I believe RogueA understood the slightly cutting edge to my post. It certainly wasn't sarcasm and remains my 'advice', although RogueA's advice is perhaps more prudent.

Interesting!
Relationship + loving your PhD = shutters should have been up from the very start. No flirting, eyes, etc. By flirting you were looking for an escape from something or many things. He could be "the one", also. You (perhaps?) can't have valued the PhD highly enough to be in this position given he's your only supervisor possibility (nothing wrong with that there's more to life etc.); so enjoy it, flirt harder, make something happen and try to nail each other. Lots of fun I'd imagine. It sounds like that's what you would like to do, so just do it

It is perfectly normal to take around 8 years to do a part-time social sciences PhD, even more so given the time-constraints you point to. You should feel very proud imo. I'd ignore comments from people who don't understand yoour situation.

In relation to the point you were trying to make, there are a number of positives to take: this other work, now published, legitimates to a large extent your whole research process and demonstrates by proxy your ability to hit a high (and the required) level of scholarly work. If possible, I'd look for any similarities/differences between your thesis and the published work, as this in essence gives you first crack at providing critical comment on a leading body of work in your field of research and expertise.

Best of luck and you should be very positive about this development; also, I doubt the two analyses are EXACTLY the same?

Hands up, I'm sorry, that was bait.

But my god caught a whopper there, CS bit pretty hard and curled up into a SEETHING ball of rage and fury !!

Like posters below say though, seems a pleasant enough chap, not sure he laughs all that often in life though methinks!

"This forum is full of people who prefer to argue and react to things rather than actually take positive steps to solve a problem. They prefer to moan. Hence why I'm commonsense".

pmsl that's hilarious. It's easier to talk down to people when one has a distorted image of ones own position or self-worth. After all your writing on here CS, no-one has come on to agree with you. Never mind, eh? As far as I recall people on here haven't asked for your "help", your "solutions" or your "advice" - I think we're old enough to look after ourselves ta. Then again, that never stopped you dispensing your "elite-university" knowledge and wisdom. Good lad

"But what about all those "transferable skills" I am acquiring? I am good at note-taking, typing, claiming expenses and dealing with bureaucracy. Am I going to end up as a very expensively trained PA?"

• Commonsense would laud this as precisely what is great about PhD's, I mean, look in awe, skilled in note-taking and bureaucracy, the opportunities to serve the economy are endless, thrilling. And related to the PhD of course, hence being 'transferable'. I may look into the PA option actually....

On a separate matter, for me, no, just getting the PhD / Dr title is NOT enough. It's a part, but not the most significant. I was asked why I was doing it in a class in my first year by someone who is now one of my two supervisors: my answer was

"To contribute to the stock of knowledge about our society". Simple as that.

So the BIG reward is publishing something that will (significantly in some cases) advance the levels of knowledge available in the areas my thesis covers, and stand the test of time and the scrutiny of succeeding authors/researchers. Just completing the 3.5 years is not enough in my book, so to speak.

"Applied social research is very important to society and the economy"
Again, reference to the mighty economy and its importance. What about research for the sake of building knowledge about human societies, without small contributions to which no grandiose links can be made, revised and applied to the course of human life? (e.g. Iraq.)
• Of course, good sociological research can make explicit the link between aspects such as "the economy", state-formation, civilization, changes in human behaviour e.g. violence or etiquette and manners (farting, for example), thus EXPLAINING forms of social life without serving any "higher need" that you feel, in the main, research must feed almost without pause. Your points are mostly fair but they are uncomfortably one-sided and do you a disservice, I feel.

I fully respect your position CS.

We have very different ideas about what PhD's are for and what they most strongly represent, but there is no doubt that your 'economic-feed-the-masses side' is suffocating the life out of the principles that a PhD was designed to uphold. Best of luck.

I'm off to play 5-a-side on ankles that are legendary for their brittleness, I'm too old for this!

Imo Commonsense is trapping himself behind a wall of economic determinism, an elaborate but ultimately flawed view of the problems inherent in the modern PhD-related infrastructure. It seems you aren't interested in the thousands of failure stories this culture generates, despite its echo of excellence that seems more faint the more it is discussed. I presume that you have graduated and are settled within 'the system' already ?

Commonsense you do an injustice to your username when you talk about all and sundry being allowed access to postgraduate programmes! Millions of people aspire to be professional footballers, for example, but they know from the outset only the very best will make it (there have been exceptions!). So, pray tell, how does one gauge whether one is an average, good, excellent, or @ a Norbert-Elias level sociologist? Who decides? Where is the structure that tells us this? I think I'm really good, but am I? Maybe I'm rubbish. How will I find out? Do I get a rank stamped on my doctoral certificate or should I just up the teaching on a college somewhere and brush up my Excel skills? Hmmm.

"Sadly, I find myself in full agreement with BHC Matt. Said person appears to be the voice of 'common sense' in this thread, for me anyway". -- That's a fine assessment given that myself and BHC have kept to our (very similar) position from the outset

"A PhD is not like a medical degree working towards one specific career and can be used productvely in many ways".

Take off those rose-tinted spectacles please Commonsense !!

Great stuff chaps, keep it up, and why aren't others joining in ?!

As for teaching, again this is all well and good, I've done it myself in many forms. At interview for an academic position e.g. lecturer it is my belief you should be judged on the brilliance of your PhD research and ability demonstrated through this, not the fact that you stood in a room twice a week and 'teached'. If you look at application forms (and some academic appointments) you see that this is certainly not the case. It's quite bizarre to me I must admit. Anyway, lunchtime beckons

Ah, perhaps I wasn't clear there - I mean the pressure to publish during the course of a PhD before the write-up phase when, by definition, a student cannot be expected (generally speaking) to have produced any publishable findings, so why publish? Of course serious publication is crucial once the award of the PhD has been made. I will publish academic papers based on my research in my own time, regardless of what job I eventually take. I agree with your points about PhD suitability for 'other' positions, certainly. I may end up in one of those positions. But my criticisms won't change. As a previous poster said, people should just buy the Dr title from a website, it would be quicker and have the same resonance as slogging for 3 years, which is a shame.