======= Date Modified 28 54 2009 23:54:56 =======
======= Date Modified 28 55 2009 11:55:50 =======
Hi all,
I am very disappointed and I'm under a huge pressure which makes me not concentrate on my work. This is because the extreme and bad supervision I have received during the last two years. I have two supervisors (first and second), but practically I have two (first) supervisors. This is because every one of them treat me as he is the only one supervise me. They both very criticise about every thing and they never say something good for my work (always receive very harsh feedback!). I hate our meeting because it seems for me as a de-motivated rather than supportive. There are many implicit contradiction between them (e.g. the second more closer to my subject and when we make some assumptions and have agreed about something, later on when I met the first (who is not interest in my subject) he said this is unrealistic and I wouldn't accept that:-(). To be honest, I'm getting lose my confidence daya after day!.

Anyway, I have started seriously to think about stopping my PhD with current supervisors and think to move to another supervisor in another university. I'm very hesitated to talk frankly with my current supervisors about the bad situation they put me in. The first insist to be involved and be the leader in the project (even it is not his own interest). This team of supervision has been suggested by the department and I'm really in cross of road .... either to move or to continue even I'm not optimistic because we all lose the confidence in each other (me and supervisors:-().
I feel that moving to a new supervisor may be better than contiunue with the current group of supervisors!

Thanks

======= Date Modified 28 Jun 2009 08:48:33 =======
======= Date Modified 28 Jun 2009 08:46:56 =======
Hi

Apart from the usual intellectual conflicts in a three scholar situation (supervisee-supervisor 1-supervisor 2), I do not see the problem you are facing. There are many who have supervisory teams who agree perfectly, and there are many who manage without that. It is perhaps usual that two intellectuals (especially if one is a non niche person) may disagree.

That said this does not mean that they are "extreme and bad" as you have put it! So, if there are other, clearer concerns you may wish letting us know of those.

Out of interest, is this a UK PhD? If so, perhaps also, your work needs to get some attention on the lines of grammar and phrasing. I was finding it a little difficult to comprehend some bits here above, smoothly. Others have taken offence at such a suggestion in the past, hence a clarification: It is impossible to do a UK PhD without writing a comprehensible level of grammatically correct things. You need not of course be Bernard Shaw, but I think there is a need to be able to express oneself *correctly* in the language.

So all I am saying is that part of the criticism you may be receiving for your work may be because: a) it is their task to criticize you, even when, and especially when the world outside their office says you are brilliant, and b) your work may not be meeting the legitimate standards of grammar and construction (and hence comprehensibility) expected in the UK.

I hope you do not get me wrong, (and I am not British, in case that helps!)

cheers and enjoy the lovely Sunday sun :-)

Bug

Have you actually said to them that they are causing this problem? you perhaps need to arrange a three way meeting so that some of these issues can be sorted, I expect they both think that what they are doing is for the best, some peole think that it is their job to make sure that anything that might be lept upon by an examiner is corrected at once, others may let it go and see how things pan out closder to submission. suggest that you need some more constructive criticism, if you don't tell them, they won't know! Don't give up just because of this, try to work through it. You don't really want someone who will just agree with what you have written, but on the other hand, a bit of praise sometimes helps the process along.

do you never have meetings with both your supervisors at the same time? it seems to me, supervisor A says one thing and then it is your job to go to supervisor B and convince him, that A agreed or suggested a certain line of work. This is a NO-WIN situation for you, it can only be changed if you insist on having meetings where both of them are present so that they can do the in-fighting themselves.
another thing, which helped me a lot with my 2 supervisors, is to write up a summary of the meeting after each meeting and sending it out to both of them or putting it on a wiki. in this way, they will always know on time what the other person said.

How close to finishing your PhD are you?

I'm at the end of second year. The average of graduation in my subject is 4 years. So, there is almost two years left. :-(

======= Date Modified 30 Jun 2009 05:43:34 =======
Hi Sari, Are you sure there is no one of your supervisors you feel you can finish with? Think if you can exclude one the two then which one should be out of this work? I would choose the supervisor who knows nothing about the subject. Other solution, Insist to make one meeting in the presence of both supervisors and explain your point and how do you feel discouraged. Write down you minutes after the meeting and send it to both of them so nobody conflict the other.
I always believe in communication as the best tool for any supervisor/supervisee conflict. If you tried the two solutions and still could not be productive then move to new supervisor but consider the years you have already invested before making such decision. In my opinion, changing the supervisor decision should be taken during or after the first year of the program and anytime when the student has the urge to quit the program due to lack of supervision.

Wish you all the best

Hang in there we all have had our down times

Hi Sari,

Do you have a progress review panel in place at your institute? Please arrange a meeting with them to discuss the feasability of changing supervisors at this late stage. They are meant to be impartial and there to address exactly these issues, and to help you complete your thesis.

I have gone through this personally so know exactly what you mean, but have taken it as one of lifes lessons... On ground level, you are the expert in your work - and you will have to defend your decisions by way of your viva - your supervisors are only there to advise, they may/may not be the experts they claim. And there will be times when you will completely disagree with them. Everyone will critisise your work, be it at conferences, meetings etc, but you will have to DEFEND your decisions. I found group meeting with my 'technical' supervisor followed directly by a generic meeting with my other supervisors very useful in this scenario. Please don't doubt yourself - you know more about the technicalities of your experiments more than anyone of them :-)

Hi Sari - You could try asking them if there is anything they can see that is positive in your work, after all, you do need to know about that too. Constructive criticism should not be entirely negative unless the work is entirely negative,, that would give students an inbalanced view of their work. I think PhD supervisors forget this sometimes, and just behave as if they are trying to recreate the worst viva ever for the duration of the PhD - with the excuse that they are getting you ready for that experience, of course.

As for your grammar, yes, Bug is right about your post, but only you and your supervisors know if poor grammar is an issue in your work. I know my grammar goes right down the swanny when I'm upset and writing personal messages (which is what we are all doing here - we're not writing articles, but sending distress calls).