Lex Academic®

How to Deal with Supervisor Feedback as a PhD Student

In 1923, Germany defaulted on its war reparations, leading to a French invasion of the Ruhr. Hyperinflation impoverished and destabilised the country and Adolf Hitler was imprisoned for attempting to overthrow the government. Walter Benjamin, meanwhile, was rummaging around for neglected baroque plays in the Berlin State Library. In that tumultuous year, he amassed around 600 quotations from obscure sixteenth- and seventeenth-century German dramas and theological tracts. His father and wife were baffled. They couldn’t understand why obscure plays should occupy his attention while his country was imploding. But Benjamin was committed to preparing for his Habilitationsschrift — a postdoctoral thesis, technically, similar in style to a PhD and the traditional route into German academia. Little did he know, however, that he was heading for the academic equivalent of Germany’s famous Year of Crisis.

A couple of years and a writing retreat on Capri later, Benjamin sent his completed thesis to his supervisor at Frankfurt University, Professor Franz Schultz. Arriving to receive his feedback, Benjamin must have known Schultz was unhappy, having found him ‘cool and finicky’. And he was right to be concerned because Schultz pressed through the formal part of the meeting then let loose. Benjamin used too many quotations, he thought, and all of those he linked together with little to no explanation. His presentation also left a lot to be desired: in a discipline like German Studies, one would expect logical, linear arguments, but Benjamin flitted hither and thither like an academic moth amongst too many candles. His entire methodology was, in fact, ‘obscure’. The thesis, Schultz concluded, was entirely ‘inappropriate’ for the field. So, he suggested reframing it as a work on aesthetics and submitting to Professor Hans Cornelius (who, incidentally, supervised Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno). But Cornelius felt the thesis dealt too closely with historical plays to find a home in his department, adding that it was in any case ‘an incomprehensible morass’.

Faced with such damning feedback, Benjamin reacted by laying into his supervisor. ‘This Professor Schultz’, he wrote, ‘is insignificant as a scholar’. Moreover, his ‘diplomatic skill is paralysed by a cowardliness clothed in punctilious formality’. Benjamin did not engage with his supervisor’s feedback and did not capitulate. Instead, he withdrew his thesis, became a freelance critic (International Socialism described his fate as being an ‘itinerant man of letters’) and later published his previously eviscerated thesis as the classic The Origin of German Tragic Drama.

Accepting Feedback

When receiving feedback, it is entirely valid to feel disappointed, upset, and even angry. Give yourself permission, as Benjamin clearly did, to acknowledge your feelings. But also recognise that, where Benjamin came up against the rigid academic context of early twentieth-century German academia, most of us work in far more accommodating environments. We have access to a rainbow of methodological tools and rhetorical devices. In almost all circumstances, there will be a way to address even the most severe academic dressing-down. After all, you do not need to accept everything your supervisor says — and nor, necessarily, should you. Still, you should allow yourself time to sit with the feedback for a day or two before even thinking about responding. When you are ready to approach the feedback with a clear mind, take a step back and try to work out what you will accept, what you will challenge, and what you might want to reject outright.

Some feedback is relatively easy to accept. A supervisor has a practical function beyond their scholarly guidance, so much of their feedback might be put down to matters like procedure, making sure your work is the right length, that it displays intellectual rigour, has all the necessary sections to do with method, results, interpretation and that these are well constructed. Other feedback items will be to do with grammar, spelling, style, tone and generally how you express yourself in writing. There may also be referencing problems to attend to, relevant literature you have missed or not engaged with. In most cases, you should probably accept and address this type of feedback in the interests of learning your craft — if not for expedience. There will be times, however, when you may want to raise a challenge. In fact, you will most likely be expected to mount a challenge and doing so is the mark of a capable, agile intellectual.

Challenging and Rejecting Feedback

It is quite possible to be supervised by a misguided, overzealous or inexperienced supervisor. A bad supervisor may not engage with your thoughts or arguments at all, or, at the other extreme, try to micromanage your research. If your supervisor gives you inadequate, confusing or disengaged feedback, then this might be one of many reasons to request a new supervisor. Alternatively, you could seek the advice of your second supervisor or your university’s research office. With a competent supervisor, however, responding to feedback is an opportunity to hone your skills and have scholarly exchanges in a safe environment, or at least with less cost than quarrelling during your viva voce with your examiners.

Feedback should be an opportunity to develop your craft for when examination finally comes. It can help to remember that the word ‘thesis’ comes from the ancient Greek (θέσις), meaning ‘position’. And, as a PhD student, it is your task to arrive at your own conclusion and take a ‘position’ you can defend. In your viva, your examiners will try to challenge your arguments, unsettle and undermine this position. They’ll sometimes be nice, sometimes nasty. In order to defend your thesis in any case, you need to take responsibility for it. And that means learning to challenge feedback where you think incorporating it would be detrimental or misguided. If you challenge what your supervisor thinks, this should lead to a discussion between two scholars. And any changes you make will be well thought through. This is part of developing confidence in your ability to navigate your field, to defend a position you take, and to modify your perspectives where appropriate. It is through engaging with such a process that you will transition from student to professional.

Sometimes, you may produce work that is indeed nonsense, or incomprehensible. In the early stages especially, feel free to make an intellectual fool of yourself. Have fun with thinking, but expect to receive pushback. Enjoy sketching out ideas and embrace the fact that most will go nowhere. Discovering dead ends in your research is a positive outcome, as they invariably pivot you towards avenues that are likelier to bear fruit. That is the essence of research. Occasionally, a supervisor like Franz Schultz may tell a Walter Benjamin that their work makes no sense — and that might be the limitation of a supervisor. In a modern interdisciplinary academy, you are unlikely to come up against the rigidity faced by Benjamin, but you may find fiercer opposition to your ideas than they really merit. Do not simply jettison work in which you have confidence: there may be an opportunity to resurrect it at a later date. After all, if you google Walter Benjamin, you’ll find one of the twentieth century’s most influential cultural scholars. If you google Franz Schultz, you’ll find a Chilean footballer.