Hey Sofi. It is possible that your supervisor is using a negative motivational strategy. Some managers take this approach. In my view, it isn't at all helpful. It just knocks you down instead of boosting your confidence. Personally I think it is a much more effective strategy to show that you believe in someone and give them some positive feedback. But some seem to think that warnings and causing anxiety will actually spur someone on to do better and be great. Maybe that works for some people...

Sorry this isn't advice as such - just an opinion. But I would say if there is someone you can talk to who IS more positive and motivating, and who shows that they believe in you, then this might help somewhat. Is there someone in your department - an academic advisor or similar - who might be able to encourage you in this way?

Whatever you do - don't give up! I could be wrong, but I get the impression from reading your thread that no matter how rubbish you feel it is going right now, if you were to quit now then in a month or two you would actually regret it.

Absolutely. But I am assuming this person is in between Masters and PhD or some such situation given that they are the sole author of their work. What is the situation Artmate?

And then he doesn't let you know... how helpful!

Hmm, I'm pretty open with my supervisors, and certainly wouldn't say it in a flippant way that might get their backs up. Anyway, being such a perfectionist, that just won't happen :D There may be one or two things I don't finish though or want to finish later. I'll just put a note on the document saying "to fill in later" or similar.

Rightiho. Thanks. I am going to aim for complete but if anything is missing or I don't have time to proofread or whatever I will notify them. I am asking the question partly as one of my supervisors commented that I was a perfectionist... I thought, hmmm... do they want a REAL draft then? I may ask what she means if it comes up again.

Unless you were going to ask them to contribute with some specific expertise - e.g., to do the statistical analysis/part of it.

I agree with Bombus. There is always a chance they have someone else lined up for the funding - but it would be impossible to tell based on when they invite you to interview. Good luck!

OK - maybe when you meet (it is harder to say no in person) you could push for some sort of time frame? I understand that this could be tricky though depending on what kind of supervisor you have. Maybe other people on the forum will have other advice.

Hi Hanginthere. Is this a situation where the supervisor has agreed get your feedback to you by a certain date? If no date has been agreed then I would strongly suggest that when you agree on a date to send him a draft, that you also both agree on a date for him to have got back to you with feedback. This is how it works with my supervisor. This way she has allotted to time to look at it and tends to get back to me on the date agreed.

That all aside, if I needed to chase I guess I'd do it on a certain day each week.

This is helpful - thanks chickpea. I think I will do that.

When sending your supervisors a draft paper or chapter or whatever, what does the fact that it is a draft actually entail? I suppose what I am getting at is - should it be proofread, formatted etc. Or is it literally a rough draft to get some feedback on and then do the final version later?

Hi butterfly20! I'd suggest don't put excessive time and energy in to the interviews - set an amount of time and energy that you are prepared to spend on it, do that, and then stop.

Re teaching postgrads. I have only taught undergrads, but I have experienced Masters teaching during my own Masters. The slides tended to cover a lot more ground. I remember thinking - we've had in two lectures at PG level for content that would have been spread over a whole module at UG level. But that doesn't mean cluttered slides/full of information. Just main points and the PG student then goes away and reads. Does that make sense? I would be happy to send you one of the Powerpoints from my course if you PM me.

Ah OK! It sounds like it wasn't quite what I thought! And re-reading what I wrote, I seem to have developed a bit of a micro chip on my shoulder! It is true that their expertise is needful and so we may have to put up with a few things we don't like!

I'd find it rather annoying too. It seems a bit silly to me... I like honest and face-to-face feedback, but I'd rather they spent the hour reading it and outlining several clear bullet points of feedback / or else give 5 minutes of clear verbal feedback.

Also I think referring to "her" or "him" when the person is sat in the room is incredibly rude! Even if it is saying "she's done a good job". We're humans not dogs! I think I find this kind of thing less acceptable from having worked and been treated with respect in the workplace before doing a PhD.

I think my point is - there's a difference between honest, critical, and face-to-face feedback and being rude.