Hi everyone,
I'm after some advice about the limbo between submission and freedom. Despite trying to make sure it was organized well beforehand, I was surprised to learn when I handed in that my supervisor had not appointed an examiner. This is against university rules. A month on and I'm getting no responses from my supervisor (which is also going to be a problem for publications I suspect) and though the uni seem supportive, I think they are reluctant to push too hard. I'm worried as I a) do not trust my supervisor in the slightest and b) another student waited 9 months for a viva recently under the same supervisor. After fighting for 6+ years to submit I can't afford to drag this out any longer.

My question is - is this abnormal or am I just being paranoid? And secondly, if it's not normal, any advice for dealing with a supervisor who is unresponsive as soon as you submit?

Thanks! And thanks for postgraduate forum for keeping me somewhat sane over the past few years :)

Thanks marasp, I appreciate the advice. I understand where you're coming from re: disagreeing with your supervisors, and with the work in my other chapters I'm always happy to go with their advice as it's within their field, and they are the experts. Unfortunately this one is not in their field, and I'm certain their criticisms are coming from misunderstanding (perhaps my fault for not explaining it well enough). Fingers crossed I'll be successful in convincing them this work is sound as it is, as I'm definitely not writing the paper they want me to write (it honestly would be a very misleading paper if I did). It's good to know I'm not the only one who wouldn't write something I'm not happy with (others have advised me just to write whatever the supervisors want in order to get my PhD). Thanks again for your help and all the best :)

Hey,
That sounds awful and I'm sorry you had to go through that. I'm also international so know how stressful visas can be. Can you talk to any impartial advisors at the uni, such as a post grad advisor or international student advisor? Also I'm not sure it's always the case that your supervisors own your data, at my uni it depends on what paperwork was signed at the beginning. It might be worth double checking what your rights are, just so you know where you stand.

Hi everyone,

I'm not sure that there's any magic solution to this problem, but thought I'd ask the wider community anyway.

I've had a pretty rough time during my PhD. My supervisors are known for being difficult to work with, and the topic of my PhD is in an area outside of their expertise (they also happen to be highly critical of the field in general). I've been slogging through for 5 years now (with a 1 year break), and should be close to finishing. However, they have a habit of suddenly calling for entire re-writes of chapters (back to the most basic thing of changing the hypotheses and aims), and it's very hard to make any progress.

In the past I have backed down and gone with what they say (though this doesn't seem to help, they still end up saying it's boring, unpublishable, or plain wrong). However, I made a new contact in my field who is highly respected and wants to co-author with me. Together we've written a manuscript as my first chapter. However, supervisors have suddenly decided they don't like it, and again have called for a huge re-write, change of methods, analyses, focus.

That could be doable, but I feel strongly that the methods they suggest are wrong, and borne from misunderstanding as it's outside of their field. Co-author agrees, but I haven't told them that (they dislike the idea of me having any outside help). Not only that, but I feel the paper they want me to write is misleading and almost morally wrong, as it doesn't include my later work which changes the conclusions and implications.

I'm trying to defend my work and argue my point (respectfully), but am getting repeatedly shut down. Has anyone had a similar problem? I doubt I can change supervisors this late in the game (?) Would you publish a paper you feel is wrong and misleading, or keep trying to argue your point?