So to explain my situation: I'm a PhD student (chemistry) at a Max-Planck institute, it wasn't really what I wanted to go for, but the project I really wanted to do lost funding, I was impressed by the reputation, and long story short: here I am.

I am working under a contract, which lasts 2 and half years, if I don't have enough for a thesis in that time, I fail. When I first joined I thought the project would be interesting, but it's not quite planned out the way I wanted. The institute does work very different to what I was hired for, no one really knows my field, including my supervisor; who I assume thought this would be easier than it's turned out to be, it's very hard to get support.
On top of that, he suggests lots of things that don't work, and then expects me to make it into something that does. I've written a manuscript for publication, but he now wants to turn it into something else. it's a very results-driven environment, and not having results doesn't bode well for you.

Now I'm 18 months in, my supervisor is difficult to get hold of, whenever I do get hold of him he gives me confusing or unhelpful advice, and the institute director is not interested in me. I have no teaching experience, no publications, no contacts who are experienced in the field I work, and I'm unsure if I'm going to have enough to begin writing a thesis in 6 months time. I am very unhappy at work, and nothing really seems to be leading to a conclusion.

So, what can I do? Is it possible to change to another institution since I'm bound to a contract? Or quit? And if I do what chance do I have of getting a position somewhere else? Does it "look better" if I quit rather than fail?

If anyone has been through anything similar, I'd really appreciate some advice.

Are you sure that you fail after two and a half years? Usually your funding ends, but you don't get fired. In my opinion, starting to write after 2 years is completely unrealistic and the people I know that were employed at a max planck institute (2, but not chemists) took 3 to 3.5 years for the lab work and then did another 6 months writing. Maybe that is different in chemistry but it sounds a bit strange to me.

I think quitting always looks better than failing. You just have to "sell" it, which is a bit difficult in this case. You are already working on that topic for 1.5 years, so people will assume that you expected to fail or that you were not capable of mastering the subject. If the topic or the group were the cause for problems, one would expect that you quit after 6 months or at least a shorter period. Of course we all know that it is much more difficult if there is absolutely no input but strictly speaking, that is also one of the challenges of a PhD. It should be your scientific accomplishment. But of course some support and advice is often necessary for success.

I would talk to the supervisor again and tell him/her that you are thinking about quitting your position. Maybe they don't realize the seriousness of the situation. Otherwise, apply for other PhD positions if you are sure that you can't make it.

Yeah this is a controversial topic, essentially the length and conditions of the contract/stipend depend on the institute director. Most Max-Planck directors give 3 years and then a further 6 months extension for writing, however they can in theory make the conditions whatever they please. There's a bit of controversy about this at the moment, in fact the society has actually recently agreed to standardize the length and payment type of PhD students within the society from July 2015 onwards, which unfortunately doesn't help me.

http://www.zeit.de/2015/13/max-planck-institut-doktorand-forschung - for reference, sorry it's in German. I won't name my particular institute out of respect for my colleagues, but our director enforces a 2.5 year rule.

I didn't quit after 6 months for a few reasons: 1) I was lead to believe that I would move onto another topic after some time, which I still haven't. 2) It took me a very long time to come to terms with the fact that my supervisor didn't really know what he wanted me to do. and 3) This PhD has enabled me to move and live in Germany, which I really like, and I didn't want to just give up on. Obviously none of these are excuses but it might give some idea of my situation.

Did your friends have some kind of advice-body in their institutes? And do you think I can apply (or at least ask) about other positions whilst still employed here? Talking to my supervisor is something I should do, but considering his replies when I talk about my work, I get put off talking about it.

Massive thanks for the reply by the way, any input is really genuinely appreciated.

I'm German and already read the article ;) It is definitely a step in the right direction. Personally, I think the funding should be sufficient to finance 4 years of Phd (including the writing), as this is what i takes most of the natural scientists to finish their thesis.

I have to say that the two post docs I know that did their PhD work at a max planck institute weren't really happy either. One got no first author paper out of it and the other one had a extremely pushy "junior" group leader and had a really hard time but maybe that is just a coincidence. Usually the standards are really high and the reputation of the institutes is good, so I don't expect it to be everywhere like this. There should be a contact person for PhD studets. Maybe you can ask around...might be a way to discuss such a manner discreetly and get a neutral second opinion.

I think you can apply for other positions but don't rush into that and try to talk to therespective "PhD authority" at the institute. I bet there is someone assigned for PhD students and they can probably give you the best advice in a situation like this. Talking to your supervisor might help to clarify things. A future supervisor will definitely call him and ask about the situation, so you'll somehow rely on what he says about your performance and the reasons you quit.

Ah! How convenient :P
Yeah I completely agree. It's not something I anticipated being this hard when I applied, but it's nearly impossible to do a proper research project in this time. I'm very happy this issue has been addressed for future MPI researchers.

Nice to know I'm not completely alone in this regard, several of my colleagues and my girlfriend (also MPI researchers) have similar experiences too. We generally have younger group leaders who are put under a lot of pressure from the institute director, and thus that pressure gets dealt out to us.
We have PhD representatives who are supposed to have correspondence with the society, but I'm a little worried it won't be completely confidential. Ie: if I say I'm thinking about quitting, who else in the department may find out?

I'm not entirely certain who the "PhD authority" is quite frankly, since we have contracts it's treated very much as a working environment, we don't have a particular department that just deals with PhD students. We are enrolled into a nearby university who deals with the paperwork and where we eventually defend our thesis, but we don't have much to do with them. They have a postgrad support service I believe, but my German isn't that good yet and most of these guys don't speak English, I guess I could get a friend to help translate.

Out of interest, if I decide not to continue in academia, how much might a future employer react to a failed PhD, or a supervisor reference that wasn't great?

I think nobody can predict that. Times are hard for natural scientists in Germany, as there are just too many people majoring in chemistry, physics and biology, while the demand of that expertise is rather low. Let's say it won't be an advantage ;)

I am not sure if this helps but 1.5 year into a PhD is not that long to produce any paper. I am sort of co-supervising a left-over PhD student from my former supervisor (long story) and she is in 5th year and has not published anything really meaningful but has some paper conferences. She is hoping to get published in 6th year. Needless to say, her funding was finished a year ago. So you still may have some chance to get good work esp in somewhere like PMI.

A story I often keep hearing. Thanks for your advice Dunham!

KimWipes - Yeah I have friends that didn't really get anything published until their 3rd and 4th years. The issue is that there's not really any kind of tolerance for "failure" here, we don't get extensions, if I don't get anything publishable in the next 5 months, I'm out, no PhD, no questions asked (or so my supervisor keeps telling me).
I think the issue is that it was a very new direction for this research and I was kinda drafted in as a guinea pig, but it didn't really work out the way we'd hoped. In any case it's nice to hear another perspective and to me reminded that I'm at least not completely incompetent. - Thanks for the input :)

It might be an "old" topic, however, it appears similar to my situation now. And I am also considering to look for another PhD position, although I am a bit "mature" PhD student already...however, I am not satisfied with my progress and am wondering will I really finish this by knowing anything in the end. 2,5 years might work if you have already been working on the similar topic and in the same lab. But when you change the country, don't know anything and are new to the topic, it can seem impossible. You would need to be really lucky or to have a PI who knows what he is doing. Are some decisions made or is there any update on you situation? Good luck.

Hey! Sorry I didn't get round to checking this thread earlier. Thanks for the luck and concern :)

A small update on my part: I decided to stay, mainly for financial reasons as I managed to run into some health issues over the past couple months. I didn't really progress much further, and 2.5 years has turned into 2.25 years thanks to the institute director. I'm writing my thesis now, and PhD or no I'll be finished around January. Not really too concerned about afterwards any more, I just want to get out of here.

Libra, the only advice I can really give you based on my experience is that your project and your supervision are much more of an influence on your progress than you are. Despite how it may seem: it's really not your fault.
Are you happy with your project and supervisor? If not, it may be worth considering what you want to get out of this. If you just want a PhD title and to move away from the world of academia afterwards, it might be worth just pushing through despite not being happy with what you've achieved. If you really want to be competitive, and you're fancying an academic career, maybe you should think about what your other options are. Reapplying is a long and arduous process, and once you've left one PhD unhappy, motivation to find another is scarce, just bare that in mind.