Have a look at PhD manuscripts in your university library. Also, 'Doing Qualitative Research' by Silverman provides guidelines as to how to approach most chapters of the PhD - about the best book on the topic I've seen so far. I think it depends what the function of the introduction in each chapter is, which may depend on the structure of the PhD as a whole.

I dont know who Johannstein is? But it does show that although you lot like the illusion of debate, you actually all sound similar because tbh I can't tell much difference between Shani, Matt, SixKitten, Radicalann, bla bla bla.

Here an argument is made for a new kind of business facing university, though the point is not rammed home quite so clearly as in the THES article referenced above.
http://perseus.herts.ac.uk/uhinfo/library/y50635_13.doc

I guess in this case folks like Matt might wish to develop proposals for alternative forms of university, given the underlying argument of this piece is about differentiation in the university sector. Although this is slightly moving off the point 'Would you do it again', I'd contend it was still pertinent since it may very well be that within the next few years the experience of doing a PhD will come to vary more significantly according to the kind of university you choose to do it in.

Matt - Of course my points are one sided you hardly expect me to make your arguments for you do you? :-p However, should you wish to read a really one sided view (which even I see as pretty radical) read the Vice Chancellor of Hertfordshire's opinon piece on page 14 of this week's THES who writes about "a new generation of commerce-friendly universities". For these new kind of "business-facing" universities he advocates, he does not even qualify his vision (as I have qualified mine in this thread) by making reference to serving the public and voluntary sectors or broader society.

Ann - I'd love to debate radical feminism with you and gender studies, but I think that would be going too much 'off topic'.

I guess your name says something "Radical" Ann - I imagine you are some radical feminist or something? If you bothered to read the whole thread you'd see that I actually believe social science has a major role to play in life - though not abstract social science waffle that serves no one except the ego of the academics who wrote it. Applied social research is very important to society and the economy. I won't enter into pathetic insults with you. That's your occupation obviously. Debate the issue, not the person who says it.

Shani - it was as much the point you wished to derive from Bourdieu that I disagree with as Bourdieu himself. I don't think it's right to make the PhD a more valuable qualification by letting fewer people do it. That's the point I'm mainly disagreeing with. I agree the fewer people who do it though potentially the greater benefit it gives to those people. But if we take that argument further then we put a cap on the number of undergraduates. In reality the numbers of people doing, and who have, a PhD as a proportion of the population are tiny. Give me some useful examples of basic research in the social sciences then Shani that although originally pointless have led to great discoveries?

There's some good books to read about the PhD process (e.g. 'How to write a thesis' - that's particularly good for arts and social sciences). What subject is your PhD in?

Paul McKenna's writing is a great example to academics that you can explain relatively complex ideas lucidly in simple language.

Shani - I think your definition of basic research is misleading. In natural sciences indeed there is a need to do significant basic research, some of which (we often don't know yet which parts) will lead to highly useful applied research in the future. Basic research in social sciences sounds like an excuse for academics to stick inside their ivory tower, engaging in highly abstract theoretical debates with one another to boost their own egos and leading to no useful outcomes at any point in the future. I don't mind if they do that, but they need to find private donors to fund such research, because there are far more important public spending priorities.

Perhaps Bourdieu is one of the reasons you need to do a PhD because despite getting good grades and being at an elite university for my undergraduate degree I and many of my peers could not understand his work. That's not so much because his ideas are complex, it's the fact that his writing is arrogantly complicated. He shows off using his writing. His ideas are ok, but are nothing special when explained by a textbook author - see for example 'Understanding Bourdieu'. I can see why people who are interested in the elite nature of a PhD might particularly like Bourdieu though as he is an elitist writer who doesn't seem to want many people to understand his ideas, by using complicated language to be evasive and hard to comprehend.

As I stated earlier there are different models of the PhD to suit different needs. It is not an either/or issue between highly scholarly PhDs and more applied PhDs. Both are important and we should seek to make use of both. There are plenty of graduates doing temp work as well, but I'm sure if you are as good as you suggest you will in time get a job suited to your abilities in academia or elsewhere. The civil service needs highly developed researchers for all sorts of purposes, including intelligence services, policy research etc - those with undergraduate degrees are not adequately prepared for such roles hence why PhDs are favoured for them.

I'm sure although some different kinds of people will be encouraged to do a PhD in the future, an ample number of Matts will continue to follow this approach - after all we are talking about an oversupply of PhD Matts at the moment, yet an undersupply of PhD Commonsense or O Stoll's who see the PhD in a different way. I'm not sure where the oversupply of PhD Matts should go to, but I don't think they should expect the state to offer an unlimited number of tenured academic jobs for them regardless of society's needs.

I think my position is less idealistic than yours because it is actually the direction that higher education is heading in any way. Supervisors may be in some cases incapabale presently of helping their students make best use of the opportunities a PhD presents them with. But this is changing. I would contend universities ought to be honest that most PhD students won't become academics, but they should ensure their academic staff can prepare PhDs for the many interesting alternative options a PhD can lead to. Some supervisors are already good at this. Perhaps this means a somewhat different group of people would choose to do a PhD than at present: possibly a more entrepreneurial, consultancy interested group rather than it being mainly (as at present) lefty, anti authority types (at least in the social sciences).

Apologies if the economic literacy point was not obvious. Yes I agree if an elite have a degree then it is worth more to them. But I'm more interested in serving the needs of the broader economy. Fewer people go to university in Britain than any other major western economy. We need graduates to serve the needs of the economy with high level skills. Those who use their opportunity to do a PhD with imagination can offer collaborate with businesses to offer innovation consultancy to them, they can set up their own business thus expanding Britain's GDP, or they can offer such similar benefits to the public/voluntary sectors.

I said a minority of people are capable of doing a PhD and should be able to do one. The numbers doing a PhD are partly governed by the number of studentships the research councils/charities/businesses offer since only a limited additional number of people can afford to fund a PhD from alternative personal/bank loan sources.