Disputes between doctoral students and their advisors
The relationship between the student and the research advisor can vary greatly. Typically in the humanities, doctoral students have informal relationships with their advisors; they might meet their advisors only once each month or a couple times per semester. Often in the sciences and engineering, doctoral students are supported by research assistantships, and they meet their advisors weekly or daily. Whereas doctoral students in the humanities have more freedom to define their research questions and conduct their research projects, students in science and engineering have closer relationships with the advisors and usually collaborate on publications that result from the dissertation. So the rights and responsibilities of the research advisor definitely depend on disciplinary practices and expectations.
1. In this case, regardless of the relationship with the research advisor, the student has apparently violated the norms of collegiality. Except in extraordinary circumstances (see my answer 3 below), students should negotiate for defense dates at which all members of the dissertation committee, including the advisor, agree to meet. A committee member who is out of town at the time of the defense could participate by teleconference call. Especially in the summer, when many faculty members travel, I have participated in doctoral examinations in which one committee member calls in.
2. At my campus, the chair of the dissertation committee can be different from the research advisor. So it would be reasonable for the graduate program director to be listed as chair. But listing the director as the research advisor, if intentional, appears to be dishonest.
3. I served as a graduate dean on my campus for four years. Occasionally a doctoral student and the student’s advisor would tell me that they wanted to replace an uncooperative committee member shortly before the scheduled defense. So I can imagine situations in which a student and a graduate program director might want to replace an uncooperative research advisor. Here the university official should serve as an “honest broker,” and seek a collegial resolution that places highest priority on the education of the student. The university official should first gather information informally. If necessary, the official might run a formal grievance process.
Little has been published on ethics standards for university officials. Springer will soon publish a new book, Ethics in Academic Administration in Higher Education. I contributed a chapter to this book.