I am doing my Ph.D. in the Social Sciences and I am reflecting on how to optimize the workflow with my thesis committee (three advisors) in the implementation of feedback on chapters or papers. I understand this is a matter of negotiating between us. However, it would be useful for me to hear your experiences and how you perceive the pros and cons you see of each approach. For example, if I write a draft, I could:
- Send the draft to the first advisor, receive and implement their feedback, then send the edited draft to the second advisor, and so on. I imagine this would slow down the process considerably and would require many more rounds of editing.
- Send the draft to the first advisor, receive their feedback, then send the draft with the first advisor’s comments to the second advisor (if the first advisor agrees), and so on with the third. This would allow each committee member to have an idea of the other members’ feedback and possibly react to it directly (agreeing, disagreeing, building on it).
- Send the draft individually, at the same time, to the three committee members. I have heard of people doing that and then sending them an overview of everyone’s comments, and the way they intend to implement them, as if they were peer reviewers. This would allow me to send out the draft to the three advisors at the same time.
How did you manage this during your Ph.D., and which were the pros and cons of your approach?