Q:

Ditch Workplace Ethics or Quit PhD

During my last PhD year there were several disagreements with my supervisor. I am out of funding and got warned of being forced out of the PhD program if I disagree in the future with the supervisor or the terms and conditions, both related to research and timeline. The warning is based on fabricated narratives from the supervisor, the Faculty, distortion of evidence, attempted gaslighting and retaliation. They give the impression that they can force anyone out of the program either if it's with ethical or unethical measures, regulated or unregulated measures, either enforcing or undoing written agreements.
Some advisers have recommended me to just accept whatever they throw me on, don't risk the opportunity to get the PhD, and think this as a win-win situation. For me this sounds as more gaslighting.
Is there any point in going on with the PhD when neither the supervisor nor the Faculty trust in you and the suggestions of low chances for the thesis to be approved? Or would you ditch ethical principles and prioritize the degree on the CV?

A:

Since you have not explained the ethical principles you are purportedly being pressured to discard, it is not possible to offer an opinion on that matter.  In cases where there is a highly strained relationship between a student and the supervisory panel, it is often worth considering changing supervisors, or even changing universities, but this depends on a range of factors, including how much time you have already invested in your present topic.  The vast majority of academics are capable professionals who can proceed with work even in cases where the relationship with a student is strained, to it is usually possible to proceed if you wish to do so.  If you have been given a warning or other treatment that you consider to be unfair, you will need to decide whether to take action against this (through appropriate university procedures) or else accept that warning and continue despite your candidature in compliance with the requirements you have been given.
The main requirement of a PhD candidature (the only requirement in some cases) is to produce a dissertation that passes peer review by outside examiners.  This usually entails submitting and publishing papers during the process, to get peer review of individual parts of the dissertation.  It is usual that you would submit your dissertation to your own supervisory panel prior to it being sent out for formal review, so they can review it and give you feedback.  Ultimately, the dissertation will be assessed by outside examiners in the profession, and so long as you can produce work that is up to the required standard of these reviewers, the misgivings of your own supervisory panel ought not be fatal to the success of the candidature.  Having said  this, if your supervisory panel are telling you that your work is unlikely to pass peer review, this is an opinion you should take seriously.  Most academics have a lot of experience publishing academic work through the peer review process, and it would be rare for their opinion on this matter to be incorrect.

