What It Really Feels Like to Do a PhD in One of India’s “Top” Media Institutes
Prestigious research institutes are supposed to be places where ideas grow—spaces where scholars are encouraged to question, experiment, and contribute to knowledge without fear. That is the image universities proudly present, especially those connected to institutions recognized under the Institutes of Eminence Scheme.
When I began my PhD in a reputed media institute that forms part of such a university, I believed in that promise. I expected intellectual freedom, mentorship, and the opportunity to pursue meaningful research questions.
What I encountered instead was an environment where hierarchy and administrative power often seemed to override academic judgment.
This is my personal experience of navigating that system.
A Supportive Guide in a Difficult System
To be fair, my own research guide was supportive throughout much of my doctoral journey. He encouraged my research interests and tried to help me navigate the institutional requirements.
However, the difficulty I encountered did not come from the supervisory relationship itself. Instead, the challenges largely arose from administrative decisions and interventions from authorities above the supervisory level.
Over time, it became clear that even when a guide is willing to support a scholar, their ability to do so can be limited by institutional hierarchies and administrative controls.
For a doctoral student, this creates a deeply confusing situation: the person responsible for guiding your research may want to help, yet the system around them can make that help difficult to implement.
When Research Ideas Become a Problem
Early in my doctoral journey, I proposed research topics related to digital marketing and contemporary media practices—areas that are increasingly central to media studies globally.
However, several proposals I prepared were rejected over time. I revised frameworks, developed new theoretical approaches, and attempted to incorporate feedback wherever possible.
What made the process especially frustrating was the lack of detailed academic guidance from the institutional decision-making structure. Instead of constructive discussion about improving the research design, I was often told to “figure it out.”
Meanwhile, the six-month period before my scholarship evaluation continued to shrink.
At one stage, procedural changes were introduced that effectively prevented my supervisor from directly assisting me in preparing the proposal. Instead, I was assigned to work under the oversight of another senior academic for the process. Over the following months, this created a prolonged cycle of rejection and uncertainty.
For a doctoral scholar trying to establish research direction, it was an exhausting and destabilizing phase.
Administrative Power and Academic Hierarchy
The deeper problem was not simply the rejection of proposals—it was the way authority operated within the institutional structure.
In several situations, decisions appeared to be imposed from higher administrative levels rather than discussed through normal academic processes.
At times, interactions with senior authorities felt less like academic mentoring and more like exercises of administrative power. On one occasion, I was publicly reminded that I was “just a student” who should focus on following instructions rather than questioning them. The work scholars were doing was casually described as “donkey work.”
Experiences like this were deeply humiliating, especially when they occurred in front of faculty members and peers.
For a doctoral scholar, moments like these reveal how fragile intellectual autonomy can become when hierarchy dominates academic culture.
Heavy Workloads Beyond Research
At the same time, I was carrying a significant institutional workload.
I was expected to teach undergraduate and postgraduate classes for roughly 8–12 hours every week. Alongside this were conferences, seminars, and institutional events where doctoral scholars were expected to volunteer their time.
These responsibilities were treated as normal expectations within the system.
But in practice, they consumed large amounts of time and energy—time that could otherwise have gone into reading, writing, and research development.
Over time, it began to feel as though doctoral scholars were functioning as a flexible workforce supporting institutional operations while simultaneously struggling to progress in their own research.
What Happens When Concerns Are Raised
Eventually, I began raising concerns about the difficulties I was experiencing—both regarding the research process and the workload expectations.
The response I encountered was not an open academic discussion.
Instead, I found myself increasingly excluded from normal academic participation. For a period of time, I was prevented from entering parts of the campus and unable to attend classes. My scholarship payments were delayed for several months.
At the same time, rumours began circulating among students and colleagues.
As someone who had been teaching many of those students, the situation was deeply humiliating. When institutions remain silent during such moments, speculation often fills the gap.
The Psychological Cost of Institutional Power
Over time, the situation took a serious emotional toll.
What began as academic disagreement gradually turned into an isolating experience. People who had previously interacted normally began keeping their distance. Some quietly advised others to “stay away.”
For any scholar—especially one early in their career—such experiences can erode confidence and self-respect.
Doctoral education is already an intellectually demanding process. When institutional dynamics add layers of uncertainty and exclusion, the psychological impact can be profound.
A Larger Question About Doctoral Labour
Looking back, my experience raises broader questions about how doctoral scholars are positioned within elite academic institutions.
PhD candidates are expected to teach, organize events, assist with institutional work, and maintain academic progress simultaneously.
Yet their role remains ambiguous. At times they are treated as students; at other times they function as teaching staff or administrative support.
This ambiguity creates a system in which scholars carry substantial responsibilities while having limited institutional protection or decision-making power.
The Irony of “Excellence”
India’s universities increasingly seek global prestige through titles, rankings, and initiatives like the Institutes of Eminence Scheme.
But real academic excellence cannot exist without an environment where scholars feel respected, supported, and intellectually free.
When administrative authority overrides academic dialogue, the gap between institutional branding and lived experience becomes impossible to ignore.
The Individuals Who Still Make Academia Worth It
Despite everything, there were individuals within the institution—faculty members and staff—who treated scholars with respect and offered support within the limits of what they could do.
My own supervisor was among those who tried to guide and encourage my work, even when institutional structures made that difficult.
If I leave even a single star in this story, it is for people like them.
They are the ones who quietly preserve the spirit of scholarship in environments where hierarchy sometimes threatens to extinguish it.
Comments
Post a Comment