PhD students’ relatedness, motivation, and well-being with multiple supervisors

Figures & data

Figure 1. An initial conceptualized model of student–supervisor PhD relationships.

Table 1. Derivation of the interview questions.

Aspect of the relationship	Source
Self-disclosure and contributory behavioral influences	Carson (2019) and Jiang et al. (2011)
Relational outcomes including power structure and reciprocity	Solano and Dunnam (1985)
Environmental contexts	Town and Harvey (1981) and Utz (2015)
Students’ well-being	Altman and Taylor (1973) and Ryan and Deci (2000)
Conflict including reservoirs of rewards in relationship’s history	Altman and Taylor (1973)

Table 2. Student demographics.

	Total N = 27
Gender
Male	12 (44.4%)
Female	15 (55.6%)
	27 (100%)
Age
Under 25 years	1 (3.7%)
26–30 years	4 (14.8%)
31–40 years	10 (37.0%)
41–50 years	7 (25.9%)
51 years or over	5 (18.5%)
	27 (100%)
Discipline^a
Accounting and finance	16 (59.3%)
Management	5 (18.5%)
Business law	1 (3.7%)
Marketing	2 (7.4%)
Interdisciplinary^b	3 (11.1%)
	27 (100%)
Enrolment year in the PhD^c
Year 1	7 (25.9%)
Year 2	7 (25.9%)
Year 3	3 (11.1%)
Year 4	5 (18.5%)
Year 5	2 (7.4%)
Year 6 or more	3 (11.1%)
	27 (100%)
Stage of completion
Confirmation	5 (18.5%)
Mid-candidature	13 (48.1%)
Pre-submission	4 (14.8%)
Submitted	3 (11.1%)
Completed	2 (7.4%)
	27 (100%)
Enrollment status
Full-time	15 (55.6%)
Part-time	12 (44.4%)
	27 (100%)
First language
English	12 (44.4%)
Other^d	15 (55.6%)
	27 (100%)

^aAggregated higher education statistics report that 3649 students were enrolled in Australian PhD research programs in the disciplines of commerce and management in 2018 (Department of Education Skills and Employment, 2019).

^bIn the context of this study, for these three students, their PhD partially draws on a school of thought developed outside of commerce and management.

^cIncludes full-time and part-time enrollments.

^dLanguages include Bengali, Hindi, Malay, Mandarin, Sinhala, Indonesian, Russian, and Lebanese.

Table 3. Supervisor demographics.

	Total N = 10
Professor	6
Associate Professor	4
Average number of years as supervisor	13.3
Average number of students supervised to completion	6.1
Discipline
Accounting and finance	8 (80%)
Management	1 (10%)
Business law	1 (10%)
	10 (100%)
First language
English	6 (60%)
Other	4 (40%)
	10 (100%)

Table 4. Students’ attributes.

Student attribute	Evidence
Autonomy	It was kind of unstructured – he listened to me and allowed me to lead my project … It broke down those barriers between a student and a supervisor … made it more kind of an equal relationship. Which is easier for me, he made it … friendly … I didn’t feel like … I’ve been told what to do. (Student O) Before you even say it, the meeting is … over. They’ve said what they wanted to say. I never got to say what I wanted to say. It wasn’t a discussion … He was so easily dominating everything … I went home and I cried. (Student G) You can tell that I'm very open and friendly, and so I just chat with them and find out about them, and just like I would be getting to know any friend … I want them to share their ideas, my role is to help them refine those ideas. (Supervisor I)
Competence	He was also not 100% sure about my abilities. So, he was a bit more authoritative … I was also not comfortable sharing my ideas as openly before. But now … he listens. So maybe now he has that trust … [and it] helped to lower down the power distance between us. (Student K) I don’t want to appear like an idiot … When at times we did have a meeting, I’d be more concerned with trying to suck out as much information from him and emerge unscathed. (Student H) The more I got to know about my field … Now, I know how to fight, and when to fight … very stressful in the beginning … I couldn’t sleep. (Student N) I have got a bit of a thing with a few of my students lately, I challenge them. I said, ‘I'll find a paper before you’ … this gets them going, thinking literally where else they can find their literature or knowledge on it. (Supervisor A)
Relatedness	He might tell me about the [family] holiday … it makes the relationship more comfortable because those are the kind of things that friends tell each other … So, I feel like, if I had a problem that I would be able to go and speak to him. (Student H) It doesn’t seem like he has a genuine interest in friendship or wanting to communicate much outside of the supervision meetings … [he does not] want to hang out and chat with me. It’s all very business. That annoys me because it’s not my style. (Student A) I do like to maintain that distance. I mean I see my research very much as a job. (Student P) Generally, we just talk about the academic issues … I’ve got a student at the moment, and he was here for two years before I discovered that he has four children back home. (Supervisor F)

Table 5. Structural (or contextual) attributes.

Structural (contextual) attributes	Evidence
Clear expectations	He [primary supervisor] said, just come and see me when you’ve got things you want me to look at … it’s bit unique. Once I want to do something, I would usually stick to the task and get it done. That’s just the way I am, and he didn’t really set dates or targets for me, which worked for me. (Student Q) I was frustrated, half of the meeting I was crying … my supervisors sat through with me … finally we agreed on this very simple framework. (Student I) I’ve got a more formal approach, setting of deadlines, establishing your boundaries – more delineation of what the supervisor’s role is and the student role. (Supervisor H)
Formality/Informality	Introducing me to his wife and the kids … I was so happy … I open up to him because the way he talks to me and advises me [in] a fatherly way. I got to know that he was really interested in my welfare and my family. (Student M) I’ve never met her outside [her office] … it’s just her personality I think … it’s very transactional and I don’t share anything with her. When I did open up a little to her saying I’ve got two kids and I need to go home … I started seeing that she started patronizing me. (Student G) I do realize that I come from that background … just recently, I felt bad that I just knocked [on] his door without sending him [an] email … In my perspective, I need to do it in a decent way like you send email and then he responds. (Student F) One of the things they’ll have to learn is that as academics we are basically equal based on the quality of our ideas, so it’s not so much a power gap that they feel … our task is to almost take it away. There are also cultural differences … making sure that that feeling of not being able to say anything you think is taken away and so that they have a free flow of thoughts. (Supervisor B)
Feedback	When she [primary supervisor] thinks that something should be done a certain way, she doesn’t force that, makes me get there in my own time. I do eventually realize that it’s probably right, what she suggested. But I need to think it through myself. (Student R) I do struggle to deal with his harsh feedback or trying to meet expectations. I don’t think I can. And I think I would rationalize them and feel better about those expectations and things that he’s wanting me to do if I knew him a bit more and had a closer personal relationship. (Student D) My lowest point … I had a lot of criticism on the proposal, which should have been avoided. Had my supervisor told me earlier, I shouldn’t have gone that far and now I have to redo a lot. (Student T) I think all the panels that I'm currently involved in, we've done that. We always make sure that there's a consistent message sent to the student. (Supervisor H)
Network size	I have two supervisors, two different people, two different age groups. So, trying to reconcile their views with my views is the key to a successful PhD project and outcomes … the younger supervisor has a fresher perspective, and he understands how I think. He is able to mediate when I don’t understand my main supervisor and explain both perspectives to both of us to make things clearer. (Student V) In a very formal meeting (three or more people), of course we won’t talk about personal stuff … If there’s any personal matter, I will usually talk one by one. I think it is easier. (Student E) Unfortunately, he [second supervisor] was also a very passive person … in the context of these meetings, because he didn’t want to create conflict … So, his ability to influence the process and help was limited … when we were just the two of us, he was pretty good. But that was very rare … a wasted opportunity. (Student A) I’ve always been against panels. I believe I would like to work with them [students] on their own … Having said that, maybe I am a bit of a control freak … having a panel is fine as long as you define them, or you bring them in when necessary. (Supervisor C)
Proximity	We walk together to the carpark … we talk about family or how life is going … once we needed expert advice from another professor from a different university, so he picked me up … I think that helped a lot. (Student M) There wasn’t that connection until I went to some international conference … we all stayed at the same hotel … much more interaction and discussion … But it was interesting to see [his] interactions with others … his friendly and inspirational approach, that’s his personality. (Student J) When it [feedback] comes in an email, it becomes harsher. So maybe face-to-face, it would have been a bit polite. But his writing at times … gives a stab at your heart. At least [for] one or two days I won’t be able to concentrate at all … I don’t think I’m suitable for [PhD]. I’m not good enough. (Student K) They come to my home, and we have lunch together and we talk about things … I’d rather do that in a closed environment home where we can engage in urban discussion. (Supervisor G)
Responsiveness and supportiveness	They never say that you need to do this, or you need to do that. It’s more like what do you think you should do? And of course, they will provide recommendations, but they never force … they give me a chance to show who I am in my writing … we are quite personal … they are very open to whatever I am doing. (Student E) It was nice to hear him support me out of the group, he kind of jumped in trying to defend what had happened, and then afterwards he said it’s okay, don’t worry. (Student C) It can create a bit of anxiety because you feel unsure about what you are spending your time on and where you are going … I think he assumes that if I don’t make contact with him, that everything’s fine … we end up with this lack of communication and struggle at the end trying to fix these issues. (Student A) You know what’s happening in their lives and they will open up to you … that’s a good thing because you know where they are. Sometimes you’ve got to provide support that goes beyond your capability. (Supervisor C)

Table 6. Supervisors’ attributes.

Supervisor attribute	Evidence
Availability	In the beginning, my supervisors were actually quite supportive of what I do and engaged quite a lot more. But towards the end … we just drift away from regularly meeting and engaged to hardly anything … seems like I’m not a priority for them. (Student U) I structure that and I have fortnightly meetings at the start. So, it’s always in the calendar … it’s something they work towards. (Supervisor C) I don’t hang around with my students because I’m a very busy person. I’d love to do more of that [social interaction]. (Supervisor A)
Prior experience	He [previous supervisor] was so dominating … I didn’t want that … he [new supervisor] is so gentle, so nice, and much easier to converse. (Student O) I draw back on my own experience, and I was very lonely … I did not want that to happen and that’s why we created this work group. (Supervisor G) This is what I learned from my earlier supervisions … my preference is to understand the person I’m working with, and meeting their families and so on … What can I do to help you achieve our deadline? … I discovered recently the student then thinks, well, I don't want to embarrass my supervisor because he's such a nice guy, and he's invested so much time. So, I'll do it for his sake, not for my own. (Supervisor E)
Quality of support	They encourage me to keep trying – will be so hard if you don’t get that emotional support … maybe they know there is no support at home. (Student B) Another PhD student went through a very rough time with their partner, and they divorced … So, you just check in on them to see how they're going. You also become friends with your students, but also in terms of concern for their being. (Supervisor H) I’m a very unemotional person and I find it hard to understand people who are having stress and mental issues … we have fortnightly meetings; we just talk about the academic issues. (Supervisor F) I think its dependent on the student as well. Some of them can take criticism well. Some can't. I have a very open relationship with my students. (Supervisor C) In an academic job of course, you have to develop a thick skin, including the PhD students. We are always getting reports back from the journal, which tell us that we're an idiot and we don't understand the field, and we can't write. (Supervisor D)
Responsiveness – favor a close relationship with the students	Sometimes I have a family problem, so I ask his opinion … I find that they [are] very accommodating in the way that they support me emotionally as well … if I have any issues, it will impact my studies. (Student E) Definitely has this ideal of a master and a student and so it’s a more perceived power gap. I try to lessen that gap … Typically they end up being friends by the time they go, I keep in touch. (Supervisor B) It’s more like a family supporting exercise … they [students] would understand—this is where he’s coming from and if you are having a bad day and look, yes, he’s having a bad day. So maybe I should probably talk to him about this thing again some other time. (Supervisor C) It's not a palsy chinwag. There's no reason to have [the meeting] anywhere else [other than the office], it’s a formal part of the job. (Supervisor D)

Table 7. Relational attributes.

Relational attributes	Evidence
Communication qualities Clarity (Comments 1 & 2) Efficacy (Comments 3 & 4) Regularity (Comments 5 & 6) Timeliness (Comments 7 & 8)	1. I would say they knew I was fumbling. They knew when to pick me up. (Student I) 2. If we have a conversation and I said something, he just stare[d] at me pityingly saying ‘why you think that?’ in a superior tone and said go and read this … I hate the feeling that I was going to be subjected to contempt. (Student H) 3. In project management, there was always a clear understanding of where I needed to go and what I need to do, I don't have that in the PhD. (Student A) 4. Each meeting is always around something that the student has produced, some written work and then based on that we would set goals for the next meeting. And then depending on the task, would depend on when it should be. So that’s the kind of rhythm we try to get into. (Supervisor J) 5. I told them at the beginning, I’ll need the meetings … but they don’t reply to my emails most of the time … feel so bad. (Student T) 6.So initially it's always left to the student. But if it's not working … then I think you've got to step in and just start scheduling more regular meetings. (Supervisor H) 7. We normally meet every second Monday … if I give her a chapter to read, you can see the level of detail, so she spends time … it makes me stick to the timelines. (Student R) 8.Quite often she'd be out of contact, and she wouldn't turn up to meetings, and she'll be out of contact for maybe a month. (Supervisor F)
Contributory behavioral influences Dispositional—task-oriented, formal relationship (Comment 1) Interpersonal—closeness, relatedness, trust, long-term research partnership, mentorship, easier to disclose further (Comments 2, 3 & 4) Situational – task-oriented, formal relationship (Comments 5 & 6)	1. If he was not from the country that I come from, I would have shared … I don't know how he would react to my ideology … he's very traditional, conservative minded. So that's why I try to keep my private life private. I don't want that to harm our relationship. (Student K) 2. I was privileged that he took me into his house, and he was showing me around like it was so personal. (Student M) 3. We often meet for lunch socially … I know he didn’t treat others the same … it made things easy for me. I even went to his son’s wedding. (Student Q) 4. I would love to be able to write papers with these people … it will generate a lifelong friendship. (Student B) 5. I don’t feel comfortable to talk to him [about personal issues] … he wanted me to extend [candidature] but I was not in a good position [personally]. So, I had to tell him what is going on. (Student N) 6. I feel that she’s very possessive of me. To the extent where when other academics solicit research assistant help or anything, I have learned to either turn it down or ask her permission first. (Student I)

Table 8. Relational outcomes.

Relational outcomes	Evidence
Reciprocity or relational breakdown	I will heat up with one of my students … you can see their face is red. After six months … these emotions disappear … it brings us together. (Supervisor G) I've developed closer professional relationships which is actually for the benefit of both the student and myself—didn't just publish with the student on stuff to do with her or his PhD, but continue to work with them. (Supervisor E)
Self-disclosure or withdrawal	She never took [an] interest and that’s why I never felt like telling her anything more. (Student G) I think he really guards himself from getting too invested into those conversations … makes comments in emails in response that seem somewhat heartless. (Student A)
Motivation and well-being	A father–daughter type power differential … I would have absolutely no hesitation in approaching him anytime, but I certainly looked up to him … and he showed fatherly concern for me. (Student S)

Table 9. Factors contributing to a relational breakdown.

Cause of breakdown	Evidence
Lack of goal congruence	Supervisor directing student to their area of interest i.e. He was looking out for himself and what's easier for him rather than investing his time in developing something that I was interested in. (Student O) There was a special issue in a Management journal – I was excited and my paper could have been published … and he [supervisor] goes, no you are not publishing it there. I was like why not? Because it’s not an accounting journal. I think it only gets counted towards his KPIs if he publishes in accounting journals. (Student C)
Lack of reciprocity	Lack of effort and time. He didn't have time. He couldn't remember what he told me earlier. (Student L) I would set up a meeting and he just wouldn’t be there or he would just walk out in the middle of the meeting. (Student H) Quite often she'd be out of contact and she wouldn't turn up to meetings, and she'll be out of contact for maybe a month. (Supervisor E)
Lack of shared knowledge	The passive role of the secondary supervisor. The associate supervisor, unfortunately … he was like a puppet. So, he was a coward [afraid] to speak up. (Student L) My supervisors weren't very critical. So they didn't give me that rigorous training. (Student C)
Lack of mutual respect	I asked him another question and then he asked, do you want to do this or not? So that was pretty offensive, I felt that he's not open to my input (Student L) ‘I didn’t have a relationship with him … felt the power … couldn’t trust him’ (Student O)
Withdrawal due to insufficient trust or confidence in the other party	Whatever I've typed out, she would go and use a red pen … Not much positive feedback. So, I felt that was also shutting me down, damaging my perception of myself. (Student D) The student was just not going to get a successful dissertation and the student wasn't willing to listen. (Supervisor I) I just had to bite the bullet and say look, I don't think I can supervise this person. I don't think this person can actually do a PhD. (Supervisor C)

Figure 2. Our conceptualized model of student–supervisor PhD relationships.

Table A1. Mapping of the student interview protocol with components of Figure 1.

Student interview protocol	Mapping to components in Figure 1
How often did you meet your supervisor? Where do you normally meet your supervisor?	STR – responsiveness, proximity SUP – availability COM – timeliness, regularity
How is your relationship with your supervisor? Is it more formal or informal? Was it natural for you to be comfortable about this degree of formality/informality?	STD – relatedness STR – formality REO – reciprocity or relational breakdown, self-disclosure or withdrawal, and motivation and well-being
Have you invited your supervisor to your home or have you been invited by your supervisor to his/her home? How did you feel about being invited to your supervisor’s house or party?	STR – formality SUP – responsiveness CBI – all three REO – reciprocity and well-being
Have you revealed personal information that is of a sensitive nature or emotional feelings to your supervisor (e.g. religion, family)? In your opinion, how important is it to share personal information or emotional feelings in a student–supervisor relationship?	STD – relatedness CBI – all three REO – reciprocity or relational breakdown, self-disclosure or withdrawal, and motivation and well-being
Do you think you have a unique relationship with your supervisor that goes beyond a formal relationship? If so, why?	STD – relatedness CBI – all three REO – reciprocity or relational breakdown, self-disclosure or withdrawal, and motivation and well-being
Do you believe that the level of disclosure has affected the closeness of your professional relationship? In what ways do you think closeness (or lack of) impacts your emotional well-being?	STD – relatedness, motivation CBI – all three REO – reciprocity or relational breakdown, self-disclosure or withdrawal, and motivation and well-being
Do you feel that you are more of an open person who shares personal information or are you more reserved? Do you think the level of disclosure from you reflects your supervisor’s personality?	STD – relatedness SUP – responsiveness REO – reciprocity and self-disclosure
When disclosing information, other than directly related to the research topic, do you or your supervisor feel more comfortable disclosing it just between yourselves? Do you feel more or less comfortable in disclosing information in meetings when there is a co-supervisor or chair present?	STD – network SUP – responsiveness CBI – all three REO – reciprocity and self-disclosure
Can you provide details of any high or low points that you have experienced during your PhD candidature?	STD – motivation, competence, relatedness STR – supportiveness, expectations, feedback, responsiveness SUP – quality of support, responsiveness REO – reciprocity or relational breakdown, self-disclosure or withdrawal, and motivation and well-being
Do you perceive that there is a power differential in your relationship with your supervisor?	STD – motivation, autonomy, relatedness SUP – quality of support REO – reciprocity or relational breakdown, self-disclosure or withdrawal, and motivation and well-being
Have you ever had a conflict with your supervisor? If so, how did it affect your relationship? How did you resolve the conflict?	STD – motivation, autonomy, competence, relatedness SUP – quality of support, responsiveness COM – efficacy, clarity REO – reciprocity or relational breakdown, self-disclosure or withdrawal, and motivation and well-being
Have you had any changes regarding your supervision arrangements? Did you change your supervisor? If so, why?	SUP – quality of support, responsiveness, prior experience COM – efficacy CBI – all three REO – reciprocity or relational breakdown, self-disclosure or withdrawal, and motivation and well-being

Table A2. Mapping of the supervisor interview protocol with components in Figure 1.

Supervisor interview protocol	Mapping to components in Figure 1
How often did you meet your students? Where do you normally meet your students? Is it in your office or do you normally meet over coffee or lunch?	STR – responsiveness, proximity, availability, formality, network SUP – availability COM – timeliness, regularity CBI – all three
How is your relationship with your students? Is it more formal or informal? Was it natural for you to be comfortable about this degree of formality/informality?	STR – formality SUP – prior experience, responsiveness REO – reciprocity or relational breakdown, self-disclosure or withdrawal, and student motivation and well-being
Have you invited your students to your home or have you been invited by your students to their home? How did you feel about being invited to your students’ house or party?	STR – responsiveness, formality, proximity SUP – prior experience, responsiveness COM – efficacy CBI – all three REO – reciprocity or relational breakdown, self-disclosure or withdrawal, and student motivation and well-being
Do your students reveal personal information to you that is of a sensitive nature or emotional feelings (e.g. religion, family, etc.)? In your opinion, how important is it to share personal information or emotional feelings in a student–supervisor relationship?	STD – motivation, relatedness, autonomy STR – responsiveness, formality, proximity SUP – prior experience, responsiveness COM – efficacy CBI – all three REO – reciprocity or relational breakdown, self-disclosure or withdrawal, and student motivation and well-being
Do you think you share a unique relationship with your students that goes beyond a formal relationship? If so, why? Do you encourage your students to open up with you?	STD – motivation, relatedness, autonomy STR – responsiveness, formality, proximity, feedback SUP – prior experience, responsiveness COM – efficacy CBI – all three REO – reciprocity or relational breakdown, self-disclosure or withdrawal, and student motivation and well-being
Do you believe that the level of disclosure has impacted the closeness of your professional relationship? In what ways do you think closeness (or lack of) impacts the emotional well-being of your students?	STD – motivation, autonomy, relatedness, competence SUP – prior experience, responsiveness COM – efficacy, feedback CBI – all three REO – reciprocity or relational breakdown, self-disclosure or withdrawal, and student motivation and well-being
Do you feel that you are more of an open person who shares personal information or are you more reserved? Do you think the level of disclosure from you reflects your personality?	STR – responsiveness SUP – prior experience, responsiveness COM – efficacy CBI – all three REO – reciprocity or relational breakdown and self-disclosure or withdrawal
When disclosing information, other than directly related to the research topic, do you or your students feel more comfortable disclosing it just between yourselves? Do you feel more or less comfortable in disclosing information in meetings when there is a co-supervisor or chair present?	SUP – prior experience, responsiveness, quality of support COM – efficacy CBI – all three STD – motivation, autonomy, relatedness, competence STR – network, feedback REO – reciprocity or relational breakdown and self-disclosure or withdrawal
Do you perceive that there is a power differential in a student–supervisor relationship? Are you comfortable with having a power differential or do you try to change it?	STD – motivation, autonomy, relatedness, competence STR – supportiveness, clear expectations, feedback, responsiveness SUP – quality of support, responsiveness REO – reciprocity or relational breakdown and student motivation and well-being
Have you ever had a conflict with your students? If so, how did it affect your relationship? How did you resolve the conflict?	STD – motivation, autonomy, relatedness, competence STR – supportiveness, clear expectations, feedback, responsiveness SUP – quality of support, responsiveness COM – efficacy, clarity REO – reciprocity and relational breakdowns and student motivation and well-being

Carson, J. (2019). External relational attributions: Attributing cause to others’ relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(5), 541–553. doi:10.1002/job.2360

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jiang, L., Bazarova, N. N., & Hancock, J. T. (2011). The disclosure‒intimacy link in computer-mediated communication: An attributional extension of the hyperpersonal model. Human Communication Research, 37(1), 58–77. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01393.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Solano, C. H., & Dunnam, M. (1985). Two’s company: Self-disclosure and reciprocity in triads versus dyads. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48(2), 183–187. doi:10.2307/3033613

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Town, J. P., & Harvey, J. H. (1981). Self-disclosure, attribution, and social interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44(4), 291–300. doi:10.2307/3033898

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Utz, S. (2015). The function of self-disclosure on social network sites: Not only intimate, but also positive and entertaining self-disclosures increase the feeling of connection. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.076

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

 Google Scholar

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. doi:10.1037/110003-066X.55.1.68

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Department of Education, Skills and Employment. (2019). Table 2.3: All students by level of course and broad field of education, full year 2018, Retrieved file:///D:/Downloads/2018_section_2_-_all_students%20(2).pdf.

 Google Scholar