I've never tried this, but i wonder what a question like 'how negotiable is the salary?' during the interview would yield?

I'm guessing that its something along the lines of it being good for one's academic career to have a PhD student to supervise, plus lecturers get time off undergrad teaching (ours get 45 hours per annum) to supervise a PhD student, and so if they don't put much effort into it, they're onto a winner. Sad, but probably true....

Hi 404,
I sympathise and have been there myself - i was initially given 4 supervisors, because the uni screwed up in allocation. It wasn't even as though i was being pulled in 4 different directions exactly, more the principle of the thing - i just felt i needed a tighter team with fewer hangers-on, if that makes sense?
I manged to drop one after my first year, but that was due to luck. My protestations fell on deaf ears because it suited the dept to give me four, although it didn't suit me.

we have to do at 24 months, although as that would coincide with the end of the summer, they've pushed the date forward so its by 21 months. So, to answer your question, its by time, rather than what we've done.
We have to submit 30,000 words for it, regardless of what stage of analysis we're at (i.e. i haven't even started analysis! gulp!)

My supervisor recommended David Lodge's books to me, as they're all about life in academia - I'm reading 'Changing Places', and its very funny and very true to academic life.

I actually put 2 entries in in such instances - if you look at other people's ref lists at the end of journal articles and whatnot, they often have an authored chapter in there as well as the edited book as a stand-alone, which I'm guessing necessitates 2 entries - then you can select which one (or both) you want listed on any particular output.

At least it sounds like others in your dept are aware of her weaknesses, so to speak. Could you have a chat with someone more senior about it? The fact that she needed say-so over an email to a participant sounds very extreme to me, and if thats typical of her supervision style, I imagine its going to be difficult to ever grow as an independent researcher and make decisions (and mistakes) on your own.
As comparison, my supervisors tend to let me just get on with it, and would probably be a little freaked if i cleared something like an email to a participant with them first....

I agree with BigDave - doing a PhD is a research-training for academic life, so it makes no sense for her to do your stats - you need to learn to do them yourself.
And not to put the wind up you, but i agree that its odd that she isnt keen for you to do them yourself. Is she a 'micro-manager' generally, or is she just being possessive abut this one aspect?

I agree, this isnt normal supervisor behaviour - it sounds like downright bullying. I agree with Goods, you definitely need to talk to someone, and you should check out your Uni's bullying/harassment policy while you're at it and see where you stand.

Following on from a recent posting regarding the 18-month stage, Ive noticed that there seems to be some real variation regarding what you guys are having to hand in for the MPhil/PhD transfer panel.
Im having kittens cos my Uni wants 3 chapters (ie 30,000 words) for my transfer panel, which seems a lot. Is anyone else having to submit this much?

Hello!
I'm 18 months into a full-time 3-year social sciences PhD and, while my supervisors say I'm making good progress, i don't know anyone else at this stage, so have no frame of reference. While I realise that all PhDs are different, i guess im just wondering where people are 'up to' at this stage - any chapters written? papers written? data collected? analysed?

It is your PhD, and you will be the one who has to defend it on your own in the viva. I imagine that a topic can be investigated using any kind of epistemological position - they would all probably illuminate different things, and if you can see good reasons for the post-structuralist approach, then it cant be 'wrong'. i actually don't understand their argument about not being able to prove its existence...isn't that the point?
Are they post-structuralists themselves? They may be resistant because they're not 'au fait' with post-strutural methods and debates, so would rather go with what they know. But that should be their problem to deal with and accommodate, not yours.

Hey dazednconfused (great film, btw) - i think youre dead right about using 'I' - your supervisors' point is inconsistent with your epistemology, so it might be worth arguing your ground - loads of thesis's which use the first person get accepted.

I'm dead lucky, in that all my supervisors are 'pomos' - i was originally a positivist when i started, and they've complete turned me to the dark side! So they're always on about my thesis structure (as well as it's methods & presentation) being consistent with the underlying epistemology. Otherwise i imagine the inconsistency would get picked up on in the viva.

Without wanting to sounds like a knob, i think it depends on your epsitemology. For example, i will be using the first person throughout my PhD, because I'm coming from a constructionist perspective and am therefore critical of any attempt to imply objectivity and distance by using the third person, as i don't think its possible.
But from a positivist perspective, objectivity is the aim of science, so i guess a third person should be more appropriate...?

Im at the 17-month mark, and all of a sudden it's 'booosh' - sooo much to do, so many deadlines and writing to do (preparing for transfer panel). Ive found that its the sheer amount of work that kicks in at this stage that is the hardest thing to deal with.