Introduction

Studies on school violence have been carried out in basic, intermediate and higher education institutions. The problem, considered multidimensional, multicausal, structural, grave and full of nuances and subjectivities, has grown in spaces such as these. For ^{Romero and Plata (2015)} , school violence is present in all schools with no distinction for academic level, regime, modality, context and geographic location. Men and women participate as victims, harassers and witnesses. The main victims are indigenous ^{(Ruiz-Ramírez et al., 2016)} and homosexual individuals, as well as women and men who do not follow the compulsory heteronormativity ^{Peña and López, 2011}; ^{(Saénz de Tejada, 2019)} .

School violence is reproduced by structural, cultural, social, familial or personal patterns; likewise, power relations are crossed by power relationships that cause discrimination and various sorts of violences ^{(Zapata-Martelo et al., 2018)} . In the sphere of universities, school violence is characterized by social and institutional practices which recreate power relations and unavoidably constitute a source of conflict ^{(Carrillo-Meráz, 2015)} . A problem in the study of school violence is its naturalization and embeddedness in culture because the administrative, academic or student community “normalize” it as acceptable or unavoidable behaviors ^{(Peña and López, 2011}; ^{Zapata-Martelo et al., 2018)} and consider school violence is part of habitus. ¹

At university level, ^{Ruiz-Ramírez and Ayala-Carrillo (2016)} , ^{Mingo and Moreno (2017)} , ^{Zapata-Martelo et al. (2018)} , and ^{Maceira-Ochoa and Medina-Rosas (2021)} report on aggressions via gender (exclusion, discrimination, sexist language and sexual harassment). ^{Zapata-Martelo et al. (2018)} show that 81.9% of the students has been violented in university. In postgraduate institutions, research works are scarce; only the study by ^{Peña and López (2011)} is noticeable; these authors found that violence takes place owing to the supremacy between subordinates (students) and superiors (councilors) and that involves subtle and masked aggressions.

For their part, ^{Méndez-Cadena et al. (2016)} report open insults, disqualification, verbal aggressions, ironies or threatening body language. ^{Peña and López (2011)} , and ^{Méndez-Cadena et al. (2016)} explain that students who receive a scholarship are more vulnerable because subventions are their only economic income and owing to this they do not respond to the aggressions they receive.

Education institutions are recipients of power, they exercise it and domesticate the students; in this way, the students reproduce the actions that subordinate them, recognizing and legitimating the power represented by the institutions. For ^{Hernández et al. (2015)}, and ^{Vázquez-Ramos et al. (2021)}, the school environment is the ideal space to exercise power in an authoritarian manner or by means of sophisticated and subtle mechanisms.

In this regard, ^{Bourdieu (2000: 131)} speaks of symbolic power, which “is exercised when power relations are not seen, in all the places of the social body, allowing the powerful to retain such power”. People who represent the institution symbolize power (principals, professors and administrative staff). In this regard, ^{Carrillo-Meráz (2015)} mentions that at school, professors have the power and they have to be obeyed; students interiorize such domination and abide by the rules, accept the exercise of power as a part of their training and aspire to eventually dominate. In this way, even though they are postgraduate students and professionals, they submit to the power of the institution, exposing themselves to discrimination, domination and violences.

^{Foucault (1991)} states power is built and functions on the basis of multiple factors, which configure relations of actions and intangible wills that are personally and socially interiorized. For Foucault (1999), power incardinates in the bodies of human beings; its visibility or invisibility depends on reasoning, behaviors, gestures, thoughts, representations and the individuals’ self-recognition. In like manner, he points that power strategies are imbricated into human relationships, which are multiform and have a conditioning and conditioned role; therefore, power is enigmatic, present and hidden, it is not known who has it, though who does not is. ^{Foucault (1988)} considers it is linked to authority and the capabilities and skills of those who exercise. For ^{Castells (2009)} , power is a relationship in which there is always a greater influence from an actor upon another individual. ^{Segato (2003)} explains that power practices have a goal that benefits those who execute them.

^{Morley (1999)} establishes that power relations in institutions occur because the bureaucratic hierarchy visualizes competence, power and domination. The author considers that the exercise of power may be open and recognizable, or complex and confusing; some of its manifestations are: sabotage, manipulation, denial of power, sexual harassment, intimidation, disparaging comments, gossip and sarcasm.

^{Segato (2003: 107)} calls moral violence power relations that are not visible; which entail “the set of mechanisms legitimated by custom to preserve systems that ensure the permanence of hierarchies”. For the author, moral violence is the subtlest and most efficacious instrument to control, dominate and reproduce inequalities; some instances of legitimated mechanisms are: derision, moral coercion, intimidation, censorship of sexuality and devaluation of women (their personalities, labor, psychological and intellectual capabilities as well as moral value are subjugated). In this way, moral violence refers to the oppressive behavior of tutors on the students.

These statements allow approaching power relationships in education institutions, since classrooms represent a small world where teachers and students concur, each with specific functions and different hierarchies, which are established on the basis of an individual that grades, rewards or punishes ^{(Hernández-Méndez, 2006}; ^{Maceira-Ochoa and Medina-Rosas (2021)} . For ^{Foucault (1984)} , docents exercise power upon students by means of disciplinary strategies such as surveillance, control, discourses, and exams. ^{Hernández-Méndez and Reyes-Cruz (2011)} consider that docents exercise power-knowledge, which manifests as control, subordination, domination, and repression.

For ^{Hernández-Méndez (2006)} , students as a whole have been domesticated for obedience and discipline. Bodies become docile when they are static in the chairs and do not make a sound; moreover, their aligning facilitates a panoptic vision to invigilate. In this regard, surveillance is a strategy of power and is defined as “the gaze that represses and coerces the students’ behavior” ^{(Foucault, 1984: 99)} . The strategies of power make use of violence, discrimination and domination regardless of schooling level; as ^{Castells (2009)} underscores, institutions are the main sources of the reproduction of the hegemonic discourses that maintain power.

Due to the foregoing, and because of a lack of studies at postgraduate level, it is important to research on such level. Therefore, the goal of the article is to analyze power relations and violence between tutors (thesis advisors) and the advised students, in the context of hierarchical relationships, in Institución de Posgrados en Ciencias Agrícolas, IPCA [Agricultural Sciences Postgraduate Institution]. The hypothesis is that there are acts of violence in postgraduate levels because the students have a subordinate position whereby they accept power and violence relationships from their tutors, since they are within a hierarchical and patriarchal power system represented by the education institution.

It is important to specify that in the tutor / student relationship, each of them performs various functions. The tutor is the person that guides the students over the entire academic term, coordinates research activities, advises on the draft of the thesis and scientific research articles. Hence, tutors are in charge of formally guiding the students so that they timely and fully cover the curriculum; the institution delegates them this function which places them at a higher hierarchical position. Meanwhile, the students’ role is to put forward a research topic, which has to be approved by the tutor; they also have to satisfactorily perform their studies so that they are eligible to receive (in Mexico) a scholarship from Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Conacyt [National Council for Science and Technology].

Materials and methods

To meet the stated goal, a nonexperimental qualitative research with descriptive and correlational scope was carried out.

Population and sample. The population was 663 students enrolled in 16 programs of Master and Doctorate in Sciences, which are comprised in Programa Nacional de Posgrados de Calidad, PNPC [Quality Postgraduate National Program], in Institución de Posgrados en Ciencias Agrícolas, IPCA, located in eastern State of Mexico. The sample was non-probabilistic, it comprised one hundred students (52 men, 48 women) and was not balanced regarding gender because the sex of the participant individuals was not controlled, as the students collaborated voluntarily. The students’ age ranged between 23 and 47 years of age.

Instrument to gather data. The information was obtained by means of a self-produced questionnaire with 44 questions (24 closed, 8 open, 5 multiple option, and 7 on a Likert scale) and was divided into five sections: 1 - Socio-academic data; 2 - School violence before postgraduate studies; 3 - Violence in postgraduate studies; 4 - Violence between nonpeers; 5 - Violence between peers. The present article is a product of a broader study, here we only present information regarding power relations between nonpeers, specifically, tutors and students who received advice.

For reliability, the questionnaire was submitted to be revised by experts in violences, harassment, gender, and education, for content validation contrasting goals and items. Later on, a pilot test was run with 10 students, who suggested changes in the drafting; finally, a Cronbach’s alpha reliability analysis was carried out and produced 0.822 out of a maximum value of 1, which, according to ^{Hernández-Sampieri et al. (2014)} , is reliable.

Data collection process. The research was transactional because the questionnaire was self-applied from July 2^nd - 27^th, 2018, in various places of IPCA (libraries, cafeteria, study rooms, gardens, classrooms, greenhouses, and stables); it lasted from 15 to 20 minutes, and the confidentiality of the information gathered was ensured.

Data analysis process. Univariate descriptive statistics and Spearman correlation analysis (0.05%) were utilized on Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) ^{(SPSS, 2016)} version 24. The answers to the open questions underwent a hermeneutic analysis and the results are shown as testimonies, which do not mention the students’ names to respect confidentiality.

After applying the questionnaires (July 2018), their compiling and processing and also drafting the article were carried out as of August 2021 because of two reasons: 1) from 2019 and up to June 2020, work was carried out for another research, the doctorate thesis of the first author; and 2) from July 2020 to May 2021, work was paused due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Results and discussion

Out of the one hundred surveyed students, 79% has a male tutor and 21%, a female one. Table 1 ² shows the relationships established between thesis advisors and the students in academic life activities.

The students indicate that their tutors frequently treat them well (69%), are kind (64%) and patient (63%), qualities the tutors need so that the students meet the learning and research objectives.

However, 49% of the students states that their advisors are not tolerant (30%, occasionally; 13%, seldom; and, 6%, always); so is expressed in a testimony: “little tolerant, doesn’t accept my mistakes”. Likewise, 37% of tutors is not patient with students (23%, occasionally; 9%, rarely; and, 5%, never); 36% is not kind (22%, on occasion; 12%, rarely; and, 2%, never); 31% does not treat students well (24%, on occasion; 5%, rarely; and, 2%, never).

Mistreatment is attributed to the bad mood of the tutor, as a female student wrote: “I’ve been told off, he treats me badly because of his mood and problems”. 52% of the tutors does not respect the students (13% mentions they rarely respect their opinions; 34%, occasionally; and, 5%, never). 43% of the students feels their tutors do not listen to them because they are working on their own academic projects and do not consider what students need. Owing to this, the students’ stance is subordinated, submitted and obedient.

^{Peña and López (2011)} , and ^{Curiel et al. (2019)} concur with the above, as they point out that violent relationships between professors and young adults are characterized by a discriminatory and prejudicial coexistence devoid of respect, which produces academic, mental and psychosomatic affectations.

An important aspect that contributes to the control of students is the economy; particularly, keeping the economic support from Conacyt as well as other institutional supports such as the annual IPCA support for the tutor to transfer to the students to use it on their projects; 10,000 MXN for Master degree, and 15,000 MXN for doctorate. 11% comments that their tutor never gives them any money; 10%, rarely; and, 17%, occasionally. That is to say, some tutors do not deliver such support because they spend it on their own research projects or on their participation in congresses.

The postgraduate programs that largely deny budget are Botany and Genetics, as expressed by two students: “He doesn’t deliver the research budget”; “he tells us we don’t need it, that’s our scholarship for”. 62% of the students does receive such resource, and the program in which this resource is delivered the most is Entomology and Acarology. As observed, not only do professors have academic control over the students, but also economic; which means, that indirectly, they also control other aspects of the students’ personal life such as support and maintenance. Professors know this and use the economic factor as an element of control and exercise of power.

As regards the academic aspect, at postgraduate level, the publication of an article that comes from a thesis research is required, and although it is part of the training, it is an element of prestige because it means it may be the beginning of recognition in the field of study; i.e., it means power. In this regard, 24% of the respondents stated that their tutors never give them due credit as main authors (4%), rarely (7%), and occasionally (13%). Despite the students carry out all the fieldwork or in laboratory, gather, capture, analyze the information and draft an article, the advisers downplay such arduous tasks. A female student expresses this as: “My tutor told me: I decided to be the main author because you drafted poorly and I had to redo it’. She did not consider that I invested time and money on the fieldwork, nor all that I had written and captured”.

Tutors have to accompany the student, and together they have to develop, draft, correct, and publish the articles; in this way, they nurture and develop the abilities of future researchers. This problem was exposed more frequently by students in the postgraduate courses of Livestock Rearing, Phytopathology and Water Sciences. 14% of the students did not answer this question, as they have not written a research article yet.

As regards lectures presented at national or international congresses, 31% mentions that their authorship is recognized (2%, never; 5%, rarely; and, 24%, on occasion). A female student wrote: “My tutor became the single author because I couldn’t go to the congress I have neither passport nor money”

This testimony shows that some advisers take advantage of the economic lacks of their students and take their research credits. Such circumstances occur more frequently in Livestock Rearing, Phytopathology and Water Sciences. It is worth pointing out that 18 students did not answer these questions as they have not reached this stage in their research projects.

In this regard, ^{Foucault (1991)} mentions that knowledge transmitted has a sense of repression and exclusion. From this standpoint, the tutors possess knowledge, experience, prestige, economic resources and institutional recognition, which the students do not have; therefore, power is in the hands of the professors and students have to submit.

The responding students (52%) expressed that their tutors deliver their observations and correction to their works in time; distinguishable in the sample are tutors from Forest Sciences and Water Sciences. For its part, 48% of the students mentioned that observations and corrections are not timely delivered, and they have to constantly insist in order to carry on with their research works. It was thus expressed by a male student: “he never has time for my work”. This testimony was repeated on a number of occasions by Biology and Phytopathology students. Likewise, two students expressed: “doesn’t show interest nor pays due attention to my research”; “doesn’t have time for me because [the tutor] has a post in the institution”. Because of this, 42% of the students feels their tutors are not available when they ask for help; such cases frequently occur in Phytopathology and Livestock Rearing.

The negative evaluation of the tutors’ daily academic activities is that they perform multiple tasks: teaching, tutoring, having bureaucratic activities, holding chair positions, reviewing articles and projects, conducting their own research, and lacking empathy and teaching-learning strategies. All of the above diminishes their human quality and performance as tutors; owing to this, it is fundamental they receive training in teaching strategies, learning styles, empathy, values, time management, among others.

Likewise, it was found that 46% of male and 14% of female tutors impose their criteria in research topics, mainly in Livestock Rearing, Phytopathology and Water Sciences; two students expressed as follows: “he is very prepotent and wants to do what he wants with my research”; “the tutor imposes his research agenda and blocks my potential as a young researcher”.

The advisers are figures of power in the institution and subject the students not only because of what they represent as professors, but because they are nationally and internationally recognized; they project their power upon their tutored and impose all manner of demands and pressures on them during the lessons, research and personal time; that is to say, they do not let them enroll to the courses they need or change their research topics. Two students expressed: “My tutor told me to chose another place for my research; or else, to look for another tutor”. “He wants me to take the course of… so a friend doesn’t lose that course”. According to ^{Segato (2003)} and ^{Varela (2020)}, the exercise of power does not imply impetuous actions, but behaviors with pretentions of legitimacy to preserve the hierarchical order of the system.

Adding to the above, 56% of the students states (22% rarely; 14% occasionally; and, 20% frequently) that their tutors demand they work on days off, on vacation, and at weekends. One student wrote: “They want to control you because you’re a fulltime student”. In this context, being a fulltime student is to be enrolled in one of the Programas Nacionales de Posgrado de Calidad, PNPC [National Programs for Quality Postgraduate Studies], which means commitment and exclusive dedication (i.e., no paid activities); however, a female student declared: “Tutors believe being fulltime [student] is being available 365 days a year”, therefore, power relations and hierarchy are heavily marked. According to ^{Peña and López (2011}, and ^{Méndez-Cadena et al. (2016)} , students that hold a Conacyt scholarship - for fears of losing the economic support - are vulnerable to suffering power relationships that imply violence. The postgraduate courses with the highest valuation are Livestock Rearing and Phytopathology.

Conclusions

The stated hypothesis was met because it was noticed that 39% of the students at master and doctorate in sciences holds a subordinate position, in which they accept power relationships and violent actions from their tutors, since the education institution is a hierarchical and patriarchal power system.

Power relations and violent actions produce and reproduce due to four reasons: 1) the supremacy that exists between subordinated people (students) and their superiors (tutors); 2) students have been domesticated so that domination becomes part of their habitus, not realizing it reproduces the actions that make them subordinate themselves, recognizing and legitimizing the power of tutors; 3) students need to keep the economic subvention from the grant, which places them in a subordinate position, owing to this they neither contest nor denounce aggressions; 4) tutors use the economic factor, their knowledge, experience, prestige and institutional recognition to control and exercise power.

The mechanisms for the exercise of power may be open and recognizable, though subtle, complex and confusing at once. The present research shows that students in postgraduate courses are victims of various sorts of violence from their tutors: psychological (being constantly angered), social (having favorites), verbal (uttering ominous comments), gender (excluding women, as they do not use ender inclusive language and making sexist comments), and online (sending threatening emails).

Postgraduate students have not put forward any sort of resistance to reject power relations because they accept domination in order to survive in the academic, research and personal-life spheres. The results of the present work are the tip of the iceberg as they disclose power relations and violence in postgraduate studies, as it is undeniable it shares some features in previous school levels and in other spaces such as the households, workplace and society.