Dissertation committee disagreements

[mypointlesspov]

Hi everyone,

My dissertation committee disagrees on whether I am ready to propose or not. My plan was to propose by this month, in time for APPIC applications, but my second committee member emailed me last week saying that she doesn't think I'm ready because my lit review isn't clear enough and my methods section needs to be fleshed out more. She offered to meet with me to discuss, but doesn't want to do so until the end of the month. I sent my draft to her in August and asked for some feedback, but she declined to read it at that point, basically saying it wasn't her job as my second committee member to do so.

I'm kind of (read: REALLY) freaking out because I thought I was on track to be done with the proposal and now there's this giant wrench thrown into the plans. Anyone ever had this problem? If so, how did you go about handling it?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[psych.meout]

So, it wasn't her job to read it back in August (isn't it expressly the primary job of a committee member to read the damn proposal?), but it suddenly became her job to read it and force you to change your lit review in methods in September/October?

That sounds incredibly stressful and frustrating to deal with, especially if you need to defend your proposal before submitting internship apps.

 

[Justanothergrad]

So, it wasn't her job to read it back in August (isn't it expressly the primary job of a committee member to read the damn proposal?), but it suddenly became her job to read it and force you to change your lit review in methods in September/October?

That sounds incredibly stressful and frustrating to deal with, especially if you need to defend your proposal before submitting internship apps.

My job is to read the proposed document, not before it is proposed. I would not agree to do so either as a committee member. I wouldn't (and don't) leave folks I am on the committee for high and dry, however. She has every right to decline to read the document although the better mentorship approach (imho) would be to meet with the student and discuss any potential issues/approaches within the document. I do that a lot.

 

[psych.meout]

My job is to read the proposed document, not before it is proposed. I would not agree to do so either as a committee member. I wouldn't (and don't) leave folks I am on the committee for high and dry, however. She has every right to decline to read the document although the better mentorship approach (imho) would be to meet with the student and discuss any potential issues/approaches within the document. I do that a lot.

Maybe I misread it, but my understanding was that this is still a draft and OP hasn't proposed yet.

If this was in response to a final proposal OP submitted to their committee in anticipation to defend their proposal, then I retract that part of my previous statement.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Maybe I misread it, but my understanding was that this is still a draft and OP hasn't proposed yet.

If this was in response to a final proposal OP submitted to their committee in anticipation to defend their proposal, then I retract that part of my previous statement.

I'm not reading every proposal multiple times for each committee I'm on. That's a TON of work and, quite frankly, the job of the chair. That is why the chair gets credit for committee work and other members don't. I was on 9 last year. I am happy to meet briefly, but to expect me to read 100-200 pages multiple times for specific feedback which is the exact purpose of the proposal process to demonstrate competency with? No. Specific questions or meetings are more in line with what I've seen traditionally happen.

 

[psych.meout]

I'm not reading every proposal multiple times for each committee I'm on. That's a TON of work and, quite frankly, the job of the chair. That is why the chair gets credit for committee work and other members don't. I was on 9 last year. I am happy to meet briefly, but to expect me to read 100-200 pages multiple times for specific feedback which is the exact purpose of the proposal process to demonstrate competency with? No. Specific questions or meetings are more in line with what I've seen traditionally happen.

Right, that's more than reasonable of you. I'm just saying that, at least from how I read the OP (again, I could have misread it), it seems off that this committee member refused to read a draft earlier, but read the draft within the past week or so and is proposing major revisions, though they are unwilling to meet about it until the end of the month.

 

[mypointlesspov]

Right, that's more than reasonable of you. I'm just saying that, at least from how I read the OP (again, I could have misread it), it seems off that this committee member refused to read a draft earlier, but read the draft within the past week or so and is proposing major revisions, though they are unwilling to meet about it until the end of the month.

You read it correctly. And it wouldn't be so concerned necessarily had my chair not said that I was ready to propose. If my chair was wavering on that it would be one thing, but he was pretty adamant that I was ready

 

[MCParent]

You read it correctly. And it wouldn't be so concerned necessarily had my chair not said that I was ready to propose. If my chair was wavering on that it would be one thing, but he was pretty adamant that I was ready

Your chair and committee members can very well have different levels of knowledge and different standards.
JAG is right that the committee member does not have to review the document. It sounds like the member is saying they would not pass this document and doesn’t think the remaining few weeks is sufficient to get it done.
As faculty, I don’t appreciate it when students propose at the wire. It does seem like some are trying to force our hands with passing an insufficient document just because not passing means waiting a year—but the student chose to propose then, not get the doc ready early, so I don’t alter my standards in that circumstance either.

 

[Justanothergrad]

You read it correctly. And it wouldn't be so concerned necessarily had my chair not said that I was ready to propose. If my chair was wavering on that it would be one thing, but he was pretty adamant that I was ready

That is a frustrating and difficult position to be in. It would be ideal that your chair knew your committee members well enough to help navigate any concerns they might have - particularly for the proposal document. On the other hand, if it is a large department it is possible that they have not worked with that person before. Guidance for good combos from faculty is a useful thing. All that not considered, it still puts you in a difficult position because if they are bluntly telling you that they do not think you are ready with that document then you may be in a hard position to pass without them. What that means will vary per your department (how many are needed to pass in the official program document, how faculty tend to dissent or group interpersonally, etc).

Have you asked to meet with them and identify what are the concerns and to discuss, if they would be open to it and if the concerns are appropriate, you add or change your proposal document as part of the requested changes? I always request changes and generally additional analyses. Smaller oversights or theoretical divergences may fit well within this- especially since it is a proposal (note. I view proposal as a generally collaborative process and some may not)

 

[Pragma]

I'd discuss this with your chair in light of the timing and internship ramifications. I've sat on a number of committees and unless I was working with the student directly in some capacity, I wouldn't be reviewing drafts before the actual proposal. Your chair should intervene here and either get you a clear list of things to make adjustments to within a short timeframe, or tell the reader that they should bring up their concerns at the proposal defense. You aren't guaranteed to pass the defense, but it is up to your chair to say when you are ready to do it. They could very well "pass" you with required revisions to meet your timeframe.

 

[mypointlesspov]

Your chair and committee members can very well have different levels of knowledge and different standards.
JAG is right that the committee member does not have to review the document. It sounds like the member is saying they would not pass this document and doesn’t think the remaining few weeks is sufficient to get it done.
As faculty, I don’t appreciate it when students propose at the wire. It does seem like some are trying to force our hands with passing an insufficient document just because not passing means waiting a year—but the student chose to propose then, not get the doc ready early, so I don’t alter my standards in that circumstance either.

I totally understand that. I definitely did not mean to propose at the wire, I guess I just carried on expecting that my second wouldn't have any issues with the proposal based on my chair's feedback.

That is a frustrating and difficult position to be in. It would be ideal that your chair knew your committee members well enough to help navigate any concerns they might have - particularly for the proposal document. On the other hand, if it is a large department it is possible that they have not worked with that person before. Guidance for good combos from faculty is a useful thing. All that not considered, it still puts you in a difficult position because if they are bluntly telling you that they do not think you are ready with that document then you may be in a hard position to pass without them. What that means will vary per your department (how many are needed to pass in the official program document, how faculty tend to dissent or group interpersonally, etc).

Have you asked to meet with them and identify what are the concerns and to discuss, if they would be open to it and if the concerns are appropriate, you add or change your proposal document as part of the requested changes? I always request changes and generally additional analyses. Smaller oversights or theoretical divergences may fit well within this- especially since it is a proposal (note. I view proposal as a generally collaborative process and some may not)

My department is small, but my chair happens to have a joint appointment with another department (that physically houses his office), so if they've met, I doubt it's been for more than a few minutes. That being said, my second committee member kind of keeps talking about my chair as if he doesn't know what he's doing, however, he has served as the chair of dissertations in this department before. I specifically selected this chair because of he has expertise that no one else in my department has.

I've met with my research project coordinator of the study (who I totally wish could be on my committee but is only master's level) who has given me good feedback and says that he thinks the second committee member's issues with the paper are are mostly about the flow of the paper more than the content, which is a huge relief. It's mostly about reshuffling things to make my ideas lead to my research questions more clearly.

I emailed the second committee member last week asking if she would be willing to meet sooner, but she has yet to respond. I'm going to give it another few days before I reach out again. I am hoping that I can somehow set up a conference call with my committee to get more concrete feedback.

I'd discuss this with your chair in light of the timing and internship ramifications. I've sat on a number of committees and unless I was working with the student directly in some capacity, I wouldn't be reviewing drafts before the actual proposal. Your chair should intervene here and either get you a clear list of things to make adjustments to within a short timeframe, or tell the reader that they should bring up their concerns at the proposal defense. You aren't guaranteed to pass the defense, but it is up to your chair to say when you are ready to do it. They could very well "pass" you with required revisions to meet your timeframe.

I am terrified of burning bridges with my second committee member if I insist on defending when this person doesn't think I'm ready. My chair doesn't really have any adjustments or feedback as he believes that I am ready, so I am not sure what to do about this. He recommended that I go to my university's writing center or the library to find more sources, but I am not sure how much I would get out of doing these things (if that makes sense).

 

[Justanothergrad]

My department is small, but my chair happens to have a joint appointment with another department (that physically houses his office), so if they've met, I doubt it's been for more than a few minutes. That being said, my second committee member kind of keeps talking about my chair as if he doesn't know what he's doing, however, he has served as the chair of dissertations in this department before. I specifically selected this chair because of he has expertise that no one else in my department has.

I've met with my research project coordinator of the study (who I totally wish could be on my committee but is only master's level) who has given me good feedback and says that he thinks the second committee member's issues with the paper are are mostly about the flow of the paper more than the content, which is a huge relief. It's mostly about reshuffling things to make my ideas lead to my research questions more clearly.

I emailed the second committee member last week asking if she would be willing to meet sooner, but she has yet to respond. I'm going to give it another few days before I reach out again. I am hoping that I can somehow set up a conference call with my committee to get more concrete feedback.

A few thoughts (hopefully something here is helpful)
1. There may be issues here that extend beyond your dissertation that you are in the middle of for no good reason. It shouldn't be the case, but if you know of another faculty member talking about another one, that is a real possibility. Thats dumb and not good for students. I've seen it happen before in dissertations.

2. If its organizational, that should be the type of thing that can be agreed on as part of a revision. I can't imagine otherwise unless your organizational flow really demonstrated a lack of writing acumen... but that should be something your chair should assess and be a guide on.

3. Review your policy manual and figure out what is required of failure (number of committee members voting, certain types of omissions, etc) and be mindful of that during the process.

4. Speak to your chair and express your concerns. Ask for their support. Concerns about burning bridges are a great thing for the chair to handle (you may or may not be aware of them doing this). You seem to be handling yourself in a professional and reasonable manner from what you have described.

5. Absolutely consult the writing center. Ask peers to review anything they can, especially if they know the other committee member and can offer you guidance.

Good luck.

 

[MCParent]

That being said, my second committee member kind of keeps talking about my chair as if he doesn't know what he's doing

This changes my opinion. Talk with your chair and see if you can dump and replace that second person asap. It reads to me like you may be being pulled into the middle of something stupid. Hopefully someone else in the department can get moved onto the committee at last minute given that circumstance, and I would not risk your proposal being a casualty in some drama between people. Your chair should be able to guide you through it (probably there is someone who owes them a committee membership somewhere in the school!).