Lay your hand on the two underlisted books and I'm sure you'll be fine. I did and was atop my data.

1) Saldana, J. (2009) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Sage.
2) Silverman, D. (2006) Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction. Sage.

The first focuses exclusively on data coding and the other mainly on data interpretation.

Wishing you the very best wishes!

Pat.

======= Date Modified 17 Jul 2012 01:39:04 =======
Sorry Tracy, I haven't been here for a while. It's wrong to submit the same work to more than one journal at a go. In my experience, when submitting a manuscript to a journal editor you have to declare that the same manuscript in other formats, languages, etc, etc, has never been published or currently under consideration by another journal. However, I'm unsure if this applies to books. Both publishers never mentioned that I make this declaration and looking at their website as I write this, there is no word on this matter on the website of both publishers. Of course, I'm not going to ask two publishers to publish the same work. That must be a crime of some descriptions. Nonetheless, I've read about instances when people initially submitted works to, and get accepted by, less prestigious publishers. However, before proceeding, and, for some reasons, they resubmitted the same manuscripts to top notch publishers only to get accepted again. In the end, they went with the more prestigious publisher and ditched the less prestigious. I'll do the same. Of course, if the prestigious publisher declined to publish my work I'll stick with the existing publisher. The thing is, I wanted something on my CV which shows that my work has, on the one hand, been accepted for publication, albeit by a less prestigious publisher; and, on the other hand, under consideration at a top notch publishing house. I'm aware that rumour mills grinds round the clock, lol, the title and publishers mentioned above has nothing, even remotely, to do with my work. 8-)

======= Date Modified 07 Jul 2012 21:08:25 =======
I am applying for a lectureship in the social sciences and currently revising my CV. I have a monograph that's been accepted for publication by a publisher. I have the contract to hand but haven't signed it. I've proposed the same work to another publisher (considered one of, if not, the best) and the proposal is under review. I'll like to add this work/title to my CV but unsure of how to go about it without looking unethical to the search committee. Can I indicate on my CV that the title has been accepted for publication by, for example, University of Bolton Press, but currently under review at the University of Cambridge Press? What's the best approach? Something like:

Patseya, G. Female Circumcision: A Rite of Passage or a Ritualised Violation of Women's Rights. (accepted for publication by University of Bolton Press and under review at the University of Cambridge Press).

Your thoughts, please.

I am applying for a lectureship in the social sciences and currently revising my CV. I have a monograph that's been accepted for publication by a publisher. I have the contract to hand but haven't signed it. I've proposed the same work to another publisher (considered one of, if not, the best) and the proposal is under review. I'll like to add this work/title to my CV but unsure of how to go about it without looking unethical to the search committee. Can I indicate on my CV that the title has been accepted for publication by, for example, University of Bolton Press, but currently under review at the University of Cambridge Press? What's the best approach? Something like:

Patseya, G. Female Circumcision: A Rite of Passage or a Ritualised Violation of Women's Rights. (accepted for publication by University of Bolton Press and under review at the University of Cambridge Press).

Your thoughts, please.

First and foremost, if you carefully reflect on your viva voce examination, I suspect you should have a lot to gain from the insights of the famous Professor with 30 years research experience. Mine had been a Professor for well over 20 (not 30) years, and globally ranks top 5% in my field. Putting his name on my CV and obtaining a positive reference from him, I've realised, has been very helpful! Concerning the corrections you've been asked to make, I am sure you and your supervisor had no issues with some and apparently find others unnecessary. For those corrections you considered necessary, you'll need to tackle them as appropriate. For those you and your supervisor deemed unnecessary, your supervisor is right in asking you to explain why you have left them uncorrected. What I’ll do is to make a list of the corrections – if anything is unclear in the examiners’ report, you (or your supervisor) should be able to seek clarifications from them via emails. Using the list, I’ll sort the corrections into two sections/categories: accept and reject. For the accepted corrections, I’ll address them as appropriate. For the reject, I’ll strengthen my arguments (if applicable) using more raw and secondary data to defend my position. When submitting the corrected version, I’ll enclose a list of the corrections required and made. I’ll also list other corrections I've been asked to make but which I disagreed with, explaining why the corrections were unnecessary and indicating what I’ve done to strengthen my stance. I personally experienced this just under a year ago and my resubmission was highly commended. Good luck!

Hi Delta, I didn't realise you asked the question in relation to your own work which explains why I gave a generic, honest answer. This said, as we're here to support each other, I'm sure you'll be fine! It sometimes appear that one's work/aspects of one's work isn't/aren't strong enough to warrant PhD, and hence, the thought of taking MPhil in lieu of a PhD. If you consider the fact that MPhil degrees at Universities such as Cambridge and Bristol, etc, are doable in one year, full-time, you would certainly want to earn your PhD having put in some three years or so into the work. I'm unsure what stage you're in. But, remain positive, do your utmost best and hope for the best. Best wishes. Patsey.

======= Date Modified 15 Nov 2011 11:45:10 =======
======= Date Modified 15 Nov 2011 11:44:11 =======
That's correct, Delta. These days, many universities both here in the UK and North America, in addition to leaving MPhil, MLitt, PhD theses on reference only shelves now deposit them online through the eTheses repository schemes. See, for example, the following: etheses.nottingham.ac.uk, etheses.bham.ac.uk, etheses.dur.ac.uk, etheses.qmu.ac.uk, www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/ora/oxford_etheses

Since you specifically mentioned failed MPhil, I guess one wouldn't necessarily know certain MPhil theses are failed PhDs because some simply want the MPhil and not the PhD. besides, in a few cases I’m aware of, certain academic departments required doctoral students to complete their MPhils and have it to hand on their way to obtaining their PhDs. Of course, as the author of the (MPhil, MLitt, PhD) thesis, you may choose not to waive your right to have the work accessible to the public for specified period of time. Hope this helps.

======= Date Modified 09 Nov 2011 20:22:41 =======
Hi everyone,

I have a Research Fellow interview middle of next week and the invite letter says there would be a short computer test. I'm in the field of Education. Anyone have any ideas what this might involve. I seriously need to net this job ,-)

Thanks JustNic, Just PM'd you.

If you have institutional access or personal access (through membership of the American Educational Studies Association (AESA), please help me down load this article (details shown below).

Suttle, B. B. (1981) ‘The need for and inevitability of moral indoctrination’
Educational Studies, 12(2), pp. 151–161.

NB: There are two journals called Educational Studies. One is UK based. The other one which I'm particular about (http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heds20?close=12#vol_12) is based in the USA.

Thanks for the anticipated cooperation.


Dr Patsey.

======= Date Modified 15 Jul 2011 22:33:38 =======

Thanks for all the responses. My friend tends to believe that doing a PhD would secure her a tenured academic position and has, therefore, exclusively been focusing her job search within the academia. I can tell she was dismissive of my suggestion that she should retrain, e.g. by doing a PGCE. Actually, if she had enrolled last year, she would have been funded. But, from this September funding for several PGCE courses (including PGCE Citizenship which her existing qualifications in Politics would easily get her into) have been axed. So, she would have to foot the bill if she goes on it now. Besides, I guess it's already too late to get into a PGCE which starts this September. Personally, I noted that apart from conference presentations/proceedings, she hasn't really published anything, despite the claim to the contrary. For me, conference proceedings aren't the same thing as peer reviewed articles in high impact journals. This leaves me wondering if she's really realistic.

Yes, google doesn't help matters when it comes to not declaring the existence of the PhD. But how would an employer view this if and when they come to know. wouldn't they feel like "what else could s/he the hiding from us?" Just a thought!

Yesterday, I met a friend that I haven't seen for a while and was surprised to realize that 2 years after graduating, she hasn't got a job and so continues to work, part-time, in a call centre where she was working whilst doing her PhD. Isn't this sad and how widespread is this sort of scenario? Her PhD is in politics. I told her to enrol on a PGCE (with a view to teaching either in the secondary or in the FE sector), seek non-academic jobs in universities, the civil service, NGOs or go down the route of graduate entry level jobs rather than staying put in a £6.50 p/hour call centre job. Am I being cynical or wouldn't working in a call center 2 years after completing her PhD count against her in academic job interviews? Let me have your thoughts!

My viva lasted just over one hour. In contrast to horror viva stories often told, it was more of a lively debate of my work/thesis. The external, who is the editor of the main journal in my field, commenced noting that "I've thoroughly enjoyed reading your thesis". He, however, added that the viva would explore some of the issues requiring clarifications. Then, it was more of a lively conversation. Tough questions, though! Both examiners fielded their questions which I tackled to the best of my abilities. Some 75 minutes into the viva, the questioning stopped. Both examiners looked at each other, there was a split second silence and the external said "fair enough". He asked if the internal had any more questions to which he responded, "NO". I left the room with my supervisor for some 5-10 minutes which I spent chatting with my supervisor. The chair came to fetch us. The external notified me of the joint decision: "PASSED WITH MINOR CORRECTIONS". I was SO PLEASED.