Thriving Despite Difficult Supervision: Navigating Power, Gender, and Lab Challenges in Plant Science

/in , /by

It’s Monday morning. You start the week with a clear goal. Then, in a quick lab meeting, you are told that goals have changed, again. And now your monthly plan must be rewritten to meet new expectations. For the fourth time this year. 

It’s an exhausting cycle. People just shrug and say, ‘that’s how things are.’  

Maybe. But that does not mean it is harmless. 

Especially in plant science, where we are already juggling time-consuming experiments, funding pressures, and seasonal constraints. And on top of that, challenges like inconsistent supervision or, worse, harassment happen right in our labs. For early-career researchers, the pressure is even higher. Your funding, visas, authorship, and recommendation letters are often tied to one person (your supervisor). That power concentration also creates dependency.  

This post talks about the patterns that many of us quietly experience, tips on protecting yourself, and reflects on structural realities in institutions. 

 

Power and dependency in academic supervision 

Supervision in academia involves mentorship, but it can significantly influence access to opportunities such as authorship, funding, and future recommendations. Power in academia often operates subtly, and the messages may be communicated indirectly through statements such as: 

“You’ll need my letter for your next job.” 

“I’ll think about the contract renewal.” 

“Let’s talk about the authorship later.” 

 

Some researchers, especially women, experience additional expectations beyond the work itself. There’s this unspoken expectation to stay ‘easy to work with’, ‘cooperative’.  Raising a valid concern? You risk being labelled as too emotional. Setting boundaries? That might be read as a defiant attitude. Unfair how the same action often lands differently depending on who does it. 

For international scholars, it’s even more layered. Because visas tie you to your lab, relocation drains your savings, and being far from family means lacking an emotional support system.  

“Fear of academic retaliation or blacklisting often silences voices that deserve to be heard ” -anonymous contributor 

That fear isn’t irrational. And that’s why difficult supervision isn’t just a personality clash. It’s about power imbalance, whether we call it that way or not. 

 

Recognize the patterns: Sometimes it’s not just you  

Harmful supervision rarely looks obvious. It often creeps in quietly through repeated patterns. It hides inside moments like, 

  • A supervisor disappears during key phases, saying they offer “independence,” only to later criticize your “lack of initiative.” 
  • Micromanagement disguised as ‘I’m just looking out for you’, slowly eroding autonomy, especially when layered with subtle gendered assumptions. 
  • Repeated suggestions for ‘just one more analysis’ or ‘need extra data’ without clarity can make your manuscript feel never ready and success impossible. 
  • And then there are the quieter draining behaviours: 
  • Feedback focuses on tone rather than science. Women and international scholars often recognize this dynamic. 
  • Authorship agreements remain unclear until they matter. 
  • Unspoken expectations to work overtime in the lab. 
  • Late-night emails that gradually become normalized. 
  • Cold silence – making you question ‘Did I do something wrong?’ 
  • Ideas are dismissed based on who proposed them. 
  • Favouritism that is visible, but no one calls out. 
  • Conversations about you, but without you. 
  • Withdrawing empathy when you need it the most. 

None of these behaviors, alone, always signals abuse, and they can occur from individuals of any gender. Science is imperfect, and supervisors are human. But the patterns matter. Ask yourself: 

“Is this a single difficult interaction or a repeating cycle?” 

“Are similar behaviors treated differently across lab members?” 

If the answer is yes, the issue may not be your performance. It may be the environment. And once that becomes clear, the internal question should shift from “What is wrong with me?” to “What are my options?” 

 

Personal impact 

Over time, these toxic dynamics can affect you in several ways 

  • You may begin to doubt your competence 
  • You might isolate yourself, assuming others are coping better. 
  • You could work longer hours to prove your capability 
  • You adjust your tone as you anticipate reactions. You absorb emotional labor no one sees.  
  • You see burnout as your personal weakness 

“I lived some of these patterns and didn’t notice their full impact until I joined a […] lab that truly values DEI, respects everyone, and allows space to express feelings. That change […] helped me gain confidence in my abilities and voice.” – anonymous contributor 

You never truly realize how heavy something is until you finally put it down. 

 

Stabilizing Yourself – Practical Strategies for Protection  

Before you confront, you must stabilize. We asked members of our plant science community what helped them to navigate challenging supervisory environments.   

Carolina Rodríguez-Saavedra, a postdoc from México, reflected on something many of us underestimate:  

 “When choosing a research project as a postdoc, one of the most important things to consider is not only your interest in the subject, but also your boss’s interest. Look for a supervisor who allows you to be yourself and lets you advance at your own pace [..]”  

Another postdoctoral researcher at UNAM emphasized that – 

“Before choosing a supervisor, consider three key aspects: academic productivity, funding stability, and mentoring style. Examine how frequently they publish, whether they lead authorship or collaborate broadly […] Speak with former trainees.” 

Most of us could agree on this. Transparency and mentorship style matter as much as scientific excellence.  

 We want to share with you some useful habits for stability and self-protection   

  1. Clarify expectations early and often with your supervisor. Request written goals, timelines, and deliverables. 
  2. Document your work and interactions, including meeting notes, feedback, and decisions. Documentation is professionalism. 
  3. Maintain a detailed log of incidents (dates, emails, screenshots). This constitutes the foundation for any future legal or ethical counsel. 
  4. Familiarize yourself with institutional protocols and current labor laws regarding workplace harassment to determine when and how to escalate the issue beyond the laboratory. 

Most importantly, do not isolate yourself. Unhealthy environments could destabilize people, especially when faced alone. Seeking mentorship beyond your immediate supervision could also provide a valuable perspective. Engage with trusted peers, professional network, or external mentors who could bring clarity when your confidence starts to blur. 

 

When you decide to speak up – do it strategically 

Not every difficult situation requires confrontation, and not everyone who decides to confront faces the same level of risk. Because power, gender, immigration status, and institutional hierarchy mean the risks and the outcomes are not the same for everyone. 

Before speaking, prepare like this: 

  1. Assess the context first– Preparing for a difficult conversation requires assessing the context in which that message will be received. What are the power dynamics at play? How might your tone be interpreted? Are similar behaviors judged differently depending on who expresses them?
  2. Definethe issues clearly and factually– Before entering any challenging discussion, define the problem clearly. Focus on specific behaviors and observable consequences. For example, instead of framing the issue as a personality conflict, identify patterns: shifting expectations without notice, unclear authorship agreements, or inconsistent feedback. Naming behaviors helps prevent the conversation from being reframed as a matter of tone or attitude, a risk that disproportionately affects women and other marginalized researchers.
  3. Choosethe right timing and setting – Schedule the conversation in advance and always choose a private space for a constructive exchange. Never confront impulsively in public or hierarchical settings. That can escalate quickly and may leave some researchers more vulnerable to reputational consequences.
  4. Framearound impact, not intent– When discussing concerns, focus on behaviors and outcomes rather than intentions. Use ‘I’ statements for impact.  Instead of saying “You keep changing everything’. Just say, ‘When project priorities change without written confirmation, it becomes difficult for me to meet deadlines’. Thus, focusing on impact rather than character. This approach can reduce defensiveness and keep conversations professional.  Always push for clarity. Asking ‘Can we confirm the authorship plan?’ ‘Can we have an agreed timeline for writing?’ protects you from misinterpretation and creates accountability.
  5. Be ready for different outcomes – Not everyone will respond well. Setting boundaries respectfully becomes essential. For example, stating, “I will revise this draft, but I need written feedback before making further changes,” defines workable conditions. Often, marginalized researchers are penalized for assertiveness. Being aware of this dynamic means carefully choosing strategies and documenting interactions when necessary. 

 

Different situations need different approaches: 

Peer-level issues: Some conflicts, such as disagreements over task distribution or shared lab responsibilities, can often be resolved directly between peers. Addressing these early can prevent escalation and reduce resentment.  

Serious violations: Other situations require institutional involvement. Harassment, discrimination, physical intimidation, or psychological abuse are not interpersonal misunderstandings; they are violations. Attempting to resolve these informally may increase the risk of retaliation or dismissal, particularly for early-career researchers. 

“Science is inherently a path of endurance; however, intellectual resilience should not be confused with tolerance for behaviors that may be detrimental.”  -anonymous contributor  

In such cases, relying solely on informal conversations with friends or colleagues is not enough. Consulting formal channels such as HR or Title IX offices ensures that concerns are documented and addressed within official structures. Power imbalances can influence outcomes, and the process may be emotionally draining.  

 

Build a safety net ahead 

Building allies is essential in academia. Trusted peers, mentors outside the lab, or professional communities can provide perspective, validation, and practical advice during moments of uncertainty. 

Encouragingly, conversations about psychological safety, gender equity, and healthy lab cultures are becoming more visible within scientific communities. While progress is uneven, the growing recognition that supervision practices affect well-being marks an important shift. 

Final Thoughts  

Navigating conflict in academic science is not merely about communication skills. It is about understanding institutional biases and power dynamics, protecting your professional standing, and knowing when to negotiate and when to walk away. These decisions may look different depending on your academic position, but they are essential to surviving and reshaping research culture. Institutions must also take responsibility for supporting the well-being of their personnel and ensuring they have the resources to effectively address concerns before vicious cycles continue within their academic walls.  

No publication or academic degree is worth more than your physical and mental health. Science requires endurance, not self-erasure. 

“I have a great mentor who passed on to me the thought that science should not be done with a broken heart.”  – Malini, postdoc at Smith College 

Good mentorship exists. Healthy labs that value the human doing science exist. And when you experience one, you realize how transformative it is. If you are told that suffering is part of the process, it is worth questioning that assumption itself. 

 

Further Readings 

  1. Stone, D.,Patton, B., &Heen, S. (2010). Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most. (A foundational guide to handling high-stakes conversations. Particularly helpful for separating impact from intention, defining the real problem, and structuring productive dialogue). 
  2. Patterson, K.,Grenny, J.,McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2012). Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High. (Offers practical techniques for managing emotionally charged discussions, choosing the right timing and setting, and reducing escalation—especially useful in hierarchical environments like research labs). 
  3. NationalAcademies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018). Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (An evidence-based report examining power dynamics, reporting structures, and institutional responsibility in academic environments. Particularly relevant when assessing when to escalate concerns). 

 

______________________________________________

About the Authors

Montserrat Lopez-Coria

Montserrat is a 2026 Plantae Fellow, and a plant biology researcher with experience in industry and academia. She is passionate about science communication and education and is excited to contribute to the Plantae Fellows Program by creating accessible resources that connect diverse audiences with plant science.

Malini Muthu Karpagam

Malini is a postdoctoral associate at the Plant Physiology Arts Community Engagement (PLACE) lab at Smith College, Massachusetts, and a 2025 Plantae Fellows. During her Ph.D., she explored the impact of high-temperature stress on rice, and her transition to forest trees has expanded her understanding of plant physiology across ecosystems. Outside research, Malini teaches, creates science blurbs, writes blog posts, and enjoys working on art projects and traveling. You can find her on X: @malini_muthuraj.