next »

[docmaa]

Hello,
I have a meeting at 2pm with my 5 supervisors to agree to a research proposal plan. As a US MD  writing a PhD research degree, i am quite use to working on my own rather than being taught like the PhD degree courses in the USA. So i go to the meeting, listen to them which they all seem to have their own ideas and then go away and try to assimilate some of what they have said into my proposal.

Last meeting not knowing really what the protocol was  (in terms of me objecting to what they said ),  my entire research plan was changed before my  eyes when discussing the plan. I went away, revisited my original proposal thoughts and came up with a research plan different from what they want me to do which i will present this afternoon. I wonder why some of the supervisors are in the group. It seems they have their own agenda, like me doing the work and them getting their names on a paper. (thats OK.. welcome to research)

How do i go about disagreeing with their thoughts from the last meeting without alienating them and appearing not too happy? I think they know from my lack of interaction the past two weeks that i am not happy with something. I think to pursue their route would make the next 2.5 years more difficult than it will already be. I am open to learning new methods but their proposed idea is something that i am not intrested in nor ever will be in terms of my future long term plans.

Your comments will be appreciated.

[expatinuk]

hmmm.... I do a lot of supervision at the Ph.D. level here in the UK. First of all, why do you have 5 supervisors? That's insane. You should have a principal supervisor and a secondary supervisor. When you get to Viva stage you will have 2 other people (one internal and one external) but they are not part of the supervision process.

Secondly, when I have made a student revise the research plan it's because the plan that s/he started with was fuzzy and was too vague to lead to research questions. Your plan is supposed to get you started so that you can come up with specific research questions, that you then answer in the dissertation.

I think that your first point of action is to have a sit down one to one with your principal supervisor.

[testingthewaters]

What expat said. Like you, I had a whole flock of supervisors. It was a very multidisciplinary project, so each had a valid reason for being there, and we still had to justify the existance of so many to the exam board at the university.

But there was ONE supervisor who was in charge of the flock. If you don't have that now, get one person in charge. Along the way, your supervisors will disagree, and you need to have someone to help you end impasses or you will end up just "discussing" rather than putting together an actual plan. If you have the opportunity to choose the "leader", pick someone who is good at running meetings and getting a productive result rather than allowing endless discussion.

[scotia]

Five supervisors is crazy. Getting two (the required number at my place) to agree is just about possible, getting five to agree would be a lifetime's work. You need to arrive at a solution that will enable you to focus on no more than two people's agendas.

Having acted as chair or discussant for a number of proposal committees I would encourage you to listen to the advice of your principle supervisor. I have seen two students who thought they knew better than their supervisors and proposal committee members. One is still here four years later (he should have finished two years ago) and another left the program without finishing. The first was adamant that he could get his approach to work, despite the misgivings of faculty members who had worked in the area for many years: sad to say his arrogance has left him with little chance of completing within the required time.

[mingus]

I agree with scotia.  Also, remember that even if you do know more than these folks, are smarter than them, are better looking, ... it is *they* who have a final say about whether or not you get your PhD.  And what (probably the only thing) you shoule be concerned with is getting your PhD.  BTW, is this a thesis committee (for which 5 seems standard in the US) or do you really have 5 supervisors?  If the latter, then to the extent that you can, and however multi-disciplinary your stuff is, I would encourage you to cut it down to no more than 2.  (Presumably you went out and got these 5 on your own.) You may want to do and are capable of doing wonderful multi-disciplinary stuff, but, again, remember that what you want is to get your Ph.

[docmaa]

Thanks for your advices. The meeting went well yesterday and i am on my way to submitting the research protocol for peer review. The only supervisor i looked for was my principal supervisor. The other 4  were brought on as my thesis is multi disciplinary. I do listen to what they say but find it hard to accommodate all of them. Happy holidays to all.

[drspouse]

it is *they* who have a final say about whether or not you get your PhD.  And what (probably the only thing) you shoule be concerned with is getting your PhD. 

Is it? My understanding is the supervisor(s) can say whether it's time to submit (though the student can still submit something they think isn't ready) but the examiners (two of them) are the ones that decide if you get a PhD.

I've got a hard enough time agreeing with my student's second supervisor (he doesn't disagree with me directly, but tells my student that his plans won't work). But he got told off for doing this by the department's PhD coordinator, who is now one of my favourite people. My very hard-working student has loads of well-motivated data and enough of an inferiority complex as it is!

[mingus]

To  drspouse: In a sense you are right.  But I doubt that one is going to get very far with a submission if his/her supervisor can, with good reason, state that the thesis is ready.  Also, keep in mind that unless things get very nasty and there is a change, the main supervisor will have a huge role in the selction of the other examiners, e.g. they could be his/her friends, people who respect his/her sort of work, etc.  My rule of thumb: unnecessarily antagonising a supervisor is not smart; if you have an axe to grind, save it for a few years after the PhD.