Hi arabidopsisthaliana

I am not really sure what to advise, as it is hard to judge whether what you are going through is normal (or rather that the level of support is reasonable) or things in other labs are different. Do you have any contacts in very similar fields who you could ask? The reason I suggest this is that I recently visited another lab and my eyes were opened to how things CAN be... genuine collaborating and people being supported through such collaborations to go way further in their development, thinking, and outputs than what they likely could do by themselves. Yes a PhD is independent research. But research involves collaboration and learning from others too. Probably to varying degrees depending on your field. So my advice would be definitely try to find out how other labs in your research area function. Maybe visit some - perhaps if you're interested in a particular person's work you could get in touch about visiting.

Once you've established whether it is just you who is struggling in this environment or actually other labs are not like this - you can make a plan about what to do (e.g., adapt your own expectations, seek support in other ways, or maybe even try to transfer to somewhere else).

Hope this helps stimulate some ideas.

I can ask my supervisor about this as well.

Hello! Just relax! It is so easy to think too hard about things and get all panicked for no reason. Honestly, just say whatever comes out naturally... maybe something like, "Hi, I'm Najoi" (if that is your name), followed by a couple of sentences about whatever it is you are supposed to be talking about. If it literally is about "you", then you could make a cool slide with some pictures and/or a word cloud that matches some of the things you are going to say... your interests, why you are at the Summer School, what you hope to get from it... (if it is that kind of Summer school).

Personally, I wouldn't try too say much - just smile - introduce yourself - saying something like the above : )

Hope this helps!

Thank you eng77. The original version of Study 1 was rejected from a journal. I could have just submitted it elsewhere, but I preferred to take on board the criticisms and go back to the drawing board and make it better. Do you think it could be worth putting the reviewers comments in to show what led to the change in plan?

Sure but what's wrong with looking for one if she/he feels it would be helpful? I think that recognizing what things are personally motivating to you and give you that extra boost can only be a good thing.

Hmm, this is helpful because it shows me that I can put some sort of commentary in my thesis. The only theses I've seen are either a set of chapters or papers with no explanations about development and feedback in them. Mine is going to need something like this in order to make sense.

OK, the message here seems to be transparency. That makes sense. I am doing an alternative format thesis though, where the three (or four depending on how you look at it) studies are written up as papers in their own right (in paper format - not necessarily published or publishable). So, how do I get this kind of narrative in? A little section before each paper explaining? Or maybe a bit in the Introduction that explains the planned sequence of studies and then states that an additional analysis was done after the planned studies were complete, and this is at the end of the thesis?

Ask them what you want to know. Are you choosing a grad school? If so, what is important to you. Resources available, lab working environment, expectations, opportunities to collaborate with others, the aims of the research group... Just some ideas! You can ask students what you can't really find out from the professors. What are they like to work with? Do they give proper feedback? What is the one thing you would change about them?

Hi stargazer000, Something else you could do is advertise for a study buddy more locally - for instance on Gumtree or on University noticeboards. It sounds odd but I have done it several times and met people who were like minded (though from different research fields usually) - and it has been good. I have two friendships that began like this - although that wasn't the original intent! You have to not mind meeting people and be open to it not always working out though! I feel your pain about being in an environment that doesn't inspire you. I agree with what the previous poster said about recognizing what does motivate you and seeking that out. All the best in your quest!

Hello people (those who have already done their thesis),

My PhD work is all higgledy-piggledy. Instead of it being like Study 1 is the foundation for Study 2 and 3, which lead on nicely from it, making it a coherent and interesting read, as I had planned... it is more like: Study 1 is a good foundation for Study 2 and 3, but then for some reason Study 2 and Study 3 don't really pay attention to what was learnt in Study 1...

This happened because I went back to Study 1 and re-analysed it and made it so much better - but by then it was too late to change Study 2 and 3 (one of which was an experiment / intervention) so that they would be informed by it... so as the reader, I can't help thinking "hmm, why did she do this when she found this in Study 1? Surely she should have done THIS instead...".

In other words, it lacks coherence when you try to understand it as a linear succession of studies.

I've thought about maybe putting an introductory note that explains that although Study 1 is labelled as Study 1, it is actually a renanalysis that happened when the data for Study 2 and 3 were already collected. Could this work?

I'm going to ask my supervisor too of course but any advice appreciated.

Thanks!

Have you tried googling or doing database searches with mixed methods as keywords and then narrowing down to theses? Sorry can't be of more help.

Thank you both. I think I will take that advice.

They do indeed have limitations. The most important I can think of is that there is no attention control to rule out placebo effects. But, I think their use is justified in some scenarios, such as in a) feasibility research and in b) populations where it would be unethical to assign individuals to a control condition (or make them wait for treatment), or c )where the population are so few and far between that it is hard to get the numbers to be adequately powered for an RCT.

The example I gave was from a paper where they were testing the feasibility and efficacy of a treatment for children with a certain genetic phenotype, and they justified the design on those grounds (a and c) but did say that a larger trial would be needed before the treatment could be rolled out.

What is a wedge design? Sounds uncomfortable!

Is there a norm these days? I remember seeing people waiting to go in for a postdoc interview and some looking more on the casual side. So maybe your own comfort is more important these days? Any tips appreciated!

Thank you for the super helpful explanation!

Is the example you've provided just one variation of how it can be done? I've skim read two papers that say they used a double baseline design, and both of them just had one group of individuals who were measured twice at baseline (t1 and t2) and then once after baseline (t3). Then change from t1 - t2 was compared with change from t2 - t3, so see if treatment induced change (t2 - t3) was greater.

Your example, by contrast (if I've understood it correctly), doesn't involve taking two baseline measurements from the same group, but instead, one from two separate cohorts.

So both our examples take more than one baseline measurement, but the designs are actually quite different. Hmm!