======= Date Modified 03 Nov 2012 10:15:57 =======
It's hard to know without knowing the kind of questions you have asked. If the answers are, say, numbers on a scale, you can treat them as continuous variables. If the answers are tick box options, you may treat them as categorical variables. Free text entries may need handling with qualitative techniques.

I STRONGLY recommend, before you move on to your main study you talk to the statisticians some more, and attend some basic stats classes. If you uni doesn't offer any, or there is no budget for them, there are some freely available online. There is no point in ploughing ahead with loads of data collection and then finding there's some flaw because of the way the questionnaire was designed (though the fact that a statistician has said it's ok is reassuring). But it would help if you yourself understood why it's ok.

Basic statistical analyses can be carried out in Excel, but there are a number of specialist packages too (SPSS, SAS, Stats Direct, Stata, R...) Different disciplines tend to favour different packages so see what your colleagues use. Which field are you in? SPSS might be the best place to start - check if your uni/department has a license.

I'd just go ahead and apply for jobs that you will be qualified for when your result comes through. On your CV/application put something like 'Course complete, result pending' next to your MSc. Then employers can make you an offer conditional on the basis of passing your Masters. If you have any interim grades (e.g. from modules) you could stick them on there too.

My uni calls us postgrad researchers. Makes the distinction between PhD candidates and taught PG Masters students

I don't like being called a student because it gives people outside completely the wrong impression of what I do. Cue questions like 'When are you done for the summer?', 'How's your course?' etc. Grrr

I kind of regard myself as a poorly paid research assistant. Seems more accurate.

I'd chase up your old personal tutor. Assuming s/he's still in academia, you might not need to contact HR - Google might do it.

Sounds very ambitious. Potentially useful, though I'd be concerned about taking a project like that on as an individual. Who knows what Research Gate or other platforms might be dedicating whole teams to working on right now?

If you do decide to pursue it, I'd suggest acquainting yourself with the concepts of 'linked (open) data' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_data

======= Date Modified 29 Oct 2012 11:15:02 =======
To be honest I can't think of any advantages of self funding a PhD, other than it will enable you to do one if you can't get funded. Whether that is wise is another matter.

Consider that it's not just about the money you will spend *doing* the PhD. There are also the lost earnings for 3-4 years to think about. Also look critically at the job market for people with PhDs in your field. It may be that you will be just as likely to get a job (albeit not necessarily academic) with your masters.

I'm concerned that you say "my interview technique is pretty shocking so I have never got any further than the interview". Isn't this worth addressing? Have you asked for feedback on your interviews so far? How will find a job afterwards if your interview technique is poor? Read around on the forums to see that finding a job with a PhD is certainly not a walk in the park. Also, being rejected after two interviews isn't that much really - perhaps you should keep trying a bit more.

An alternative approach you might like to try is to apply for research technician/assistant jobs first. This would boost your CV and possibly give you a foot in the door for PhD opportunities/funding calls that come up in the future.

Sorry to be negative, but I'm a pragmatist, and I don't think the risks associated with doing a PhD are worth compounding by paying for it as well.

======= Date Modified 24 Oct 2012 13:31:02 =======
I don't know much about your field, or studying in the US, but a few other factors you might like to consider:

- Doing a PhD in the US will probably take you a lot longer than most other places, especially compared to the UK. Bear this in mind with respect to your debt issues.

- As well as supervisor vs institution reputation goes, also factor in department reputation. An average uni with a great department might be better than vice versa. A stellar supervisor in a tiny department might suddenly up sticks, requiring you to follow or cast around for local support which doesn't exist. A larger, well reputed department without such big names might actually be a better environment to undertake a PhD.

- Supervisor accessibility is very important. If they're brilliant but have no time for you, it'll be harder than if you have someone less senior but who is more hands on. If you get a chance, do 'interview' potential supervisors before you commit yourself.

- Do you want to work in academia in the long run, or for an external organisation. If the latter, then make sure your department is outward looking and collaborates with real world organisations, so you get the exposure/contacts. If the former, bear in mind that the academic job market can be suck-y, so don't back yourself into a niche you can't get out of.

Hope this helps (and doesn't make it even more confusing!)

I think it would help if you figure out what kind of job you want to do or sector you'd like to work in. Undertaking further study without an end goal might not be the best use of your time/money,

UCL has both a centre for the built environment
http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/
and an Urban 'Lab'
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/urbanlab/en2/index.php?page=2.0.0

LSE might also be worth a look
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/geographyAndEnvironment/research/Cross%20Cutting%20Themes/Cross%20Cutting%20Themes.aspx

Not my field though so not sure of anything beyond those websites

Who do you ultimately want to be employed by?

If it's academia, then you may have to do a PhD at some point. If you're applying for research assistant roles then one paper probably won't make the difference.

If it's not academia, I doubt anyone will care whether you have papers or not, and they will wonder why you have a Bachelors and two Masters degrees in the same subject. Even if you apply for a research job in industry or a technical job in the health service, they will probably value lab experience more highly than papers if you're going in at pre-doc level.

There is no guarantee that a thesis based Masters will lead to a paper. Some do, some don't. You can't rely on it.

Ahhh I see.

I still think that you need back up from someone higher up. But once given the go ahead, perhaps the best way to proceed is
(i) do it at relatively quiet times in the office
(ii) identify anything that needs chucking and then have a grace period of about a week where people can reclaim stuff before it goes. This might actually highlight to them how pointless some of the stuff is.

======= Date Modified 22 Oct 2012 15:52:37 =======

======= Date Modified 14 Oct 2012 16:29:10 =======
Hi Sneha

The people you should really talk to first are you course tutors. Every university will have its own requirements for dissertations, so you should check what they will be expecting.

The choice of topic may depend on what interests you, and what you intend to do afterwards. For example, if you want to do a research job that is analysis based then you might choose a different dissertation than if you intend to become a public health practitioner. For MSc dissertations, students will commonly analyse a dataset, conduct a systematic review, or evaluate some kind of public health intervention (if data are available).

It is unlikely you will have the opportunity to do any data collection for your dissertation, though if you have access to a dataset of interest you may be able to propose an analysis of that. Otherwise, your tutors may be able to provide you with a dataset.

Good luck choosing your topic.:-)