Well, generally I don't favour using "wishing thoughts" and regretting what has been done. But I feel that I need to vent out with hope of reading soliciting words on your part. The "he" refers to my supervisor who was excited to accept my project of research on the very beginning. But throughout my thesis journey, he has kept giving comments on "objectives" of the topic. Unfortunately, these comments don't help me proceed or develop my work , they rather make me discouraged and trying all the time to provide justifications. At times of despair, I just say, I wish he hadn't accepted my proposal from the beginning. I know that no need to cry over the spilled milk now. I just feel so down and demotivated.

Hi there,

Does your supervisor know his topic and provides good, critical feedback?

I think that if the answer is yes, then you should not complain. It means that they are doing their job.

One of the things I learn while doing my PhD was to appreciate ANY feedback, positive or negative, and to simply put my head down and do the work.

Doing PhDs it doesn't make us 'special snowflakes'. You are still in the learning progress; and please accept the fact that your supervisor is trying to help.

Anything that sounds perplexing or complicated might indicate that you have no good knowledge of the topic yet; you will eventually get to appreciate your supervisor's feedback when, upon getting your PhD, you look back see how much you have learnt with him/her as a supervisor (talking from personal experience).

Does your supervisor know his topic and provides good, critical feedback?

Unfortunately, my topic doesn't fall within his specific field of specialization.

Here's the thing that I think a number students sometimes forget while studying for their masters/phd.

1) Your supervisor may never be 100% on your topic, but rather, will be 100% as to what makes for a good/sound argument (generally, not always the case). Not having a subject expert in your specific topic isn't actually disadvantageous. A good supervisor is one who can assess your work for its arguments, it's ability to provide evidence, it's reasoning and its writing. Neither of my supervisors were topic experts in my explicit field, but were familiar enough to provide sound supervision. I passed first go with minor changes that took like 2-3 days to do, assessed by examiners who were sound experts in my field of study.

2) The feedback you get will often sound harsh, not because your work is bad, but because academics generally do not point out what is good, only what needs work. What ever your supervisor points out, address it. This is important, they've highlighted something that could do with more fine-tuning, or reworking to make your thesis stronger. Your PhD is NOT the sum of your self-worth, you must learn to separate yourself from your work, something that of course, is very VERY difficult to do. But this is an important thing to do, because if/when you start publishing, you'll need to be able to incorporate and assess the feedback from peer reviewers. Nothing you do will be perfect, academia is about revision, again, and again, and again. I have chapters I revised maybe 10-12 times and papers that have undergone multiple revisions before publication.

3) As marasp suggests, you will not see direct results from the feedback. The PhD is first and foremost, a learning process. In a few years time when you reflect back, you will see how much you've learned and how much more advanced your writing and your critical thinking are.

4) You have to provide justification in Academia. Learn to 'over-justify.'