I wouldn't be arrogant enough to suggest I 'know it all' or some such -- but someone who's involved with my work (but not directly) has just sent me back a copy of some of my work that was handed to them to have a look at.
It's been absolutely ripped to pieces, but I think largely because they have entirely missed the point. I do a social science subject and there is this trend away from 'big models' but I'm trying to buck it and my supervisor and others support that. However this woman is into her 'micro micro micro' models. I was told I could only submit 2500 words and it was IMPOSSIBLE to do anything other than generalise.
Am actually very upset about this and think it is why my discipline gets absolutely nowhere... because they spend all there time saying 'grand models generalise too much there's this exception and that exception......'.
Am I being ridiculous?? I just think that comments that relate to not agreeing to someone's theoretical stance, which is held by a number of others, are somewhat extraneous.
It makes me seriously consider whether I want to carry on.

But this is inevitable, especially in the humanities isn't it? I know there are people in my dept who differ from me on the theory - and an absolute ton of them in the faculty. Perhaps you should discuss this with your supervisor. If her views are so different, there's probably not much point in getting feedback from her at all.

Unfortunately this person has a say in how I progress (upgrades/when I can submit/etc...).
Nightmare!

Oh that is difficult. I would go over the comments with your supervisor and think carefully about a reply. I have experienced something similar recently (being purposefully vague...) and I am somewhat anxious to hear who my internal is going to be

I don't want to sound mean as it's never pleasant to get this sort of criticism, but you are going to need to get used to this, if you are really trying to buck the trend. It will (I suspect) be like this when you try to publish too. You will have to engage with the people you disagree with on their terms, if their terms are those currently shaping your field. Smilodon's right - talk to your supervisor and see what he/she says - you might be able to address some of it via well-crafted footnotes showing you are aware of the potential objections to your model.

I have no problem with that, my main issue is I have no means of recourse. This report on my work goes on to other people without any opportunity for me to say 'but....'

Can you do a polite response to the comments--and ask your supervisor if that can be appended on to whatever comments there are, as the the work is circulated? For instance, if there is a clash of theory, your work should not be judged because you choose a theory that someone does not prefer--so long as YOU can show why your theoretical base and choice is appropriate then your work ought not be taken down simply because you use theory A and someone else has a bee in their bonnet about that theory, and wishes you ( and the rest of the world to use theory B).

Heavy sigh...I run into this with my own work, because I am using a research paradigm, theory, and method that challenges the mainstream approaches ( which in my opinion have huge shortcomings esp for the kind of research I am doing--and my choice is backed up by others in the field using similiar approaches--a huge part of my methods chapter is simply walking through this). I was challenged in a presentation once at my university about this choice...and ...just had to reply that there are many valid research paradigms ( Creswell give us FIVE!)

and the questioner's preferred theory/paradigm/whatever was not one that I felt was appropriate to my research question, and that based on xyz I had made a choice of another paradigm--a paradigm that is broadly accepted through out social sciences, etc, and acknowledged that while there are debates in the social sciences on the approaches, it was not the place of my research to solve those, or resolve those, simply to acknowledge them and to justify my selection, which I felt I had done. If the person felt ONLY their chosen theory was valid, then we would never reach accord, because epistimlogically and ontologically,

I felt that different questions and aims need different paradigms and methods...blah blah... can you write a response that talks about the episitemological and ontological base of YOUR chosen theory, suggesting that based upon those, your theory is the right one for the research? if you say epistimelogical and ontological, my experience is people's eyes glaze over and they give up the argument. And more importantly, it gives you a very solid base for discussing YOUR chosen theory if you can describe these qualities about it.