A piece of qualitative research was submitted that looked at the experiences of families facing a particular illness. The first author was both the main carer for the families and the researcher. She conducted and analysed all the interviews. Nobody else seemed to have analysed the verbatim transcripts, although two senior authors did help with analysis of the data. The reviewers and editorial committee took the view that this research used wholly inadequate methodology and worried that the first author, who had undertaken the study as part of her PhD, had been inadequately supervised. The question was raised with all three of the authors. The editor wrote to the supervisor, who it was suspected, would probably say that the methodology was acceptable and that s/he didn’t agree with the objections raised. Was this the right thing to do? Should more be done?
_ Many universities do not have trained supervisors nor do they provide guidance to supervisors as to their responsibilities. _ It is not only MSc and PhD students who are left unsupervised, and many lecturers are not trained to teach and often are appointed because they can attract large research grants, rather than for their teaching capabilities. _ This was qualitative research, much of which is very poor. For such a study to have any validity there must be two independent researchers. _ This case was also unusual in that the author was also the carer of the families. And the poor design of the study had not been picked up any independent scientific reviewers at the ethics committee stage. _ Await a response from the supervisor before taking any further action.
Neither the lead author nor one of the supervisors accepted that there was any problem with the research. The case was referred to the journal’s ethics committee. All the authors denied there was a problem with the research. The supervisor expressed concern that (1) the editorial committee felt it had a remit to question the adequacy of the PhD supervision; (2) that by writing directly to the student they had placed her in a difficult situation; and (3) that the allegation of inadequacy extended to the supervisor(s), examiners, and host organisation. The authors requested that the allegations of inadequate supervision be withdrawn and they offered to submit the full thesis for evaluation. The journal’s ethics committee felt that the editor did have the right to question the adequacy of PhD supervision but the editor retracted his statement questioning the conscientiousness of the supervisor. The paper was rejected.