Hi Foxylady, your situation is not enviable.

My advice is to do whatever it takes to finish your PhD, and move on to better pastures (and people).

One way of looking at is that it gives your work a human touch. The only people who may notice it will be the handful of PhD studentds or researchers who need to read your thesis cover to cover

At a PhD level, it is assumed that the candidate has a good grasp of their subject matter, and the ability to acquire further knowledge. It isn't the role of your supervisor or faculty to provide you with courses or training to addess knowledge gaps. For research skills, that's another matter. Most universities provide workshops and seminars for postgraduates (e.g. how to review literature, put together a thesis etc). And of course, there is Amazon, which has some excellent books on the subject.

Apart from reading as much as you can (literature, text books etc), you could look for discussion groups on your suject on the web (e.g. Linkedin) - provided your work isn't too specialised.

First, you would be taking a big gamble by submitting without the approval of your supervisor. One of the best pieces of advice I've received from people who have passed and received their PhD is to do what your supervisor suggests.

Second, are you sure you can submit without the approval of your supervisor??

Check your university regulations. At my university, you can't submit your thesis unless your supervisor signs a permission form.

The reality is that the non-academic sector values work experience and a track record of delivering more so than having a PhD (at least in Australia). In my experience, personality and technical skills can be far better trained in a work environment, rather than from a PhD. A PhD can be a very isolationist experience compared to working in a proper team environment. In the latter, there is far more accountability (i.e. not just to yourself and your supervisor) and pressure to deliver, and there is an opportunity to not just better your existing technical skills, but to develop a broader range of skills than a 3-4 year PhD can provide.

What I'm getting at here is that people need to be cautious about having expectations that a PhD will give you all the skills you need to be competative in today's job market.

A PhD certainly trains people to become independent researchers, but not independent project (and people) leaders. It wasn't until I left academia (research fellow/associate roles) and worked in private industry that I attained some half decent skills and experience in project management. I suggest that you start off with a small project (or two), demonstrate to your employer that you can deliver quality work, and then take on bigger projects.

Anyone considering a PhD needs to fully understand how competitive academia is and that there will only be a handful of jobs at the end of it – which will be given to those who finish on time, publish papers, make good contracts, and have a well-credentialed/connected supervisor.

The purpose of a PhD is not to teach technical skills. It is assumed that a student is already technically proficient in a particular field before starting a PhD. You would be better off spending those 3-4 years working (e.g. in private industry) if you have aspirations to be paid well as a technical specialist, rather than be a researcher.

You may well go through 15 drafts, but the first 2-3 will involve the most work (major rewriting and restructuring). After that, the changes will become more trivial, and you will start to reach a point of diminshing returns. If you are the type of writer who cafefully constructs their writing and edit as you go along, then you won't need as many drafts as someone who produces a rough-as-guts draft which needs major rework.

EDIT: Sorry about the necro, didn't notice the date.

Sure, everyone goes through phases during their PhD where they are unmotivated and uninspired. However, sometimes to break through a rut, you just need to work through it, rather than try to forget about it. There is always something you can be working on during such a phase, such as data entry, which isn't depedent on intellectual inspiration. If it really is all too hard, then tatjana's suggestion about keeping in touch with your PhD through indirect means is a good alternative.

Many of us have been there.

Simply, you have to really want the PhD, and do whatever it takes to get it.

Lists, discussion forums, books, coffee chats - they all have their place, but you simply need to put in the hours.

Once you get to know the depth and breadth of the literature in your field, you can focus your attention on the key papers. Those are the ones that are worth reading slowly and making detailed notes over.

When I was compling my literature review, I would read a paper and make notes as as I went along. Sometimes, if the paper was particularly dense or techical, I would need to read it first and then make notes the second time. Once I had those summaries, I could translate them into organised text in the review.

It's much better to look for work while employed, than climbing the walls at home.

You still may have been stuck with major revision even if your supervisor did give you feedback. Examiners and supervisors aren't part of a borg-like collective that think the same. The link between your financial hardship and your supervisor not giving you feedback x years ago isn't strong, and wouldn't stand up in court.

As Biblo and the others suggest, do the revisions, get your PhD and move on.

Ideally you want someone who isn't regimental and pushing their research agenda at all costs (i.e. to the students), but not indifferent and distant. If you can get a supervisor who is somewhere in the middle, you will do well.

Having a good associate supervisor (or two) isn't a bad idea either, especially if they are well versed in some technical aspect of your thesis.