Initial meeting with supervisors (all 4 of them) went very well. It was basically an administrative process - have i been properly inducted/induced? (apparently not: do not yet have a Handbook, Heath & Safety guide, contract, payroll number.....i could go on). We also discussed how the supervision meetings should be organised. It looked suspiciously like this had all been worked out before i got there (its unlikely that all 4 academics would be early for a meeting, ready in their places when i arrived - early myself!): so much for my ideas of how i would supervise my team (i didnt really have any anyway).
So, the plan is that we will meet up once a week for the first 3 months, and then review. Seems a lot - much more than I understand is regular in other institutions. Either they're incredibly interested in my project, and just want to damn well timetable-in those ferocious intellectual debates they think Im capable of, or they think Im shit and need lots of supervision.
We agreed that for next meeting (in a week) i would re-draft my initial proposal. I actually wrote my proposal 6 months ago, and upon re-reading, realise that my epistemological and ontological assumptions are deeply flawed. So have already re-written it, car-crashing from extreme positivism to extreme anti-positivism. I hope such a shift doesnt make me look deeply unstable.