I sent my dissertation chapter to my committee. Two members loved it. One hated it. The one who hated it wants major revisions — like, rewrite the whole chapter revisions. The other two think it's fine as is. 
Who do I listen to?
My advisor (one of the ones who liked it) said: "You can't please everyone. Focus on the feedback that makes the chapter stronger. Ignore feedback that's just about taste."
But how do I know the difference between "taste" and "legitimate criticism"?
The dissenting committee member is senior. She's well-respected. If I ignore her feedback, will she fail me at my defense?
My advisor said: "Talk to her. Ask her which revisions are essential and which are suggestions. Most committee members are reasonable if you ask directly."
That's good advice. But I'm scared. Confrontation is hard.
Has anyone navigated this? What worked?
Who do I listen to?
My advisor (one of the ones who liked it) said: "You can't please everyone. Focus on the feedback that makes the chapter stronger. Ignore feedback that's just about taste."
But how do I know the difference between "taste" and "legitimate criticism"?
The dissenting committee member is senior. She's well-respected. If I ignore her feedback, will she fail me at my defense?
My advisor said: "Talk to her. Ask her which revisions are essential and which are suggestions. Most committee members are reasonable if you ask directly."
That's good advice. But I'm scared. Confrontation is hard.
Has anyone navigated this? What worked?
