Alternatively, let your head of department or supervisor etc... know about your hardships or problems of surviving with kids.
(Hopefully, your supervisor will feel bad about your situations. This is better than he felt threatened and planning how to counter-sue you, or providing evidence that you were a weak student etc...)

If you are lucky, maybe someone from your university will raise funds for you or offer interest-free loans.

There is an article on FindAPhD about funding with charities:

Maybe this would be a better option for you? It saves you a lot of risk, possible legal costs, anxiety. You won't burn bridges with anyone and might still get the financial support you need. You are on a good path to completing the PhD while balancing it with child care, I cannot imagine that all charities would turn you down.

I'm not saying that your supervisors are in the right, they are not, and they have clearly provided inadequate supervision in your case. What I am saying, is that you cannot blame your supervisors for you having to do revisions. Ultimately, you are the one who thought enough about making those changes to email a supervisor that didn't reply, and then you chose not to make them. You couldn't have predicted necessarily that your examiners would pick up on this but they did. That's just the way it goes sometimes. Being bitter about it isn't helping you. You don't have many other options than to just make the revisions, and this will be easier if you accept your situation and stop thinking about retribution.

Thanks for all the replies that people are leaving, it is useful to think about the problem from different angles.

I think there is a general misunderstanding here that the supervisor and institution are on the same side, the situation is complex but that certainly is not the case as it is conveyed to me by HOD. I have complained already at the right time through the proper channels. I'm not interested in the supervisor getting a ticking off or doing better next time, not very collegial I know, but I am interested in the practicalities of how to see the revisions through which at this time boils down to money.

I am sure that the funding body would be interested to know that their funded students aren't getting even the minimum of support but I imagine that would be the sort of complaining that does burn bridges.

I have already looked in to as many charitable organisations as possible but every single one was out of bounds to me, despite being brought up in the UK, schooled here etc. I have a different nationality which precludes me from applying for any of the awards that I found out about already, but always happy to hear suggestions.

I wonder if anybody else has tried formal mediation for academic matters? I agree that it might be difficult to prove beyond doubt that no supervision meant a poorly turned-out thesis, (though this seems pretty obvious as I type) but I guarantee that the people involved know this to be the case and wonder if it might come out given the right context.

Additionally, when a student is given revisions of this nature they won't get another second-chance to submit, at the very least one might expect a supervisor to advise as to whether a thesis is ready for submission or not. In my case if anyone had looked over my work I suspect they might have advised me to defer and submit a better-prepared thesis. In fact this was the examiners' main comment; the thesis had potential (which I showed in the viva) but didn't seem ready. As such it is very difficult to see how I shouldn't blame my supervisor!

I think the key point to take away from this discussion is that pursuing any form of legal action is highly unlikely to benefit you, for several reasons:

1. You're extremely unlikely to win any case.
2. The process would be protracted, expensive and stressful (i.e. it'd be at great financial and emotional cost, and could delay finishing the PhD considerably).
3. Taking legal action against your supervisors would be career suicide, whether you're seeking an academic position, or wish to work in industry (either way you'll need references).

Nobody's saying you shouldn't feel aggrieved or let down. Nobody's defending inattentive supervisors, or poor supervision more generally. We're simply pointing out that you'll likely end up in an even worse situation than you are now if following your proposed course of action.

I think every contributor to this thread is on your side, even if the above comments are a form of tough love. As many have said, I think you should finish the revisions as quickly as possible, chalk this one up to experience, and move on. That's not an ideal solution, but it's the best you can make of the current situation.

Here is another perspective:
It is unfair to simply point a finger at one person. It is also possible that an university has certain system issues.

For example, students may have two supervisors. If one is busy or incompetent, then seek help from another. In addition, serious issues could also be resolved during Confirmation of Candidature or yearly review...
Some universities may encourage interactions among PhD students, thus they might even vet or discuss each other work.

In your case, perhaps the co-ordinator could re-assign someone to help you in this last stage.
Or internal examiner could be a bit more proactive under the request of HOD.
That is, your success is also dependent on the "system", not just ONE person or bad supervision.

Yes I totally agree with meanings post. It is probably no surprise HOD is on your side as they can point a finger at someone now external to the dept instead of addressing why your complaints through the proper Chanel were not overcome I.e new supervisory team or additional supervisor, proper records of contact between supervisor and student. If you took your case further I guarantee it would become about the system. Have they given you a new supervisory team for the revisions

It's a hard situation, grizzle, but at the minute you're the most vulnerable one in this picture, and the one with the most to lose, because your thesis still has to be amended and passed. In your position, I would try to set everything else aside and keep your focus on that. Even supposing it was straightforward to sue your ex-supervisor, I don't think time would be on your side in terms of getting the money when it was needed.

Here's how I would try to see the situation. Your ex-supervisor has undoubtedly cost you a lot in terms of support and guidance that was missing. If you spend the next while caught up in that situation, it's almost like his influence is being allowed to continue at this crucial time for you. The only way for you to take back any control and get a good outcome for yourself is to see what support you can get with your thesis at this stage, and forge ahead with that.

It's not a happy situation grizzle, and I wish you well with your corrections. Don't let them stop you from becoming Dr Grizzle :-)

Personally I think that it's the student's PhD, and they should take responsibility for it. Would legal action help your career? Plenty of people who have had to manage without funding!

Hi Grizzle, If what you say is true, that all you're looking for is to get your PhD, then do just that. You may not have been given the guidance you wanted earlier but you do have it now, so grasp that. Revisions are just part of the PhD process. Few students have funding all the way through their degrees. Everyone finds it difficult to finish and make ends meet, but you are, in fact, luckier than most because at least someone is supporting you. If you have the money, time and energy for a legal battle, then surely you have yhe resources to finish. Yes that's incredibly difficult but that's PhD-Ing for you...

To go ahead and sue, make sure you:

a. Don't want an academic career of any sort.

b. Aren't particularly keen on having references (I know this from personal experience after making a complaint about a Masters lecturer who was harassing students - I had the support of the head of school and student welfare officer in my complaint, but they backed off otherwise).

Enjoy losing.

d. Have plenty of money, time and energy you want to chuck down the drain.

e. Have friends and family who enjoy distress over a long period of time - and make sure you feel the same way too.

Your hOD may be supporting you because they want to get rid of or undermine your supervisor. Be careful, if this the case then that is their battle not yours. Don't allow yourself to become a pawn - you want that PhD..
don't you?

Ultimately, it's your decision.

EDIT: I just read all your posts and more attentively. Some people have to complete their entire PhD in your situation. I have had no funding whatsoever, for example. I don't think it's fair to lay the blame for your situation at the door of your supervisor. It's not that sensible to assume you will finish within the time allowed by funding, especially not with a brood of kids in tow. Casting around for someone to blame now won't remedy that, it won't make you look good either.

I agree with the majority here that legal action is unlikely to succeed. I am rather surprised that your department has not replaced your supervisor though and think you should press for someone to be appointed to help you with the corrections. Universities are well known as not being great employers, but they appear to be expecting their ex-employee to continue to work for them without pay, rather than accepting their responsibility to you, which seems unreasonable to me for both the ex-supervisor and you as the student.

Grizzle, your main motivation for suing appears to be that you need the money. This is never a good starting point for suing anybody, for whatever reason. You should primarily consider what the merits of your case are.

You should also at least consider that one of the main factors determining the outcome of legal proceedings are the financial resources of the parties. There is no chance you can do this without professional representation. And if your situation is as dire as you describe, you will run out of money to pay your lawyer long before your supervisor does.

As others have remarked, and as much as can be understood from your quite brief explanations, the "lack of supervision" you suffered from is - unfortunately - the norm in academia and not the exception. Supervisors not supervising, not answering e-mails, making useless recommendations, delaying everything etc., is something practically every PhD student experiences.

Also, if you sue, your academic career is over from the moment you file suit. You will never find another advisor anywhere else, period. That is the way academia works (again, unfortunately). And even when looking for a job in industry, there is the distinct risk that they may hear rumours you are the person who sued the academic supervisor for perceived "lack of supervision". Not a good starting point...

Finally, it seems you are seeking advice on the chances of legal success in your case using an anonymous post to a forum of grad students / postdocs. The only person who could give you this advice would be a lawyer with access to all the details (in particular available hard evidence).

Frankly, I hope that you did not use the same misdirected passive-aggressive style when seeking advice from your PhD supervisor, otherwise one might wonder whether the miscommunication was NOT entirely his fault....

Just a few more ideas:

1. The problem could also be related to the recruitment process of an academic. It is sometimes possible that a professor was recruited through connection or has "good networking"; not about his technical knowledge.

2. Alternatively, it was also the person who recruited your supervisor or the one who assigned you the supervisor that caused you having these difficulties. However, your supervisor was also under pressure to publish papers and to perform other duties assigned by the HOD.

3. A professor may have so much workload that supervision duty is not of higher priority for him to survive. In fact, your supervisor could be under pressure from the HOD before he left. Hope you will realize that the situation may be more complicated than it seems.

That is the rule, not the exception, in academia.



That is the rule, not the exception, in academia.

Until you finally submit your revisions, do not sue. You do not want to burn your bridges until your qualification is in the bag, even if theoretically any action should not affect your assessment. Afterwards, you may need references for jobs, so even then be circumspect unless you've nothing to lose.

I feel the same way about my treatment during my second post-doc, where man management of me was an interesting experience to say the least. I did think about action against my supervising Prof., but a legal battle over my treatment would have only hindered my search for other employment and been very difficult to prove. In that case, someone else had already lost an action against the same person. Universities close ranks to protect their own and proving anything becomes very difficult.

Ian