Thanks for sharing Pjlu. Mine is purely quantitative and would fall under social sciences. I am doing an "alternative format" thesis, which will comprise an intro, three "papers" (or at least written up manuscripts in paper format), and a discussion. I've finished collecting data, so I can't really go back and do more based on what I've done already. There are limitations such as sample size (this is often a limitation in my field so not overly worried - I recruited as much as I could) and participant characteristics not being as I had hoped, but those are not really things I cannot do anything about.

Thanks Thesisfun! It just feels like everything is worthless without that darn p value! I completely disagree with that, but it seems the culture. Your words are extremely encouraging; thank you! : ) : )

Cool! Yeh, I think so too. Think I just wanted to hear it said to me. And thankfully, I don't have any problem writing things well, so that part should go OK. I'll certainly see what my supervisor says when we next meet. She is encouraging but realistic, which is good. What do you mean "people appreciate that I don't point in wrong directions"?

Yes, this is great, and I agree with all you've said. What I would like to hear though is some experiences of where people have been successful defending their work in the viva when it was a bit disappointing / uninspiring in the results department. Thankfully my first study has some "significant" findings. But the latter two are so boring (although I do appreciate that there are things to be learnt from them - especially for myself as a developing researcher). I'm just freaking out at it a bit.

People in my department call it "negative results" or "negative findings". I don't like the term myself - as it doesn't quite make sense. Basically - yes, you didn't find what you were expecting - or you didn't find anything "significant" - either statistically or clinically. It happens a fair bit in my field... interventions etc are not effective when you expected them to be. Has anyone here had a thesis that basically didn't report any significant results? It would just be encouraging to hear some accounts of the research still being appreciated, and successfully defended, in the viva.

Hello,
Has anyone on here successfully written their thesis and defended their viva with lots of "negative" results? It feels very disheartening and would just be encouraging to hear that it can be done.
Tudor

I agree Pjlu - especially about being kind to yourself. Sometimes this can be as simple as treating yourself to a hot chocolate or similar. And patting yourself on the back for those small achievements.

Hey! Doing a PhD can be a real trying time for self-confidence! Lots of things can go "wrong" (failed experiments, rejections, etc), and there are plenty of opportunities to compare yourself to others or feel like you're being compared to others. You are definitely not alone! But - and this is the great part - you can change things!

The best thing I can suggest (from my own experience) is to DO things. No matter how small - accomplish tasks (e.g., learn a method, write a chapter, give a talk - whatever you can handle at the time). When you've completed something and you're proud of it, your confidence begins to grow.

All the best.

Where is Faded's thread?

Congrats Faded.

Some are pushing for reform. I really enjoyed snippets from this book:

I think that is what I am coming to get my head around from this forum... there is so much variety in how things are, how supervisors/departments etc vary. It's crazy! PhD students vary too, of course! I know that I have been a bit unorthodox at times as a PhD student, and I have to say that most times, although it was taking a risk, it has paid off. If you really aren't happy with something (and you can't just get used to it or accept it), you should diplomatically raise it and ask for change - even if it IS how things are done there/how your supervisor likes to do things. There are TWO people in this relationship, and there should be compromises all around.

Thanks pm133. But, I don't think I should have been on the papers. If you'd ask me to explain the theory or give a detailed rationale behind the study or what it contributed, I couldn't tell you. I could tell enough to explain to the participants, but I didn't have a detailed understanding of what it was all about - I more or less followed a protocol each time. And I don't think that warrants co-authorship. I think it would be different if I was a statistician, for instance, and my specialism was needed in order for the paper to be produced. As it was, any Tom, Dick, or Harry could have done what I did.

I am one of those people who refuses to be taken advantage of, when I can help it (and who rails out against and generally refuses to participate in the pee-taking things I see going on in academia). I stood to gain by getting experience collecting data etc (it all went on my CV, which I'm sure helped me get PhD funding), and, just as importantly at the time, by getting some good money (the RA rate was better than anything I'd have been able to find anywhere else for something so enjoyable). I think that having my name on the paper wouldn't have been appropriate in my specific case.

pm133 & ToL:- that's interesting/useful, I didn't really know about the ins and outs of it - always just thought fewer was better.

It sounds odd but must be the norm there. It is up to you though and v.important to do what you're comfortable with doing. Personally I'd say "I prefer to circulate the abstract only".