Thank you ever so much for all the help... I decided to have a private meeting with my first supervisor and we had a super long discussion. It was hard, I think diplomatically for both of us. Although first supervisor did not say much in the meeting, I noticed a difference in the way our joint supervision meeting is conducted. First supervisor will say more things like, 'it's your project, why don't you have your say first', or 'tell us what you know about xyz' etc. It made it so much easier for me as I don't have to butt in all the time. Second supervisor seemed to just sit back and listen, with occasional comment. What a relief...

Thank you ever so much everyone for responding to a total stranger like me. To some extent it felt very lonely as the journey felt like no one else but my supervisors and me. Even supportive friends don't seem to be able to figure out this crazy thing called PhD process and academia culture. It's just so nice to know others have similar experience and are willing to give you the time... Much appreciated.

I'm just totally lost in my sense of direction. I began with a framework A, which second supervisor said B would be more fitting, and then C, and then D.... Now I'm at B, C, and D don't work, so what was wrong with A again? The device I have created apparently was good. But the writing up, there's such a fight as to how to frame the whole thing. As far as I can see, it should be straight forward enough to say, I want to produce device X because it allows you to achieve objective y. Find people interested in y, give them the thing and get feedback. Why do I need a theoretical framework for it?

If Dyson was to write up a thesis, how would he frame the problem? Is it in cleaning, mechanics, physics or ergonomics? But there is no question about the device is a nice idea and people like it. I'm so frustrated in the academic rigor of literature reviews and theoretical framework. The testing methods are all sorted, and everyone agreed the pilot results are good. Just so stuck in this framing business that I'm beginning to wonder if I should even continue.

Thank you ever so much for the advice. I'm also thinking defaulting back to first supervisor, but as second supervisor never misses a meeting, it is diplomatically tricky.

I have already complied with four wrong directions and kept reverting back to the very first thing I've said, albeit in a better articulated form to rule out stupid irrelevant theories. I guess my confidence in getting through is beginning to fall. Second supervisor's approach is 'can I make it fail'? His idea seems to be, if I can't think of a way to fail you, then no one else can. I see the merit of 'you need to look up theory xxx for your defense'. However, the journey of defense against all imaginable theories is much longer than my stipend allows. After all, I have yet to read a thesis that has no limitations. So why can't I just scope the thing and be done with like everyone else?

It is especially disheartening when it turns out he only knows theory xxx by name only, because he'd looked at it briefly during his PhD but abandoned it due to its complexity. The framework is not that complicated! When I pointed out 2 of his points are inconsistent with the theory, I had to back it up with a text book in hand. Then when I pulled out a load of papers to show 3 of my criteria precludes the use of xxx due to one of its inherent assumptions, he had to backtrack. Four times this has happened! How am I ever going to get through?

In as much as I moan about this, I'm worried about ignoring supervisor's advice, because there is also a chance that when their advice is really sound and mine downright stupid, I'd ignore it too. But this guessing game is hard to play...

I have a fantastic first supervisor whom I respect and trust. But by second supervisor seems to be the over confident incompetent sort. I'm only making this judgement because he never seems to tell me anything constructive. Most of his responses are, as he says, gut feeling. Always looking for ways to criticize, which is fine by me, but it cuts when it's done with I don't like the sound of it at all. I think it's just too philosophical to my liking etc. Whenever a suggestion is made, he is very vague. He'd come up with names and words but hides behind the curtain of not spoon feeding me. after taking out 12 months of programming tasks which I had to do on my own, I officially had 6 months input from this guy and so far, four of the suggested framework, which he persuaded my first supervisor that it's a good idea to look at, all four were found to be unsuitable. As I found out everything by myself, and questioned him on the details, he couldn't recall a thing. Four times now first supervisor said I don't have to use the framework if I'm not comfortable. But what I'm annoyed is, second supervisor automatically rejects everything I do. Thus far, he has not made a single suggestion that actually passes my scrutiny of details. To date, I'm 18 months into my PhD, and still he wouldn't agree on any if my suggestion. Each and every time rejected on the basis that he's not comfortable with it or can't see how it would work. The crazy thing is I'm in a PhD program where it mixes human computer interaction with psychology and education technology. So no one is going to be an expert in all three areas and be comfortable with every theory going. I feel like I'm in a guessing game, trying to plough through every imaginable framework to please him. Is this normal? I will add second supervisor is an obvious extravert who has just completed his PhD a year ago and had admitted to be nervous about having to be first supervisor for one PhD student.