Hmm...

People in my department seem to be proud that my PhD programme has an "attrition rate" — this is what they refer to it as, they seem too hard-core to refer to it merely as drop-out rate — of 50%. Actually, with the REF coming up, I think it might even be in some PhD supervisors interests for some PhD students to drop-out.

Hey,

Sorry, that was meant to read "almost similar reputations"... So, yea, pretty much equal. I guess in some circles SOAS is considered better, while in others Manc is preferred.

Maybe if you are looking at poverty and microeconomics in particular, Manc might be slightly better because of the Brooks World Poverty Institute? I guess it might be worth flicking through the staff profiles and seeing who would be a good fit in terms of potential Master's / PhD supervisors.

I always thought of SOAS / Manchester as having almost reputations... However, the problem with SOAS is that it is located in Central London. I've lived in Manchester before and think it's a great university city. Sussex, as a university, seems to be going through a lot of strife at the moment such as that around the outsourcing of facilities. Was there a specific geographic area that you were interested in? If so, it might be worth looking at the profiles of the stuff at SOAS / Manchester to see who was a better fit.

Manchester has Stiglitz...Well, for a few weeks of the year at least..

I know it's not a PhD thesis, but this is what Paul Willis did with Learning to Labour. I think this sort of structure would be heavily dependent on your supervisors. I guess 'alternative' structures tend to be readily accepted with auto-ethnographic PhDs.

Some of the best PhD thesis did not get funding. If memory serves, I read about Paul Willis who wrote Learning to Labour working at three different universities and a part-time job to fund his studies.

I guess this is also depends on which discipline you are in, funding in the arts is ultra, ultra competitive.

At the end of the day, if you finish your PhD and have 'excellent' publications, no one will care.

Many people only use some sort of content analysis as their research method, isn't this what most people in Critical Discourse Analysis do? So, if you link this research with your methodology this would more than suffice. The whole analysing visual images is interesting too. Which discipline are you in and have you looked at the CDA stuff? Fairclough, Wodak etc? Not too sure of the visual side of things, but think Sarah Pink does stuff on visual ethnography. Would be interested to know what other forum members think...

Hey,

I've often read in books a warning that reads something like, "Every effort has been made to contact the relevant copyright holders."

I just Googled that phrase and found what Blackwell put at the beginning of their books. I guess you could just alter the following in some way:

The author/editor and publisher gratefully acknowledge the permission granted to
reproduce the copyright material in this book:

Every effort has been made to trace copyright holders and to obtain their permission for the use of copyright material. The publisher apologizes for any errors or omissions in the above list and would be grateful if notified of any corrections that should be incorporated in
future reprints or editions of this book.

Hey,

Have you read Writing for Academic Journals by Rowena Murray? I found this really useful...

Yep, as CR1980 says...

Instead of doing something positivistic and aiming / being concerned about generalization, you could perhaps re-frame your PhD so it is broadly interpretivist (or even realist) so that you could sell the benefits of doing something in so much depth.

Traditionally, the public-sector has been seen a less stress, less money but a better pension. However, this has changed dramatically in recent year. Last I read, the Tories were thinking of getting rid of the National Audit Office — those who effectively audit the public-sector auditors — and if this went ahead it would likely lead to an increasing work-load and responsibility for public-sector auditors, albeit with little extra pay.

Stats wise, the chances are that in the public-sector there will always be work for you to do. So, here it will be more of a case as to whether you are able to complete your audits within the allocated time-frame. In the private-sector it is heavily dependent on who you work for...

If I recall correctly, specific Graduate entry programmes for the public-sector are really competitive. However, standard entry positions tend to be much easier to come by and do not offer that much less.

If the choice is ACA (from ICAEW) or CIPFA: ACA by a long way. ACA would be harder but would likely lead to a job with far more responsibilities and pay, whereas CIPFA is unlikely to be viewed as particularly transferable from the public sector to the private sector.

There are two other accounting bodies that you might like to consider: ACCA or CIMA. Personally, I think the job of management accounting (CIMA) is far more interesting than a job based on financial accounting (ACCA). However, I think ACCA offer their qualifications through Oxford Brookes and this is quite respected.

So, of the four, my preference in order would be: ACA (from ICAEW), CIMA, ACCA then CIPFA.

But then, its been ten years since I worked in industry... I'm sure others will have different opinions.

Hey,

I would guess the best place to begin would be to look at current adverts for jobs in your field and see what the minimum requirements are. Many, but not all, places are likely to ask you to demonstrate the capacity for research through PhD / publications for a lecturing position. However, there might be some teaching only positions too.

Hey,

I suppose the easy answer is that you have to be extremely organised so that by the end of the first year you have draft chapters of intro, lit review and methodology by; by the second year you have to have completed your fieldwork and have some results written-up along the way; and the third year you finish off. This, of course, means you effectively have to know the answers before you begin and you disregard / save for later anything else interesting that crops up.

I do not personally know anyone who has managed to keep to this. Most people I know who have tried this end up with a really short time in the field, which I do not feel is ethnography per se. But then this seems the only way to get it done on time. It is a shame because a PhD should be the one time where you can go into depth...

Oh, a PhD should ideally be completed within four years. But a 'one size fits all' approach does not take into account that some PhDs might have problems with access. If the four year (full time) thing had been underlined as a priority to me in the beginning I could have intercalated when I had a family problem or taken my one year empirical study in a different country which I had to combine with employment as 'researching away from the university'... There were plenty of options, if only I had known these in advance.