Hi there,
I was just wondering if anyone else finds that their supervisory team occasionally want to critic a piece of work you've written during a supervision meeting without them having previously read it. Maybe this is common and I just am unable to take criticism but I'm finding it really difficult to deal with feedback given in this face to face way. Has anyone else experienced this and if so did you find it helpful? Do you think I should just try and adapt to it or say I prefer a more traditional approach of written feedback? My panel are aware I don't like it. Thanks

My supervisers provide some written feedback but pretty much always give work back with extensive face to face feedback, sometimes individually and sometimes they do it together. Sometimes it includes the Graduate Research Coordinator as well.

I have learned not to take any of this personally and now, though it can be tiring and disheartening to hear that so much more needs to occur, it doesn't bother me much beyond this any more. I think you become used to it really. I find also nowadays in the late stages of thesis completion, I don't always agree with them but I try to take most of it on board.

Sometimes they all have a discussion about the work with me there, speaking about me in third person while I am still in the room. "She needs to do this" "Okay but I really think it would be better if she did that because she is saying blah de blah de blah". "Well I'm thinking that the examiners might read this and go...so she really needs to...".

It is hard at first, so you need to be a little kind to yourself when you are at the sharp end of this sort of experience. Take care and best of luck.

Thank you for your answer - yes this is exactly what I mean!! I find it really odd- I've never experienced this in any other area of work. I guess I need to develop a bit of enotional distance from my work and take it all a bit less seriously, I'm in defence mode now before I even get through the door!

Oddly, this is what I am being taught is the 'best' type of feedback in these lovely training programmes I have to attend in my job. Personally I think it's a bit of a joke. Feedback should be tailored to individual preferences. I prefer to have written comments on my work, then the chance to discuss these comments later. At that point, it's less intense because I've had time to reflect on those comments, not have had them all trust upon me at once. My supervisor gave me this type of feedback so I was lucky. If you just want written feedback, then that's what they should give you. You can then ask questions on it if you don't understand, or if you keep making the same mistakes then they can discuss it further with you.

We are being encouraged to do audio recordings of feedback for undergraduate students, rather than writing anything or having face to face conversations. I'm told that research backs up this preference, but I'm yet to have been provided with any such research, and it seems too much effort to find these for myself since this educational research is so far out of my field. Apparently this is also quicker to do, but again, that's a personal thing in my opinion.

I agree, I would rather be told it as is, I don't like people dancing around the point either. By less intense, I guess I'm thinking if it's written down I can go back over it later, with verbal feedback I will probably forget most of it and there isn't usually time to write it down as they are talking.

Thanks for posting your experiences. It's interesting to hear that you all find this type of feeding back in person beneficial at least to some degree, maybe I'll try to persevere with it. It seems to be pretty common, I guess it's quicker for supervisors. I think I prefer written feedback because it means they've actually read the work. When they first discussed my draft one supervisor said to me "take us through it" - I didn't really know what they expected, should I read it out or summarise each section?? Anyway it seems this is the way things are done so I'd probably better just get used to it!

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.

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!