the level of conversation, extent of collaboration, and the nature of the work. Questions would need to be asked and answered in advance regarding if the “collaborative work” was utilized in the student’s dissertation, how would that be noted and handled?
#3- I don’t think that higher education institutions indoctrinate students neither do I feel that this is their role. I think that providing a platform for diverse dialogue in a civil and safe environment is one of the roles of higher education institutions. It is understood that every admitted student brings with them a distinct set of experiences and a unique perspective that enhances and diversifies the learning environment. Now, I do think that there are basic values and ideals that institutions would like to “indoctrinate” into the minds of their students, which are typically found in mission statements. However, I also think that the over-arching goal is to help students identify who they are by either clarifying, adding to, or changing their perspectives according to knowledge that they have gained and interpreted for themselves. This can be a double-edged sword as some individuals may leave higher education institutions more confused than when they began.
ReplyDelete1. I do not find a fiduciary relationship to exist between a faculty advisor and dissertation student. And this mostly has to do with the fact that the faculty's primary relationship is with the institution. As the Wikipedia site states regarding Fiduciary relationships - "In such a relation good conscience requires one to act at all times for the sole benefit and interests of another, with loyalty to those interests." The faculty advisor cannot act for the sole benefit of the student. The advisor is meant to be a supporting role to the student but the primary relationship is with the institution because that is whom the advisor represents.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with the Court on appeal that this was not a fiduciary relationship. The student was in control of her committee - she changed it several times. This suggests to me that she had more of an independent stake in her dissertation work. Again from Wikipedia - "a fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another" - the Advisor in this case did not have that type of authority or even opportunity. The faculty committee member was an Advisor in a supporting role to the student - but the student had to advocate for herself, and thus a fiduciary relationship did not seem to exist.
I think that Jennifer E. has made an excellent point that the faculty's relationship is with the institution (and as an "independent contractor" not much of one with them either.) It is the student's responsibility, especially at the doctoral level, to do their own work and/or cite other's. Swenson did not do that...she needed to give credit to others..
ReplyDelete1. The case of Swenson v Bender seems to be an issue that would arise quite frequently from this type of close relationship. It seems that a person typically chooses their committee members based on some kind of link that they have. Whether it is a focus on the same topic, a desire for collaboration with someone that you think you would benefit from, etc. It seems that the student would want this mentor person to serve as a fiduciary for them. However, due to the obligations of the faculty member to the university they are employed at, this does not seem reasonable. As the report stated, this should be known to the student that their member is still employed by the university and needs to uphold their conduct. I will say though that I think Swenson also added a lot to this problem by offering her dissertation as an example and discussing the desire for future collaboration.
ReplyDelete2. I think in this case I would have to side with Pavella. While the courts decided differently, I think this is a great example of when academic deference should be applied. As we have discussed, many times, a jury is simply not equipped to decide matters that are specific to scientific work. If the question was whether this was Swenson’s work v. Bender’s, I think it would be hard for a jury to decide based on their readings. I think it would be very hard for a person without knowledge in this area(whatever it may be) to determine who owned the original work.
3. I do not think that institutions of higher education indoctrinate students, in fact, as it was discussed in the report, I think that a professor offering their opinion challenges the student to think about it they agree or disagree with the opinion that they are being told. If the course work is followed, the student should be able to pick up on what is fact and what is opinion from the readings, and what the professor is saying. I think the example of Darwin and his mentor, Henslow, was a great example of this. I also have to agree that some of the best friendships are born from an argument that both side is willing to fight for because it makes the other person continue to come back and want to learn more to support their “case.”
Donna B., Edna, and Sara - I agree with each of you about the purpose of higher education as not being one of indoctrination. I think you each captured the essence of the "process" of a doctoral student completing their dissertation (or at least my understanding of what it will be like) very well. Like Edna stated, we do have very diverse backgrounds and experiences and we bring that to the table. Donna B. highlighted some very insightful questions about the student and her motives/skills (was she malleable or cunning? etc.). I think, as Sara stated, that a student has the responsibility to discern fact vs. opinion in the readings and the professor's feedback. A student must be able to assess whether or not the feedback fits into their intent and perspective (as well as documented fact) vs. possibly being the professor's distinct perspective. To me, this is similar to when I critique an FWS student's resume. I may provide some feedback that the student thinks does not fit into how they want to represent themselves and the student should not take my suggestions as the end all and be all of resume writing! Since these students are very young and new to the concept of writing a resume and searching for jobs, I always explain to them that my suggestions are just suggestions and that they should decide what feedback they want to incorporate into their finished resume. I encourage them to do some research on resume writing in order to make their decision. Now, at the doctoral level, I think it is relatively reasonable to expect a student to assume this should be the case. However, I can see how a relationship with the professor could get clouded and possibly impact the student's comfort level with doing this. I also agree with Sara that this kind of decision should be left up to academia vs. the courts to decide.
ReplyDeleteAs it noted in Pavela that, “Fiduciary relationships may arise, “when one person trusts and confides in another who has superior knowledge and authority” I can see where a lot of confusion would arise in a case like this. I would agree with the courts and find it hard to find Dr. Bender as having a fiduciary relationship as she was simply a dissertation advisor, not chairperson, and the committee was changed several times. I would also agree with previous comments noting that it is hard to tell if Swenson was naïve and just took Dr. Bender’s critiques as law, or if she was simply lazy and happy to use Dr. Bender’s suggestions and work as her own. I would venture to guess that it is likely that there was a lot of role confusion on the part of both Bender and Swenson, and a lack of a clear understanding regarding what proper lines were in their relationship. However, it is hard to determine where to start here, other than the obvious fact that one must give credit for work that isn’t their own, in terms of clarifying lines - as a student reviewing other dissertations and talking about joint research projects with professors at that level seems to be the norm. I would be curious to know if there is any standard manual for what is appropriate, or not, for student’s and professor’s at this level to draw from. I do think however that this is a matter that I don’t think the courts are equipped to determine and as such think that academic deference to the institution should be given here.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that some institutions do indoctrinate students. I do not think that the job of the institution is to indoctrinate. It is their job to provide the proper forum to mold students into the type of professionals they need to be in order to be successful in the world market. There is is a type of indoctrination that does exist by virtue of this fact because there is a process by which people gain their knowledge. I think it is more in terms of the individual teacher/professor who has direct contact with the student.
ReplyDeleteI have seen situations where certain institutions are considered to be either right wing or leftist in their overall mission and the things which are allowed to be taught. That is very common in the Christian collegiate setting depending on the denomination the institution represents.