Quit PhD, change supervisor or suck it up?

[bathsh3ba]

Sorry in advance if this is long.

I'm in the second year of a PhD in social sciences. I am also a single mum in her late 30s. I did my undergrad degree a long time ago but did an MRes before my PhD and got a Merit (annoyingly less than 0.5 off a Distinction).

At the beginning of my PhD my supervisor left to join another university. She has stayed on in an advisory capacity but I barely hear from her. I was allocated another supervisor.

In my first semester my new supervisor had 2 months off sick. I had monthly phone contact with my external supervisor. I'm doing an article based thesis and that first semester was all the time spent on theory but with little guidance or discussion of research questions. I raise a concern, it is fobbed off. I thought that we were going with what I put in my proposal.

Supervisor comes back and we are straight into article 1. I find her abrasive, she never has anything positive to say, only 'this needs much more work'.

We get to two months before my transfer/confirmation report is due and I start working on it and on finishing article 1. 2 weeks before due date both my supervisors say my research questions are not feasible, I need to change them. I am too upset to question it. I do my best but I'm sinking into depression due to this and other factors.

I have my confirmation viva. I pass the oral, there are lots of positives but I need to resubmit report and article with a better considered theoretical framework and adjust methods for one article. Resubmit in 6 months.

I regroup, finally get some mental health support. My supervisor disagrees with my suggestion as to how to focus on revisions. She thinks I basically need to redo Y1 in 6 months, redo everything. Today she emails me to put in writing her concerns about progress and that 6 months is not long enough to do this work.

I don't know how much of this is me and how much her but I'm stressed beyond belief. Surely it is at least partly a failure of supervision I am in this situation?

What do I do?

How is your PhD funded?
What are the rest of your supervisory panel like (you would have 3 supervisors on panel at my Uni)?

It's research council funded. I have 3 supervisors in theory but my 3rd supervisor is in another department and can only help with certain aspects. My second supervisor is the external one who moved away.

I just don't know if I've completely misunderstood how much guidance I should have got in Y1 but I feel like I have been thrown in at the deep end and she is just watching me drown, in all honesty.

Going back to redo parts is not unusual. Especially the first year's work (yes, the whole year, but usually you can do all the work in like 4m not the original 12m). It's frustrating, but common, maybe some kind of 'normal'.

Bad PhD supervision infuriates me & sounds like that's what you got.

There should be a process for you to complain and get support outside your panel, mediation even, but really you have to decide what you want to make that process useful. I don't think you'll feel good about abandoning. The real problem is... how can you be sure that a revised research question will be viable enough & supported? Who can give you that assurance.

My confirmation examiners didn't query the research question(s), they said the theory was underdeveloped, my first article needed more detail and my proposed second they had a concern about the method. But they also said it was an interesting topic, promising research area and could make a real impact. So I don't know if I really do need new questions. I think I will ask to see my Director of Studies in January.

None of this sounds too bad to me, especially things like supervisors moving or a couple of months off sick. It's annoying, but it's life. My first supervisor left and wasn't able to continue in any advisory capacity, and it is another bit of stress, I know.

I wonder if you're letting that and your supervisor's manner get in the way of seeing the positives? TBH it sounds as if you're doing fine. You passed your confirmation viva. You had lots of positive comments. Obviously things are going reasonably ok.

It is totally normal that feedback in academia comes as 'this needs more work' or 'this is not good enough'. It could be your supervisor is just accustomed to this and doesn't filter for her students, or it could be she wants you to get used to knuckling down after a bad review, because it's a skill you'd need to develop in her line of work.

It does sound as if you could have used a bit more tact and kindness, but I definitely think going to your Director of Studies for a good chat and some reassurance ought to help. It might be they can suggest ways for you to make sure the communication between you and your supervisors flows better, and you don't end up feeling so blindsided by their comments.

I didn't pass confirmation. You have to pass the oral and written components and I passed oral but not written. So in 6 months I could be chucked out.

You could be, but you have corrections to make, right?

You did not fail.

You could raise the question, with the Director of Studies, whether your time taken for mental health reasons should be considered as an ongoing concern (ie., whether you should have longer to make corrections).

I think just talk to them, tell them all the things you're thinking, but keep emphasising that what you want is to know how best to carry on. If you mention things like your supervisor being ill, it might sound like a laundry-list of problems?

Another email today highlighting how concerned they are that I'm not further along. They still want me to focus on changes to article 1 which is less important than changes to the confirmation report. It is really clear they don't think I can do this and they are covering their backs. Just sick of it.

I think it would be useful for you to talk to your Director of Studies about expectations on both sides - what your supervisor's role is and what you can expect of them, but also what your role is and what is expected of you.

To be perfectly honest, most things you have raised don't seem that bad or unusual, but the one thing I would question is that it does not seem to have been made clear to you how the supervisor-supervisee relationship should work and what is expected of a PhD student, and that discussion should have happened at the beginning of your first year.

It is your PhD and it is up to you to take charge of it.

If you want to discuss your research questions in a supervision then you need to tell your supervisor that you want to do that. My students are expected to produce an agenda before every supervision that tells me what they want to focus on. This allows me to prepare, but it also makes it clear that they are in charge. I will advise and support them in such a way that they end up with a PhD, but ultimately it isn't my PhD.

As a supervisor, if I think something needs more work, it is my role to tell the student, because otherwise, they won't get their PhD. It would be far more unkind of me to let them think their work was of a suitable standard only to find out much later that it really isn't.

If I think something is not feasible, then again, I need to tell the student. Not necessarily to change it, but to give my opinion with the expectation that they will then go away and investigate the feasibility further. I am advising them, not telling them what to do. You say that you don't know if you really do need new questions, based only on the conflicting advice of other people. What do you think? What evidence do you have that your questions are feasible? What research have you done that has led to those questions? Why are your supervisors saying the questions are not feasible and what can you show them that might change their opinion (if that is what you believe to be right)?

On your confirmation report, your supervisors may well be right that you should be focussing on your article. The confirmation report is basically just a formal record. It should demonstrate that you have been making progress and that your plans for the rest of your PhD are feasible. In reality, if you are not making progress, it can be suggested to you that you should leave at any point, irrespective of whether this is at the time of your confirmation report or any other time.

Instead of dwelling on the negatives and whose fault it is, think about what would help you to carry on, concrete things that you could suggest to your supervisor or your Director of Studies. Do you need someone to mediate between you and your main supervisor so that you both have an understanding of what you want and expect? Would it help you if your responsibilities and your supervisor's were set out more formally? Would it be useful for you if both your internal supervisors attended your supervisions (I find joint supervisions tend to be a bit more good cop / bad cop, which can make the meetings seem less critical)? Would you like someone else from your department to join the supervisory team or to act as an outside mentor or sounding board? Do you need additional support or adjustments in light of you mental health issues?

It is in no-one's interest for you to leave. It is damaging to your department and your university and disappointing for you, so focus on how the situation can be improved.

I am going to talk to my Director of Studies in January but ultimately I think what I want, which is for my supervisors to admit they share responsibility for me failing confirmation with me, will not happen.

It does not feel at all like I am being given advice. If I don't do as my supervisor 'suggests', she simply refuses to look at it.

Do not quit. That isn't even an option. If the track record of the current supervisor is good then that may sway your decision. Otherwise is there someone you can discuss this with. I have a PhD and I know the importance of a decent supervisor - especially when the going gets tough. Can you talk to the Head of Dept and ask advice?

Sorry - I hadn't seen your latest post OP as I was typing. Sorry

How does she know you're not doing what she suggests if she won't look at it?

That doesn't sound great but I also don't understand how it would be happening.

I think, though, you're on a hiding to nothing expecting them to share blame. I do see them don't sound as if they're perfect, but you haven't described anything that sounds to me like them being at fault (as opposed to it being a clash of personalities and a difficult situation).

It's really trick as there is often a bit of a culture of 'I suffered, and therefore you should suffer too' in academia. So people will say 'oh, I had awful PhD supervision, so you should learn to expect it'. That's really shitty.

But, you need to separate out what you think they actually did wrong, and what you would like to change, from the rest of it all. Otherwise the HoD is going to struggle to know what to do to help.

I know it might be partly low mood talking here but, seriously, why would my uni or supervisor care if I quit? They would just blame it on me not putting in the effort, since that's what my supervisor thinks.

Academia used to be my safe place, now my last safe place has been taken away, or that's how it feels anyway.

Surely they should have been clearer about expectations and raised concerns before the very end of Y1?

No, they really will care. It looks very bad for a PhD student not to finish. It's not just a trivial thing for them.

Academia isn't your safe place, and it's not healthy to talk like that. I get why you might feel that way (I had a rough time personally during my PhD, and I felt a huge sense of respite when I went into a supervision and could spend an hour distracting myself from it!). Of course it should be 'safe' in the way any workplace should be, but it's not 'your' safe place in the sense that anyone owes it to you to make it a personal refuge.

I agree it sounds as if people could have been clearer on expectations, earlier on. And obviously the issues with changing supervisors and a supervisor having a brief period of illness will have contributed to that. But I think most PhDs involve a period of feeling confused early on. I don't know anyone who thought everything was perfectly clear at the end of the first year.

Sorry to hear you are going through this OP. Previous posters are right, you haven't failed the transfer report, you have been asked to do revisions - this is entirely normal at every stage of academic life - we fully fledged academics are regularly told by journal editors and reviewers that our much loved articles need more work. When the process works well it results in a better article/book/thesis than you could do without the guidance. Clearly, at the moment, it is not working well for you emotionally so that needs to be addressed.

I'm not clear from your posts whether you have been handing written work in every month and whether your supervisors have been reading and commenting on this. I always ask my students for this and the most common problems tend to be not writing/struggling with the work. You don't sound as though you are struggling, other than with the request for revisions.

Being asked for revisions is emotionally incredibly tough. I always advise early career researchers to read their feedback, put it away in a drawer/email folder, then curse, moan and complain all they want. A week later go back and re-read. By this stage most people (me included) start to say, 'well, that's a fair cop' and 'maybe I could have been a bit clearer'. The academics on your transfer panel are not saying your work will never be a PhD, they are giving you suggestions to improve it.

Frankly, if you would feel happier/calmer/more secure doing the transfer panel first, tell your supervisors and do it. No-one wants to drive you into being a gibbering wreck.

Will you be doing fieldwork as part of your PhD? Is that already planned/set up or is it entirely theoretical/second datasets? You do not mention that so I assume that aspect was fine.

I suspect this may not be as bad as you think. Speak to your Director of Studies and good luck

Students not finishing or not finishing on time can affect the number of research council-funded places the department and the university receive. It also affects the REF in a minor way. That is why there is so much emphasis on your progress.

But ultimately, it is your PhD and it matters (or should matter) more to you than anyone else. You can have 1000 people to blame and 1000 reasons why you haven't got your PhD, but in the end, you will be the one hasn't got your PhD. That is why it is important for you to look forward at real things that could help you to get your PhD, rather than to look backwards for people and circumstances to blame.

Academia is not your safe space any more than Tesco would be if you were employed on the checkout there. You are there to get something done. If you aren't doing it, aren't doing it right, or could do it even better, then people will tell you. If you need support to do what you need to do, they will offer it to you. That is their responsibility to you and to their department. It is not their responsibility to keep you happy at the expense of what you need to do.

I agree that they should have been clearer in their expectations. But that is water under the bridge. Set those expectations up now, so you can move forward.

All is far from being lost. You didn't fail your confirmation, you were asked to revise the written part - something that is far from unusual. You need to consider the feasibility of your research questions. Again, it is far from unusual for this to be something people have to do. The first year of a PhD is usually a time of testing, refining, reflecting and that isn't a problem, it is just a step on the journey to getting a PhD. Sometimes things don't work, sometimes you come up with a better idea. It doesn't matter, it isn't wrong. In fact, being able to reflect on what you are doing and to adapt and evolve your approach in light of your reflection (which should include reflecting objectively on the comments of others on how things could be improved) is an important skill to have. One of the reasons for having the confirmation at the end of the first year is because things do change and, having passed through that period of uncertainty and change, you now have a new, better and clearer plan, but everyone needs to be sure that this plan is feasible and you are suitably equipped for carrying it out.

Thank you for all the comments. I'm reading and processing. My first article was document based, my second two will be based on interviews and focus groups that will have to be delayed now. My supervisors say I should aim for one data collection period that can lead to two articles.

Have you considered switching away from an article-based PhD to a single thesis? Do you think that might play to your strengths more?

Possibly but apparently I can't till after I pass confirmation now anyway

That's strange and a bit alarming.

Your confirmation should be about your ability and readiness to continue, so if you are going to continue on the traditional thesis route it should be focussed on your ability to do that and your understanding of what it involves.

If this is something you are considering, I would talk to your Director of Studies again as soon as you can.