Hi Emmaki

Depending on your stance you could argue against validation on ontological grounds.. ie validation against what ?  some sort of truth ? an object, a fact ? I would argue validation is impossible. All knowledge is partial, local and situated.  With all research being interpretation, participants interpretation of their past experiences and your interpretation of their story.

I'm more comfortable with triangulation in qual research considering its definition of adding depth, richness, sense-making, internal coherence - Denzin and Lincoln & Guba and Lincoln can be cited here.

I've also used the work of Golden-Biddle and Locke on convincing qual research - they use three elements.  Criticality, Authenticity and Plausibility. They give a series of factors for each of these that if its fits your stance you could use.  Look them up.

Addressing your sups, if you agree with any of above,  could be making a case against validation.

All the best. Chuff

Hi Charls,

Many congrats on finishing.

I spoke to my sup earlier and i'd seen your question and so i asked her. She said its usually around 2-3 weeks but she did say that, as with everything, depends on people. On your second question, she said if you both agreed the changes, and came to the same understanding (not always easy!) and you've followed the guidance there's no reason to suspect any further changes will be asked for. Congrats again. Lovely weekend for you. Chuff

Sneaks,

I really don't mean this to sound as it might... the perils of forum posting... but the thought that struck me is that if the terms in the Creswell book are causing you grief,  use a different book for reference.

There's zillions out there, instead of crow-barring your work into an ill suited framework. 

It sounds like you've developed a wonderful story and the elusive golden thread is there. You did a then b and because of what emerged from a you did c. a and b are connected anyway and c emerged... what more can you ask for.  Brilliant.

Sorry if that sounds sharp, not intended.

Chuff

Thanks Ady,

Appreciate the faith :-)

One more mini point, i've just re-read your question - do not infer anything ... my sup would have killed me.

You have made a contribution, 'be certain, if you don't believe it no other buggar will' i think i was told. Put me in my place!

Hi Ady,

My research question is first shown in the introduction, on page 9 to be exact.

but it is repeated a few times throughout the thesis where it seems relevant.. and certainly it is repeated again at the start of the methodology ie this method will aim to answer, and at the start of the conclusion - if that makes sense.

my contribution, massive as it is ;-), is in my abstract. The thesis offers a contribution to knowledge in XXX and it is repeated in the introduction and the conclusion. ( there's a wonder i had room to write anything else)

Never too soon to start thinking of these things. Chuff.

Thanks Delta, appreciate it.

@ Pz  I shall have to inadvertently contact my sup a few days before then, thanks for that.

======= Date Modified 23 Feb 2011 16:13:39 =======
Hi.

yes i realise that .. just joking.

Both my int and ext are experts in my subject with one being far less ferocious than the other ! But there again i picked her because she's tough to fool. That'll teach me.

======= Date Modified 23 Feb 2011 15:23:23 =======

Hi Delta,

'Standardised' ... we're talking about people here, office politics, who knows who etc.  Standardising would take all the fun out of it.. be like University of Stepford.

I asked at my uni about this and i get the impression that if the sup happens upon the report they may look at it, if they happen upon the internal they may just say "ok?" and see what the response is. But whether this gets passed to the candidate, may very much depend on the relationship between sup and student,  they would have to have a great deal of trust that this information would not be passed on. Or used against them if, as KB, talks about below,  it turns out to be wrong.

That said, I'd love to know !  

Great question, be interested in other views.

Chuff

Hi Larry,

Stick to your guns, be flexible with points of clarification but once you start bending to all and sundry you're nothing more than a mouthpiece and we can't have that. ;-)

Congrats on getting the invite to write. A great result. Chuff

Hi Sneaks.

I have my viva shortly .... so, hopefully, deep breathes etc etc, will have time and inclination to help :-)

I had fantastic support from my sup and would be happy to pass it on. Wasn't there a film about passing on good deeds, making the world a better place ? 

Offer, sincerely meant, on the table.

Chuff 

Go for it Sneaks..

With RAE coming up having potential publications gives you more currency that having a list of priors. Showing a forward plan, target journals etc will mean a lot.

If you don't get it, what have you lost ? A few hours of form filling ? Hubby sounds spot on.

Chuff

What is the point of debate ? What does it achieve ?

Now there's a topic. I can't do it, just wanted to stir it up a bit.

Chuff

Thanks BilboBaggins

That is reassuring.... yes I shall need to come up with a better 'excuse' than 'who wrote that?'

Rewrite it.... eek.

Functional is a good word for it, actually.

Thanks again, Chuff