A PhD is meant to be one of the highest stages of intellectual development. It should encourage curiosity, independent thinking, creativity, critical analysis and the production of new knowledge. At the centre of this journey stands the PhD supervisor, whose role is to guide, mentor, motivate and support the research scholar. Unfortunately, in some institutions, the supervisor–scholar relationship has become a source of fear, pressure, exploitation and frustration. Toxic PhD supervision is an emerging but often hidden problem that can seriously damage both young researchers and the quality of academic research. A good supervisor is a mentor, not a master. The supervisor should help a scholar identify a meaningful research problem, develop appropriate methodology, improve academic writing, publish responsibly and gradually become an independent researcher. However, when academic authority is misused, supervision can turn into control. Constant humiliation, unreasonable demands, excessive interference, discrimination, threats, deliberate delays, denial of credit and exploitation of research scholars are examples of behaviour that can create a toxic research environment.
The problem becomes more serious because a PhD scholar is often in a vulnerable position. The supervisor may have considerable influence over research progress, publications, recommendations, evaluations and thesis completion. A scholar who is dependent on one supervisor may hesitate to complain even when facing inappropriate behaviour. The fear is understandable: “What will happen to my PhD if I speak against my supervisor?” This fear can create a culture of silence.
One of the most damaging characteristics of toxic supervision is humiliation. Constructive criticism is essential to research. A scholar must be told when a research design is weak, an argument is unsupported or the methodology needs improvement. But criticism should improve the researcher, not destroy the researcher’s confidence. Repeatedly insulting a scholar, questioning their intelligence or publicly humiliating them does not create academic excellence. It creates anxiety, insecurity and fear of failure.
Another problem is excessive control. A PhD is not supposed to produce a researcher who simply follows instructions. It is supposed to produce an independent thinker. A supervisor who controls every idea, every paragraph and every research decision can prevent a scholar from developing intellectual independence. The ultimate success of supervision should be measured by the scholar’s ability to conduct quality research independently.
Exploitation is another serious concern. Research scholars sometimes perform teaching, administrative, clerical or other tasks beyond legitimate academic responsibilities. Supporting departmental activities may be part of academic life, but a scholar should not become unpaid labour simply because the supervisor has authority over the PhD. The scholar’s time and intellectual contribution deserve respect.
Publication practices can also become a source of conflict. Supervisors have an important responsibility to teach scholars about research ethics and responsible authorship. Problems arise when supervisors demand inappropriate authorship, take disproportionate credit for a scholar’s work, use research primarily for personal publication targets or delay a scholar’s manuscript without reasonable academic justification. Such practices can discourage young researchers and weaken confidence in the research system.
“A good supervisor leaves behind confident researchers. A toxic supervisor leaves behind frightened scholars. The real success of a PhD supervisor is not the number of scholars who remain dependent on them. It is the number of scholars who eventually become independent researchers, confident teachers, innovative thinkers and mentors to the next generation. PhD supervisors should therefore remember one fundamental principle: their responsibility is not to control the scholar’s journey but to strengthen it. Build scholars, don’t break them. Encourage questions, don’t punish them. Create researchers, not followers. A PhD should be a journey from dependence to independence—not a journey from hope to fear.”
The consequences extend far beyond the individual scholar. A fearful research environment can damage the quality of research itself. Innovation requires intellectual freedom. Researchers must be able to question established ideas, challenge assumptions, admit mistakes and propose unconventional approaches. If scholars believe that disagreement with their supervisor will lead to punishment or delayed approval, they may choose obedience over originality.
This is particularly dangerous for countries seeking to strengthen their research and innovation ecosystems. India needs researchers who can think boldly, solve complex problems and develop new technologies, policies and ideas. Producing large numbers of PhDs is not enough. The country needs high-quality PhDs supported by high-quality supervision.
The solution is not to weaken the authority of supervisors but to make that authority accountable. Universities should establish transparent supervisory systems in which doctoral scholars are not completely dependent on one individual. Doctoral committees, co-supervisors, periodic progress reviews and independent grievance mechanisms can provide necessary checks and balances.
Universities should also provide formal training for PhD supervisors. Being an experienced researcher does not automatically make someone an effective mentor. Supervisors need training in academic leadership, communication, research ethics, conflict resolution, responsible authorship and student well-being. Supervisory performance should become part of institutional quality assurance.
At the same time, accountability must work in both directions. Not every disagreement between a scholar and supervisor constitutes toxic supervision. PhD research is demanding. Scholars must demonstrate discipline, honesty, commitment and willingness to accept genuine academic criticism. Supervisors have every right to expect rigorous work, meeting deadlines and adherence to research standards. The objective is not a comfortable PhD; it is a rigorous but respectful PhD.
The most important principle is simple: authority should never become abuse of power. A supervisor should be able to demand excellence without humiliating a scholar. A supervisor should be able to reject weak research without rejecting the researcher. A supervisor should be able to provide tough criticism without creating fear.
The relationship between supervisor and scholar should ultimately be a partnership in the pursuit of knowledge. The supervisor provides experience and guidance; the scholar brings curiosity, effort and new ideas. Together, they should create research that contributes something meaningful to society.
India’s higher education system cannot build a strong research culture while ignoring the human environment in which research takes place. Laboratories, libraries, funding and technology are important, but people remain the foundation of research. If talented scholars are repeatedly discouraged, exploited or driven away from academia, the country loses not only individual careers but also valuable intellectual capital.
(The author is Principal, Guru Gobind Singh College of Management and Technology, Gidderbaha, Punjab. The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the author and aren’t necessarily in accord with the views of “Kashmir Horizon”)
Prof R.K. Uppal
[email protected]
