# data[].attributes.body
Case study

1. key factors
-they each had different expectations/preference at the beginning and didn't discuss this
-didnt resolve issues early enough in candidature
-one sided reporting by the uni supervisor (not including the industry supervisors concerns meant it wasn't noted properly)
-didnt have a discussion on publication policy/preference earlier that would have prevented mistake

2. how should they act differently?
- better planning from the start
- the student and 2 supervisors should have worked together better using a collaborative space such as padlet
- student should attend courses on IP and research integrity
- project planning including extra factors such as personal leave

3. what planning would you put in place
- regular meetings

# data[].attributes.body
Case Study

1. Communication
outlining of expectations/planning and setting boundaries
intercepting and monitoring of issues
lack of training for supervisor
2. by doing the 3 things above
3.  Create an action plan and follow up with weekly/fortnightly meetings between candidate as well as supervisor/ industyr monthly meetings

# data[].attributes.body
Case Study
1. Key Factors
a. Poor overall planning/supervision/guidance of student's work. Selective engagement.
b. No mention of strategic planning for candidature.
c.Lack of regular reports/updates to all invested parties.
d. No arrangement/oversight when supervisor on leave.
2. How should the players act differently?
SUPERVISOR -
-better planning meeting together with industry partner at commencement of candidature.
-providing better explicit opportunities to ask about concerns they may have, or to speak about their research concerns
-Monthly or quarterly reports request with updates on work done and work pending. Can be shared with industry partner.
-Meet with student to ensure you know that they are organised with tasks to do during your leave (prior to going).
-Better align goals of the work with all key invested actors.
-Develop a clear policy on authorship in your group.

INDUSTRY-
-should outline expectations/restrictions on publishing the work.
-should request regular reports
-should outline expectations

# data[].attributes.body
Used in the workshop

# data[].attributes.body
A CONFLICT BETWEEN STAKEHOLDERS[1] – a time for planning?

[1] This Case Study is based on the first.edu.au website, now supported by the Australian Council of Graduate Research Inc. Content on the First website is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, and is used here accordingly.

# data[].attributes.body
UTS example