problems with my supervisor

[ta1000]

I just wonder if someone here, especially those who do Political sci, has a similar experience to this: my supervisor doesn't know much about what i am doing (although I submit reports to him every week--which he has never replied). Whenever we meet (two times every term), he just criticizes my project without even knowing what is actually going on. I spent a lot of time telling him that he has missed my arguments but he just doesn't seem satified. OK, then I listen to him and see what kind of suggestions he would give. Unfortunately, many of them are simply self-contradictory. In one meeting he says: "this should be interesting, discuss it in your project." And next time you see him he can tell you something completely opposite ("oh, maybe this is inapporiate") and give you a new issue to examine. Working with him is like chasing wind---you can never tell what does he want.

I really don't know what the hell is going on. Should I start writing my first chapter anyway and seek help from other professors in the department?

[LJK]

I'm not in poli sci, but I know that in science writing, and probably in most academic writing, the only way to know if something should be included is to try it. Sometimes that means working hard on adding in a section then having it cut out. That is just part of the process. You can't know whether you want something in there until you see how it works in there. Its frustrating but you learned about something related to your topic and expanded your knowledge (thats part of what its about right?) even if it doesn't feel like you made concrete progress on your project.

I have a similar relationship with my advisor, mostly corresponding via email with the occasional face to face meeting. One way to check that the professor is reading your progress reports is to ask a question at the end. What do you think about adding XXX that I have been explaining? Is there anything missing from this set of activities I have been doing lately? You can check that they are reading with a carefully worded question and have more concrete feedback on where they want you to be going. Having these sorts of exchanges over email means that if you get really confused about what they want, you can put quotes of what they have told you in the past together and explain your confusion at the seemingly contradictory advise so that it is clear to them what you mean and they can then more easily relate what they mean in terms of their former advise.

I would be up front about your feeling that things are progressing too slowly. Ask your professor if you should be starting to write up your first chapter or if not, what needs to be done before you get started. Having such conversations by email allows you to have a concrete record of what your advisor's suggestions have been if your professor isn't someone who keeps track of such things and also if you ever need to account for slow progress or anything like that to your department.

[StrangeLight]

lots of advisors will have you chasing the wind. i'd recommend really considering what he has to say about your project. in the social sciences, advisors are really just talking off the tops of their heads when they give you advice because they're not specialists in your exact project. in the hard sciences, you're often working on a smaller fragment of a larger group project led by that advisor. in poli sci, you're building that project for yourself, so when your advisor throws ideas at you, they're just that: ideas. one week they'll seem good, and then another week it'll be clear that the idea doesn't really work. that's part of the process.

if your advisor is "missing" your argument, that's because you are not stating your argument clearly. get very specific with your research question. don't just have a topic, have a question that you will be able to answer with your research. i myself struggle with research design and i have a great advisor who guided me through the process, but that process resulted in an entire year's worth of writing that i'll never use, outside of a few conference papers. i've had moments where one week she'll tell me to look at X and another week she'll tell me to cut X out once i've fleshed it out a bit. that's how this works. you try things and you discard the stuff that doesn't work out.

if your advisor is not reading the stuff you send him on a weekly basis, stop sending him stuff on a weekly basis. schedule more face-to-face meetings, bring notes with you to those meetings, an agenda of what you want to talk about. get his feedback then and there. talk more, write less. if your advisor doesn't want to meet more frequently than twice a semester, tell him you need more face time. make it difficult for him to say no. i've seen FAR too many students tip-toe around their advisors and get zero guidance from them because they're too afraid to demand their advisor's attention.

there's no harm in consulting other professors in your department, but don't be surprised if they give you the same feedback your advisor has. confusion is an underrated state of being. learn to enjoy having no idea what the hell you're supposed to do.

i definitely do not recommend writing a chapter (presumably of your dissertation?) before you know exactly what you're going to say in it. you need the research design nailed down (for yourself, if not for your advisor) before you can put pen to paper. instead, write the literature review or a detailed outline for the proposed chapter, complete with research questions, evidence, and methodology.

[ta1000]

thanks a lot. these are all very helpful and practical suggestions. hopefully i will be able to share some good news with you guys next time.