Hi all,

This is my first post and I come to seek advice on how I should approach my main supervisor about the infinite changes being made on my research, every time I have a meeting with both of my supervisors together.

I'm about to submit my first year's report to be upgraded to PhD status, and I still haven't managed to identify my research grounds, as I keep jumping from one area to another due to the advises I get from both supervisors. I want to know how can I approach my main supervisor and let himknow that I need to stick with one area that I can search in depth instead of touching the surface of multiple areas.

I'd like to mention that my second supervisor is great with the advises they provide, it's just that he started his supervision at the end of my first year, so they aren't fully aware of my research direction. And I honestly don't like the approach he's taking, as I don't have the background or knowledge of the area I'm being dragged into.

Many thanks,

Zd_Nomad

Hey there,

Your comment hits quite close to home. On my PhD I have three supervisors, and I feel as though I can never satisfy them all (as they often make different comments). Again, similarly to you 2/3 of my supervisors joined my team when I was about a year and a half into my degree and wanted me to go into a new direction which I wasn't comfortable/experienced in. I am now in a position where I am on probation, because I have had two failed attempts at transferring from Mphil to PhD level due to being unable to satisfy the criteria my supervisors have set.

Do you send your supervisors the same work and see them separately? If I were you I'd recommend trying to make your supervisory meetings group meetings, that way your supervisors will be unable to contradict each other. Ultimately your main supervisor will have the ruling opinion, but it would be wise to try and have group meetings from now on so that your supervisors are aware of what the other is recommending.

I hope this helps!

A.W