Add citations straight away. Ideally use something like Mendeley or Zotero to find the right one, or if not leave a comment in word of what paper you want to cite.

Doing it at the end gives a worse result, and takes a LOT more time, trust me on this!

Whilst it means the project has not been a success, does it necessarily mean you can't get a PhD?

You have been given a hypothesis and data, tested the hypothesis, and disproved it. That is research, and surely should be enough?

I think you need to have a frank discussion with your supervisor and head of department about how you get from a negative result, to a PhD. Then if you want you can look at postdocs to continue research.

In short, it isn't great, but it isn't a disaster!

I'm very glad this has all worked out. Question the admin fee with the bits that were out of your control, and it'll get waived. if not, then what are the admin staff actually there for?

Good luck with the next steps!

Just to echo I think you have been very understanding, and seem to have done everything right.

Is there anyone else in a position of responsibility you can go and see urgently? Dean of the graduate school? Head of your college? And so on?

This is exactly the sort of situation extensions are meant for - completely out of your hands, and nothing you have done, but issues with a supervisor, with grave implications for you.

If it was me, I'd submit anyway. However circumstances are very different and individual

Good luck!

Hopefully not too late, but it sounds like a tough situation where you need some impartial expert advice.

Maybe speak to your potential supervisor or potential head of department? They should have enough of a gut feel as to how it all works, and be able to lay down a framework with your employer about how it would need to work?

4 years? Pah! I'd been out 8 before I started.

You will not know some things, and you will not remember the things that the young graduates know, who literally just finished learning the theory last year...

However you will be far more efficient, much more motivated (no lie in to watch Jeremy Kyle), more able to get on with people, and more able to think of dependencies. In short you are the one with the advantage.

My advice is spend as much time as you can getting back to speed with theory. Read papers, textbook chapters, and all relevant news, so you can at least know the context you will be working in. The specifics you will get when you start.

Oh, and enjoy it :-)

Depends on your area. I know a lot of people (statistics, computer science, engineering) who have gone to industry, loved it, and eventually moved back, having progressed further in their careers.

That said it doesn't sound like you are in a strong position, so should apply for all, and see where it takes you? Opportunities however are what you make of them - companies also differ no end, from the start up vibe, to huge conglomerates where it is more bureaucratic than a university!

Hello,

First post, but after reading this, I thought it worth adding to.

Anyway try and see this from your supervisor's perspective. You are one student they supervise, probably of 4. They also ahave a teaching load, papers to publish, and their own research to get done. You are about 8% of their time according to University calculations. They are also probably a fairly early career researcher, and haven't done lots of supervision or management.

They see they you are 1.5 years in, and by your own admission, have not got very far in. You are absent often, so they are suggesting you should be in the office where you might make more progress, and if not, they can see why.

If it was all going very well, I don't think they would care how you worked. I really don't think they are being mean, I think they are trying to help you as best they can. I would try following their advice, as there is a reason they are the supervisor and you are the one being supervised - a lot of experience!

Good luck :-)