You will be fine as they are looking for reasons to pass you. So as long as you explain your project/work so far and answer the questions competently they will be happy.

In my 1st year progression viva they asked about; general theory, why I was using these methods, had I considered some different approaches, what where my predicted results, could I also try this method, is this piece of planned work necessary and what is the impact of my work ( we even had a lovely chat about Arsenal's awful defence). They also corrected some minor errors from my 1st year report but mostly they seemed interested in my work. If you don't know the answer you can always answer with "I don't know but..." or "I haven't considered that opinion but..." .

I would just give the other professors as references instead. No point risking it.

Maybe do a literature review?

Seriously, keep reading and do a detailed literature review. It will help you find a theory or concept that binds your ideas together. Or you will find it isn't possible, then you need to make the project smaller. I am an engineer so might not be the best person to answer but doing a very a good literature review helps immeasurably with any research project.

Then stop giving him as a reference. Is there anyone else you know who would give a good reference instead?

Also how do you know he is not giving a good reference?

Mine was a 45 minute chat and that included quite a long chat about Arsenal FC. I don't think the meeting length is a good indicator at all.

Why are you afraid of them? Have they bullied you, have they been overly critical or are you afraid of their authority? I don't think you can address the phobia unless you identify the initial cause of it.

Though I am in a similar position with my second supervisor. Honestly it is more awkwardness than a phobia. But I think I have talked with my second supervisor 3-4 times in person during the last 2 years. I am socially awkward with people I don't know well and I hate making small talk with her. She is friendly, if not somewhat direct, but I don't feel comfortable. I occasionally email her and my main supervisor is good friends with her though I avoid having to talk with her in person to the extent, I avoid talking with her at all. My main supervisor knows about this and thinks it is irrational. I know I need to get past this barrier but I keep delaying it. If I were to do it again I would have gotten to know her better when I first started. So PaperOrPerish, if you have any good ideas please share.

Someone in my office asked the same question recently and got an unofficial answer. Allegedly at my university, minor corrections are to be accepted if a "genuine effort" is made to correct them. So as along as you try to fix all the requested corrections you will get passed.

Just for reference, I am in the UK and get £1200 a month. During term time I roughly get an extra £300 from extra teaching/marking (5 hours a week at £16.50 per hour) and have no mandatory teaching obligations.

Low pay is a typical part of a PhD and 1100 sounds right unless you are in an expensive city. I don't know how much it varies in other countries but I don't think you will get a much higher salary, unless the PhD has special funding. If money matters so much, I would recommend not to do a PhD . If you turn this down you will have turned down 2 PhDs and you will regret both decisions. You might be able to supplement your fellowship with extra teaching but 1100 should be enough to live on.

Hi Azhan,

Did they ask for corrections or any form of remediation? If it isn't too much, I would do what they say and learn from it. It is very common in academia to get bad reviewers who do not understand your research and there is nothing you can do about it. You can explain to them why they are wrong but it is usually easier to do what they say and move on with your life. If they are going to fail you it is entirely different but otherwise I would consider it a disagreement of opinion.

Small labs aren't inherently bad. As you said there a few reasons why it might be smaller, like administrative duties. I think the experience of the lab members is far more important. If the one lab member is used to publishing in high impact factor journals, they will be far more helpful than 4 team members who only publish in low-tier journals. Smaller labs let you do more varied work and do different things without encroaching on someone else's project. Though a 10 person lab group can do far more experiments or studies. So i would be paranoid if you want a high throughput post-doc. You will be fine regardless.

Do all the uni work you can do while looking for jobs. There is nothing wrong with quitting for a better job when the time comes.

I don't think many words will work but being there for her will. She is probably has massive anxiety and loss of confidence, I am presuming so correct me if I am wrong. So the worst thing you can do is focus on her PhD and jobs. So giving her some daily normality and things to look forward to is probably the best thing you can do.

That sounds awful and you have done well to get the publications and external grants. I don't think there is anything you can do except keep asking. If he mostly sent staff to the conference I wouldn't worry about that. As if you work is part of his deliverables he will want to promote it. Just be awkward with sharing slides so non-one else can present your work. I wish I could give you more advice.

If you are worried about not getting a certain level of guidance, consider your own strengths and weakness with regards to the project requirements. If you want general guidance you can choose anyone but if you feel you specifically want help with lets say disability studies, choose an expert in that field. There isn't a perfect recipe for choosing a supervisor, so go with the person who you think will help you the best. Also you can possibly get co-supervisors who can help with specific areas. I have a supervisor who only talks to me a bout section of my PhD as my main supervisor is utterly clueless about it.