Thanks for sharing. I did that for my first paper, but this time around I decided to aim higher. I wanted to get (whether or not it was accepted) really critical feedback - to get me in the right frame of mind for my viva. I don't have much supervision - they comment on drafts but tend to focus on spelling mistakes and things, instead of giving substantive criticism and feedback. So some of what these reviewers have said is like gold dust to me (some of it I don't agree with - and that is fine too). Next time around though, I may aim a little lower (but still good and reasonable). I'm just learning and trying new things.

Horrendous. I'd like to see a comparison among UK, European, and US universities too though. I wonder whether this rule based thing described is similar to the US style (which of course has an incredible reputation for Higher Education on average), or if the European way is more like in the US.

Perhaps you could think about the commute in terms of time to get into some work (marking or whatever), which a 30 minute commute wouldn't really afford. That way, that con is crossed off.

Oops, just saw your comment about other academics. I'm still a student.

Sadly, mine was rejected this time. But I still feel thrilled that it was reviewed (and not rejected outright - since it was a very ambitious choice of journal). Also, I think the critical feedback that one of the reviewers gave is going to be pretty helpful to me (the other two reviewers seemed to be giving the thumbs up more or less - which is interesting). Thankfully, I didn't have to wait too long - submitted at end of Nov.

Congrats on your acceptance, and may they hurry up and get it in print!

It stayed on Awaiting Recommendation for about 2 weeks before I received the decision. I think that it will vary though depending on how busy the editor is.

I've decided to stop dithering and just do a word doc with the main results plus attach dataset. : ) Thanks for your help chantedsnicker.

Thanks for the reply. I think we're going to write a paper around them. It's a supervisor from overseas I've started working with and am going to be visiting in a few months. I've never really worked with anyone in this way before, and feel a bit unsure of stuff. It doesn't really need any graphs (pretty plain to see what's what from a table and a few sentences explaining it), which is why I was thinking word doc. But on second thoughts, having read your reply, maybe I should attach the actual dataset too, so that they can do their own thing if they want. Frazzled!

If you were analysing some data for someone (stats), in what kind of format would you send it to them in an email? Powerpoint? Word doc written up much like a results section in a paper? Word doc with key results highlighted - not as detailed as in a paper? My brain feels frazzled. Suggestions would be appreciated.

I don't think it would affect your future. The most important thing (after your health and wellbeing etc) is to have SOMETHING to show for your work and efforts, whether it be MPhil, MS, or PhD.

Do the aims of your research require you to use GT? Thematic Analysis is much less overwhelming!

I think if I was in your shoes I would be thinking is there any way Option 1 is going to work out. That sounds preferable to me. Responsive supervision, and that positive and passionate vibe you describe, is priceless.

BUT - it seems as though Option 2 is in the bag... and you don't want to miss your opportunity because you hung around waiting for Option 1 and it didn't materialise.

What I'd suggest is:
Contact Option 1, explain that you have had an offer from another University, but actually, if they can make you an offer, you would take it and reject the other.
If they can't speed things up, as long as I felt OK about the arrangements (very important), I'd take Option 2. Is there a reason why you would like the second supervisor to be from another department? If you can justify why you'd like it, then why not ask about it? It is your PhD after all - you are entitled to a say about who your supervisors are.

In my personal experience (and everyone's will vary on this forum - so I stress, it is an opinion based on my own experience), it is the ones who are highly responsive and positive, and who have more experience, who make the better supervisors. My very experienced one has been able to see the bigger picture and, informed by their experience, give very smart advice that I generally feel very confident about taking. Also, liking someone (as long as it lasts) can be more important than it sounds. When you like and respect someone, and they are responsive in an appropriate way (i.e., suggesting a mutual regard/respect), it makes it a whole lot easier to work with them/be supervised by them. Just on your brief descriptions, that is why I would feel very inclined to go for Option 1, if at all possible.

Good luck!

Great advice!

1) I know that jobs.ac.uk has jobs that fit the bill you describe (e.g., data analyst type work not necessarily in a university)
2) Definitely! One of my supervisors did this kind of work after finishing his PhD (he then decided to return to academia). I am not sure of what route I will take after finishing, and this is something I am considering too. I think it would be a good idea to be very up front about your skill and experience level and possibly look for ones that state that you will be trained so not to worry about being a pro yet -in not so many words (I saw something like this the other day on jobs.ac.uk).

All the best!

Hi again folks! I'm glad it isn't such a controversial view - I misunderstood your post butterfly20! But yes, good to have differing opinions (otherwise we'd all be dressed the same - hehe!). Good luck LeslieM - let us know what you decide on!