ahhh!!! my lcd mscreen on my laptop is having issues--i have a streaky line of dead or stuck pixels down the screen--its useable but I am wondering whether to try this program I read about, Dan's Dead Pixel Fixer....has anyone had any experience in fixing dead pixels ( black) as opposed to stuck ( red and green) on the monitor? I know I can replace the lcd monitor...but don't want to ( can't) spend the money at the moment to do it....so am wanting to try this program but am afraid of whether it might do further damage....the screen as is, its usable, and I can live with that for a few months until I have the money to replace the screen

It is likely a difference without any significance. Partly it may depend in what field you are reading--whether they use the "v" or not when talking about it. It is a "paradigm" which as has been indicated here, is the belief that social meaning/normative meaning/whatever meaning/ is constructed---that is built by the participants in a process, rather than as some sort of objective truth out there waiting to be found ( which is positivism). My own guess is that the v crops up in a sort of parallel to the word of positivism, with a v, but I am not aware from my own reading that you have any real differences between constructionist /constructivism/ist--different words in different fields, but relating to the same concepts...constructivism runs through many fields--international relations theory, political science, law, sociology, surely many more--sometimes also known as transactional, linked to interpretive...someone mentioned the Lincoln book, that has some great charts that help explain the ontology, epistimology and methodology of this paradigm. Hope that helps!

ps sorry for double post--just saw you mentioned reaching saturation---this is a concept from grounded theory--where theoretical saturation is reached. If you are using grounded theory, there are other hallmarks of having reached a sound result--instead of reliability and validity---but you would need to be able to show each of your stages in analysis--data coding as open coding, as the first stage, moving up through ( I think three stages) the remainder--show how you analysed the data at each stage...etc.....method needs LOTS of detailed discussion.

Hi

You need to think about why sample size "matters" ( or not). Sample size is used to show that the data is representational of a certain group, and that there is sufficient statistical validity in the results--to show reliability and validity. ie, how do you defend the outcomes of the research. However, that is often the way that quantitative, not qualitative, methods demonstrate the qualities of reliability and validity. There are parallel measures in other kinds of quals methods---depends on the method you used. If your sample size is not meant to bring up a representational result, then say so upfront in your discussion of the results, and explain what the intention of the interviews was, as well as how you defend the outcomes ( if not reliability and validity, use the alternate measures)--and in your discussion give a great deal of detail on how you actually employed the methodology. Its not enough to say "I did such and such"--you need to show through discussion, charts, graphs, etc, how you used the methodology--as in the end, this is how the value of research is judged, and something examiners will certainly be looking for. I hope that helps.

oh yes, that is right--defense, not defence, and so of course, offense, not offence....
surely there are countless others.

Look at it this way, it gives you a claim to being bilingual. :P I say I speak two languages, American and English! And can spell in both of them as well ( oh, and for instance, Americans do not have a full stop, its a period, and its not inverted commas, its quotation marks, and I am still trying to understand all these weird pedestrian crossing types like zebra, pelican and toucan....heck, I am still trying to figure out how to cross the road!!!

======= Date Modified 11 Oct 2010 16:26:04 =======
:D

There are lots of words...! basically, American spelling substitutes a "z" ( we say it ZEE not ZED) for an "s" in most words, words end in ER, not Re ( so why are October, November and December not spelled Octobre, Novembre, and Decembre in UK English?), lose the u in "ou" spelling, analyze is analyze, analysis is analysis...Americans tend not to say, firstly, secondly, thirdly--but rather, First, the second point...the third point...

Can you set your spell checker to not automatically change words, but just go through set on American spelling, and make manual changes?

Organise is organize, etc...I cannot think of any other words that have tormented me--my spelling has defaulted to UK English and its very hard to change back when I am trying to spell American now and again!

Good luck with the publication!

PS Feel free to send me a PM if you have a question on any particular words!

ps sorry for double post

the other thing is to be confident about how your research is already locked deep in your memory and accessible to you--you know our thesis, inside and out, even if it does not feel like it, that material is in your head and thus another reason to not overly stress over the thesis reading...yes, do it, but its not as if you are expected or even able to memorise it....and again best of luck, I am sure you will get through it just fine. Thesis repulsion must be the sign of a healthy brain ready to get that doctorate!

good luck Claudia and trust me this is a common feeling about the thesis...you have gotten some helpful tips here, DanB's idea is a good one. I am all done dusted and doctored and I still hate to even go within about 30 feet of my thesis. Its all bound and shiny on my shelf, and I hide it under papers and books so I do not have to see it! :D

Thesis repulsion is natural...but just small bits at a time, not in long stretches, and you will get through it!

I think a break is important--when I have two hour lectures, I try to give a break at about 45-50 minutes for 10 minutes...longer than that and the students seem to get fractious and want to start up again, shorter than that, and they cannot really get up, stretch, get a drink or whatever. The study on lectures show that attention spans wane after 20 minutes, so during the lecture, anything that you can do that is interactive helps bring the attention span and learning up again. Depends on what you are teaching, I would imagine as to whether there is much you can do---I try to put a problem question or two in a lecture, right after going through some concepts, and ask them to apply them then and there...and then we talk through the answers. I give them say 2-3 minutes to try to come up with something, and tell them to talk to their neighbour if they want. I think mostly they do talk about the problem and not the football scores...then I will do something like ask for a show of hands of everyone who thought x....and then y...and sometimes I make x or y outrageous answers, just to get their attention, and then move on to the right thin...

Breaks are good, to keep attention spans and learning up....Good luck with this!

Belford--can someone tell the story of that again, please!?!:-)(tree)(turkey)

OMG I can so sympathise. There is nothing wrong with you or your thesis. You just have the writing up blues!!! Writing up was the worst part of the thesis for me and I felt like you sometimes, like why even bother, or what was I thinking when I wrote this??!!! and I wanted to set the entire thesis on fire and forget it.....its just a hard time, and what you are going through is just part of it. I think the second half of the PhD is harder than the first half...someone told me that most people who quit their thesis do so when they are like 95% done...because of the writing up blues. So what you are going through is "normal"--and you can probably see why so many people throw in the towel at this stage, not because they should but because of how hard things get at this point.

When I was trying to get my copy printed off to submit, my printer caught on fire ( well not literally but it was overheating) so it took 6 hours to get one copy of the thesis out....so I took it to a place to copy it for me at no small price, so when I got that back they had totally messed up the copies, messed up pages, missing pages, oh I cannot even describe the horror...then had the nerve to charge me again when I went back to have them fix it. I was so beaten down at that point I wanted to just make the thing go away so I just paid. I didn't even have the energy to fight them....

Hang in there. I am sure your work is brill and it will all turn out fine. This is just part of the hideous process of finishing...

OMG I can so sympathise. There is nothing wrong with you or your thesis. You just have the writing up blues!!! Writing up was the worst part of the thesis for me and I felt like you sometimes, like why even bother, or what was I thinking when I wrote this??!!! and I wanted to set the entire thesis on fire and forget it.....its just a hard time, and what you are going through is just part of it. I think the second half of the PhD is harder than the first half...someone told me that most people who quit their thesis do so when they are like 95% done...because of the writing up blues. So what you are going through is "normal"--and you can probably see why so many people throw in the towel at this stage, not because they should but because of how hard things get at this point.

When I was trying to get my copy printed off to submit, my printer caught on fire ( well not literally but it was overheating) so it took 6 hours to get one copy of the thesis out....so I took it to a place to copy it for me at no small price, so when I got that back they had totally messed up the copies, messed up pages, missing pages, oh I cannot even describe the horror...then had the nerve to charge me again when I went back to have them fix it. I was so beaten down at that point I wanted to just make the thing go away so I just paid. I didn't even have the energy to fight them....

Hang in there. I am sure your work is brill and it will all turn out fine. This is just part of the hideous process of finishing...

Hi, am glad that helped. Constructivist does not require you be a part of the participant group--its not so literal as that. Rather, it takes the view that the researcher's own life, values, etc can influence the research, and sees the researcher as involved in the transactional process, rather than positivist, which says the opposite.

I suppose there is some way you could fashion an argument that you used both, but I am not sure how that would get received if you are examined by people who are big on methodology....it could be a clunker ( to say the least).

I often describe methodology as one of three legs of a research "paradigm". Your overall research design, whether you articulate it specifically or not, also includes ontology and epistimology ( sorry cannot spell, coffee has not kicked in!) as well as methods. The three fall together to create the design of your project--and that overall design is the paradigm. Positivism and constructivism are more than methods--they are, if you will, a bigger package that include certain standpoints of ontology, espestimology and method--method is often pointed to for the research but the others are equally present in what you did. As well, there is not a single method for positivism or constructivism--there are many methods that would fall under the ambit of each paradigm. Grounded theory for instance can be positivistic or constructivist, depends on how you use it....

The problem in trying to say you used both positivism and constructivism is that their methods clash, their ontology and epistimology are very different--they are different broad paradigms as opposed to methods in and of themselves....It would be like trying to convince someone that an apple pie is the same as fish and chips...

Try the Lincoln and Guba book if you can find it--it will explain in their charts much more clearly than I have.

I hope that helps....

Hi Sneaks! I am sure you will get it done. There is nothing like a deadline to focus the mind--and remember--there ain't nothing as powerful as a made up mind...just set your mind to make the deadline and you will.

On the constructivist/positivist thing--I did constructivist work with interviews in part of my thesis, so am gonna make an attempt to give you the short version of the whole thing.

A couple of books that are helpful if you need to reference these methods/paradigms--I like Creswell and his Mixed Methods book, also helpful is Guba and Lincoln, in a couple of books by Sage on Qualitative Methods. There is a giant book with an orange cover and a little green paperback--I would suggest the giant orange book, because half way through its got some great charts that lay out exactly the difference between constructivism and positivism.

Positivism: Generally what we think of with "scientific method" --you as the researcher are neutral and apart from your work, a detached observer, who believes that there is a "truth" to be discovered through testing an hypothesis. Testing relies on reliability and validity for validation. Your reasoning is deductive, that is from general to specific.

Constructivism: Instead of thinking there is some universal truth out there to discover, you as the researcher think that meaning is created through social interactive ( sometimes the word transactional is used) processes. Meaning changes and is dynamic. Constructivism is often thought to be inductive or interpretive--sometimes reasoning from the specific to the general.

Another great book that quickly and easily lays out the diff between constructivism and positivism is by Kathy Charmaz, on Constructivist Grounded Theory. Even if you are not using grounded theory, if you can get hold of her book, she has a clear and easy to follow distinction between each of them and her discussion is general enough to apply to any kind of research--whether or not you make use of grounded theory methodology.

Hope that helps. If you need anything more, please feel free to PM!

*hugs* I think that nearly everyone has been in that spot and more than once! You are not alone in having a presentation not go the way you wanted. But no way did you look incompetent or put the department in a bad light. You got up there, you had good materials, you made it through. Incompetency would be a) you no showed; b) you turned up drunk or c) your material was all wrong. None of those things happened, what you had was a case of nerves. Which is NOT incompetency--far from it!!!!!!!!!

I have a friend who has been teaching for years and she tells me she still gets nervous before class! Some long time professor sorts are very nervous ahead of lectures...so its not even necessarily a symptom of being new--some people just have more nerves than others about public speaking.

Don't fade away. Pat yourself on the back for having got through it. I think the only way to get through speaking nerves is to just do it and do it and do it until eventually you have done it so much you do not get nervous ( or less so...).

At my first ever academic conference some senior academic woman came up to me in the LOO!!!!! to tell me how I had screwed up on some point in the presentation, and I was in error. I felt sick the rest of the day. Turns out that I was right, and she was wrong, and my respect for academics qua academics went out the window. One, she was wrong, and two she was a complete ( fill in word not allowed on the forum) in how she approached me.

At some level if people have no constructive criticism they should just shut it--sorry if that sounds harsh, but really, the people who dash around in conferences lime lighting and trying to show they know more than the speakers have got some real issues. If they are all that, then they should be up there in the front, not in the back, waving a helium hand and trying to demonstrate how the speaker is wrong. It is one thing to have a polite, if passionate academic exchange. Its another altogether to be rude.

Oopps off on a rant. :D I would say you did just fine, and should take what there is to learn from this and then just put it behind you. You will have other presentations that do not go as you want and others that will exceed your expectations.

I have been told that when people are nervous, they breathe shallow from the chest and not from the diaphragm and thus the voice comes out more breathy. Simple tips for nerve control are:

1. Smile!!!!!! Honestly!!!! If you smile, your body relaxes, and the breathing changes from chest to diaphragm. I paint a false smile over my face if I have to to make this happen--but it does work!!!! Smile and make pleasant chat the few minutes ahead of presenting, and it forces the body into relaxing.

2. Deep breathe. Same effect. Breathe from the diaphragm--no nerves! Take some deep breaths as you begin to speak and smile! If you need to pause--which is recommended from time to time, have a sip of water, take a few deep breaths, if need be FORCE that smile back on your face, and your body will be more relaxed, the nervous shallow breathing gone, and your own nerves diminished.

Acting lessons and other presentation workshops can help you learn to do all this--but really---controlling nerves or at least masking them is this simple--smile and breathe deep! I know it might sound trite, but it works!!!