Hello,

I am having one of those days where nothing makes sense to me anymore. Could anyone who knows about intervention research and is familiar with different intervention designs please explain in layman's terms (I can't handle anything else) what a double baseline design is? I've googled but it isn't making sense to me. I can see that it isn't like an RCT. There isn't a control group and treatment group to which participants are randomly assigned. And it looks like all the participants undergo the (same) treatment and are measured at baseline. So why is it called a "double" baseline design? Are outcomes compared from before and after treatment? And if so can placebo or other effects (e.g., spontaneous recovery) be ruled out, or can the design not deal with those things?

Thanks so much in advance to anyone who can answer!

Tudor

I agree with the previous posts, but the fact that the feedback from interviews is specific and directly related to the PhD suggests that it IS being perceived as an issue. This is why I am asking about possible cultural differences. On the other hand, there are no issues with actually securing interviews, and yet it seems to come up as an issue AT interview. So maybe it is indeed simply a matter of how you're managing to frame it when asked about it in person.

I also have two friends (UK based) who quit their PhDs and found jobs very quickly - no issues. They were both in their first year though. So this might be what is causing a problem here. You were much later into your PhD if I recall rightly. So you have a slightly larger gap to explain. And then also having to explain why quit when you were so near to the end (near to the end on paper at least - reality can be a different story, I know). But, I am confident that there are ways to frame these things positively and pragmatically - as people have suggested here.

However, I think there may be a potential issue with culture differences, which I am not really equipped to offer advice on. Actually, I think the real issue probably revolves around this. It seems having quit your PhD is posing more of a problem there than it would here in the UK. If this IS the case, then it is very difficult to offer culture specific advice. I know, for example, that a friend of mine in Germany became very stressed and almost had a breakdown when she switched jobs twice in a short space of time. Her family thought she was throwing her excellent work history down the drain. She thought she would struggle to find another job. Etc. Apparently the culture there is such that people often keep a job for all of their working lives and so switching jobs is a very big deal. I share this to highlight the fact that culture differences might be playing a huge role here and you might need to ask advice from someone who knows how things work in your culture.

How come everyone else understands the question? I think I've been working too hard on my thesis. It still isn't clear to me what the poster is asking, even having read all the responses! : D

Hello! When I got my first journal rejection... I put it on my list of achievements (a geeky looking list I have in an Excel file somewhere). It is part of the academic life and so you've reached a new milestone! It can hurt though and take a while to get over.

It happens to everyone though - even the big names in the field. If it has never happened to someone (or has only happened to them once for example), it simply means that they haven't been in the trade long enough yet!

Glad you're feeling better about things already. Defo submit elsewhere where you get to see comments. I don't think it is normal practice to see the names of the reviewers (that could lead to increased rates of homicide and really isn't that necessary anyway). But the constructive feedback can be super helpful in helping you to improve the paper.

All the best!

I imagine that as you get work (at whatever level) and do it so that you have a more recent job history, this issue will come up far less.

Hi FutureProfessor!
I'm a bit confused by what you mean here. Is it that:
- you are going to do a postgraduate qualification in teaching and need to choose a specific subject?
- you are now thinking about which specific subject would you want to teach as you near the end of your PhD in a few years and start looking for lectureships?
- you are unsure of which topic should you choose for your PhD (as you hope to end up teaching in the same area later)?
Please clarify!
Tudor

Perhaps some people might like to say where they are from if it comes up. Where's the problem?

Yes or no, depending on your specific circumstances. I have a friend who is in her final year and just got offered a job as a lecturer. Her thesis is already in the bag (me = green with envy) and she is just twiddling her thumbs (well, not exactly) so she applied when she saw the position advertised. Other friends in their final year are now applying for postdocs. I think it is the norm to do this in the final year. But you are only just going into your final year... so maybe hold off until you are mid-way / nearer the finish-line? That way your availability to start is more likely to be in line with the required start date for any position...

No harm in looking though, seeing what is out there, and what the starting dates are.

That's my opinion on the matter! All the best!

I've found this webpage helpful in the past too! If I recall rightly, I do think I found it a little pessimistic though - like the default position was that you should leave academia because it's hard and probably not for you - but maybe its intention is simply not to paint an unrealistic rosy view of things.

Disclose it if you want to. By the sounds of your advisor's advice, it isn't necessary to disclose it (unless in relation to applying for fellowships). However, if you wish to disclose it then go ahead. Just make it clear that you don't need a sponsor or whatever so that it doesn't hinder anything.

Ps. Love the avatar!