On a bright morning in March 2016, I came to my office at the Australian National University (ANU) with an extremely heavy heart. I heard that my primary supervisor was one of the academics losing their positions due to the school review. I could not help swearing all the way as I entered the building from Childers Street.
I could not imagine the future of my research, of my endeavour to finish what I had started three years earlier. I felt suffocated, despite the good weather and fresh air. Over time, the pain caused by my chronic endometriosis started to intensify due to depression. I started seeing a counsellor to help me manage my psychological wellbeing. This was all caused by the uncertainties surrounding the lengthy review process. That’s when I started having a series of anxiety attacks.
Experiences of university restructuring are not universal. The process affects students differently. Sadly, these experiences are often neglected during the restructure process and in its aftermath. While a university might save millions of dollars in its upcoming budget, the students affected by the process are the ones who suffer the most. This is my experience of the university restructuring process as an international student at ANU.
In a protracted process beginning in 2014, my primary supervisor and more than ten others, lost their positions as a result of the review of the School of Culture History and Language (CHL). The situation seriously affected my thesis writing, but it also led to a series of health, financial, and immigration issues, for myself and others.
The prolonged process of the school review took a toll on the psychological wellbeing of many students. Many of my colleagues at CHL, both international and domestic, had to see a counsellor to help manage our mental health. The process led to a lot of uncertainties: would our supervisors stay or leave? If our supervisors had to leave, who would take over the position? What sort of adjustments would be made with a new supervisory arrangement? These were the imminent questions bugging us each and every day during the review process.
Meanwhile, the school continued to reassure us that the transition would be smooth, if any of our supervisors left. But such reassurance does not negate the fact that any changes to a supervisory arrangement would entail some adjustment, big or small. If the new supervisor taking over already had a high workload and high level of research supervision, students would not be able to enjoy the same level of attention and quality supervision. I was lucky that I could still involve my supervisor in my panel as an external supervisor. Still, it was not a smooth process of negotiation and I had to make some adjustment to my thesis flow and work rhythm.
Final year students like myself were some of the most anxious because any shift in supervision was extremely disruptive to us. A new supervisor might not like the framework we had been working on, or had a different way of doing things. A new supervisor might simply not have adequate time for intensive supervision for a final year PhD student due to prior commitments.
As the psychological burden mounted due to the review process, it was much harder for me to focus on my writing. There were days when I was unable to produce a word for my thesis. There were days when I only stared blankly at my computer screen. I was anxious and depressed and the pain caused by my chronic endometriosis intensified. I had to take days off from writing each month due to the unbearable pain. I had to see doctors, an acupuncturist and a chiropractor, all to help me manage the pain. In order to develop strong advocacy for students amidst the review process, a lot of time was committed to attending meetings. As a result, an extension of study time for myself and others became unavoidable.
International and domestic students also experienced their program extensions differently. As international students, we are unlikely to have the same support systems in place as domestic students. I was an international student receiving a fixed-term scholarship under strict visa conditions. The extension of study time meant that I had to find an alternative source of income and extend my visa.
Previously, my scholarship was my primary source of income. My visa conditions did not allow me to work more than twenty hours per week. Due to the mounting pressure of completing my PhD, I chose to not work during my final year, but it was not easy due to the review process.
The extension of study time also meant visa extensions for international students. Certainly, there is an option to finish your PhD offshore for international students. However, this option is often not feasible, as students will not have the same level of access to resources and will be absent from a stimulating academic environment. Thus, finishing the PhD onshore is still the best option. Yet, doing so means, in most cases, undergoing a visa extension process, which tends to be time consuming and expensive. It is not a simple process.
Applicants for visa extension must provide evidence of financial support, be it a scholarship, or personal funds. They must also undergo a medical check-up (which is not cheap) and pay for the visa processing fee, on top of health insurance. PhD students with dependents will also likely have complex financial issues as a result, having to spend a great deal of money on the visa extension process. The visa extension process can also take a lot of time – sometimes weeks. Sometimes the result of the visa application is not in the applicant’s favour.
Just like the recognition of study time extension, the visa-related issues caused by the review process was barely acknowledged by the school, or the university more broadly. Student representatives must advocate for the rights of students to get financial support for visa extensions vigilantly during meetings with the university. The psychological impacts of the review were also more intensified, as the review process did not take the experience of students seriously. At meetings with the school and the university, student representatives must continue to reinforce that the disruptive nature of the review process was very real. It took many meetings to negotiate and advocate for students’ rights, but in the end, the school agreed to fund an extra six months for PhD students seeking extension. In short, restructuring in a university is an ugly experience. The ramifications of the process are experienced differently by those affected. The different experiences of the review must not be undermined and must be taken into serious consideration.
