Thanks abababa, that's helpful.

I completely understand your points (though I'm not expecting my supervisor to do things for me, and I've certainly done my own networking for contacts as my supervisor isn't an expert in my topic).

All I want is that if they say something that contradicts what I've read in literature related to my topic, to sign-post me to something that more I can read, in order to understand their point of view. Not just to say 'because it can't be'.

I'm trying to work on my research question and strategy - but when I try to explain my thinking and how I've reached conclusions, she interrupts, talks over me, and tells me it's wrong but with no rationale.

I sense there may be a difference of ontological position, she's very positivist, and I'm more critical realist/mixed methods. I also wonder if there are cultural differences in communication style - I thrive with a coaching style not an autocratic one. I've tried adapting my style to suit her's but I'm wondering where the 'meet me half way' point is?

I appreciate what you say about academics being overloaded. And whilst I see your point about the money going to the University not the supervisor; she did agree to supervise me. And the flipside of that is that I'm paying out £10,000's, and living off of my savings and loans. I'm quite prepared to do the work. I don't view it that I'm buying a PhD and someone else will do the work, but I do feel they should be trying to get the best out of me too. (I should say I started a PhD straight from Uni, but couldn't afford to continue - so I've come back to academia later in life - and my last experience was nothing like this - my three supervisors were fantastic - I met with them all separately, and it worked amazingly. This time they insist on meeting together so I get very little input from the highly supportive second supervisor because the primary dominates).

Hi all,

I'm a first year, self-funding PhD student. I've changed my initial supervisors already because we had very ontological perspectives. (And she wasn't great - told me I only got a place at uni because of her among other things)

My new second supervisor is supportive and lovely. I struggle with the primary. She regularly Interrupts me and tells me I'm wrong. When I ask her to explain more (so I can learn and understand), she'll say things like 'it just is'. I tried asking for more structured feedback but she cut me off and basically told me to suck it up. I'm not too proud to be wrong I just need a nudge to literature etc that helps me understand.

Most recently I wanted to include a little scoping study, because the area we are studying is different way of looking at something in the literature, and neither myself nor my supervisors are experts in this topic- but we have access to several published scholars. I'd like to interview them to check our assumptions and suggested this, quoting other well respected studies in my field that have adopted this approach.

She has told me 'no' but not said why (other than she doesn't think we need it). But I feel it gives me a better standing to defend the assumptions I'm making.

My question is.... can she force me to drop it (I'm not receiving any grants, funding or stipends)?

I nervous of kicking up a fuss, and it starting to look like I'm the problem child....

Hi all,

I'm a first year, self-funding PhD student. I've changed my initial supervisors already because we had very ontological perspectives. (And she wasn't great - told me I only got a place at uni because of her among other things)

My new second supervisor is supportive and lovely. I struggle with the primary. She regularly Interrupts me and tells me I'm wrong. When I ask her to explain more (so I can learn and understand), she'll say things like 'it just is'. I tried asking for more structured feedback but she cut me off and basically told me to suck it up. I'm not too proud to be wrong I just need a nudge to literature etc that helps me understand.

Most recently I wanted to include a little scoping study, because the area we are studying is different way of looking at something in the literature, and neither myself nor my supervisors are experts in this topic- but we have access to several published scholars. I'd like to interview them to check our assumptions and suggested this, quoting other well respected studies in my field that have adopted this approach.

She has told me 'no' but not said why (other than she doesn't think we need it). But I feel it gives me a better standing to defend the assumptions I'm making.

My question is.... can she force me to drop it (I'm not receiving any grants, funding or stipends)?

I nervous of kicking up a fuss, and it starting to look like I'm the problem child....