Long story short, I just applied for a PhD (which was actually offered to me, the application was to finalise things) with my chosen supervisor.

Upon receiving my application, my supervisor told me that he will actually be getting in two other people to co-supervise me; one person is from inside our department, the other is not. I don't know who either of these people are (thus I don't know if I want them supervising me). Personally, I am very fond of branching into other departments and making connections, but I am slightly irritated that I wasn't told this information prior to my application.

I don't think I get a choice/opinion in the matter. Am I justified in feeling irritated, or does this often happen with PhDs? Any advice is very much appreciated.

It seems to be quite common. I was told who my other supervisor would be, and it was someone my supervisor wanted to work with in the future.

However, if you feel the people are not appropriate, then do mention it to your supervisor and see what he/she says.

Increasingly it's compulsory to have more than one supervisor - it's considered good practice for quite a few reasons. If your main supervisor leaves the university, falls ill or you fall out with him/her then at least there's someone else familiar with your work. It's part of the deal and meant to protect the student so no need to feel irritated about it.

Thanks for your replies guys. It seemed to me like it should have been mentioned before, but I'm not really familiar with the norms. :-)

I think that the real issue seems to come in inviting the two supervisors to play nicely together! FWIW, my first MSc was facilitated by asking for a three-way meeting to establish who should be doing what. That way, everyone knows who does what and who you have to go to to something done.

HTH

Exact same situation happened to me on my first day. I was so confused that I actually made a point of going to each of my "new" supervisors to ask them if they were definitely my supervisor. Was a bit of an awkward conversation, but it cleared up any confusion. I am very glad to have them on board now. Their differing opinions have made my project more interesting and their contacts are priceless!

Good idea with the first meeting. I'll have three supervisors, so I think some plans of action are required! @Athena, I'm glad having more supervisors made it more interesting for you. It's definitely worth having different opinions, especially if they're seeing things from a completely different viewpoint. Only trouble of course is conflicting advice on a specific task... but hopefully that won't be too much of a problem!

I had 3 supervisors when I started my PhD (2 in academia, 1 in industry), and to be honest I saw it as a bonus. Each one provided something different to my project. For example, my main supervisor is the absolute expert in my field, so he was the one to go to for any tricky technical questions. My second supervisor was the one I could always rely on to actually look at my work and reply to my emails, so if I needed a response I would go to her. My third (industry) supervisor gave a different perspective on my work.
I can see why you're a bit annoyed at not being told, but I honestly think having more than one supervisor is a good thing. It also came in handy at the interview for the job I'm in now - they asked if I had any experience dealing with difficult clients. I said I had a great deal of experience juggling 3 supervisors who all had different ideas about my work, and I had to coordinate them all as well as making sure I got my own ideas across. They said it was a very good answer!!

I really would like to have multiple supervisors. My supervisor is abroad and other prof.s are at dangers drawn. It's far worse than just feeling lonely... I'm research assistant, working under the heel of swore enemies

Thanks Smoobles, I think I see it as a bonus as well, but yeah, being told would have been nice. :-) Also a good point regarding the interview. I guess trying to make three different supervisors see things your way is a challenge!

I'm sorry to hear that things are tough, eading. I hope things improve for you.

Silver.

Hi, Silver,

Needless to say the benefits you might have from having multiple superiors, I totally agree with other above.
I'd like to share a different view regarding to this issue. Often, the superior is the one who received research funds from public sectors and reallocate these money to his/her PhD student as studentstipend/scholarship. Of course, the one paid you wants you to do decent work for him/her, so somehow the PhD student shall follow this superior, not others who co-supervising you and less financially contribute. This is the reason why a PhD student needs to know where the studentstipend comes from. It might be a negative point of view, but, at least we should think about it. It is not about number of superiors, it is about what the project is, and how these superiors collaborate (including share funding and ultimate research goal) to each other.