well my supervisor managed to supervise me during his 6-month sabbatical to New Zealand via email, so it shows you what's possible - she could still read your drafts and offer feedback, couldn't she?

It also depends on the research method you are using - with discourse analysis, saturation is not the key, as one is not aiming for any kind of comprehensiveness or generalisability. Although im guessing that with combining it with questionnaires, then you are not going the constructionist route....

Thanks for your thoughts....yes, i am using NVivo7, which im finding really helpful in organising my data. Regarding 'type' of Discourse Analysis, im adopting a kind of critical realist approach, using stuff like Parker and Willig - i guess you could call it Foucauldian discourse analysis. Although its a struggle as there's not particular 'guide' to it, so its pretty much by instinct and hunch...

Hiya
Having collected and transcribed 17 narrative interviews, im trying to get going on my qualitative analysis (discourse analysis)....and am just finding it so difficult! I always thought this stage would be exciting and 'relatively' easy, but everyday i procrastinate, do some coding, hate every second, feel like im achieving nothing, feel terrifed...is this normal? Any other experiences and/or tips out there?

I only have my own experience to reflect on, but i really think you should be having a whole lot more than that, particularly from the first supervisor. Theres absolutely no excuse for him not to be reading your stuff and not knowing what stage you're at, however 'busy' he is. Its his job to support you, after all. Of course a PhD is all about independent research but Jeez, hes taking the piss and you should maybe speak to your postgrad advisor and get it sorted sooner, rather than later.

Dammit- i was hoping my super wouldn't be right! Gggrrr. FDA = Foucauldian discourse analysis.

I am about to start doing my analysis for my qualitative data (interviews) and i am planning on doing a discourse analysis. While i am aware there are loads of 'types' of DA (e.g. CDA, FDA, CA....), i kinda know what i want to look for (ie what my research question states) and think the best thing will be to make a start. However, my supervisors think i need to theoretically 'locate' my analysis, and go into huge detail about my analytical influences, strength & limitations etc of all the possible types of DA, and why the type I've selected (FDA) is best. But, having read through a number of theses, many don't seem to write more than say a paragraph on the theoretical stance of their analysis.
I'm guess I'm wondering what others out there are doing - have they found a great need to explicate their analytical framework in detail?

For a chapter, i usually get them all to agree a date when we will next meet and discuss feedback - usually about 3 weeks after I've submitted them their draft chapter.

Not a lot - i was out of academia for 9 years before starting a PhD, so i wouldn't worry.

Confront your supervisor about what?

Probably about 25-30 hours per week, although of course it varies. That doesnt include 'thinking time' though - im always gazing into space thinking about the damn thing!

A friend of mine was in exactly your position - she was a named researcher in a post-doc, a better one came along, she was lucky and both got funding....all that happened is that she told the first set of colleagues that she wouldn't be able to do the project anymore because of the new & better opportunity....it wasn't a big deal, they will just advertise for someone else. Because achieving funding is so hard, i think it is unrealistic to only apply for one post-doc at a time, and if you explain the situation to your colleagues, i dont think they can expect you to not go for something else as well. Its like applying for jobs i.e. more than one at a time, as the chances are you wont get every one you apply for.

They're both internal studentships with the same department, so there shouldnt be any disparity on that score, Im thinking....

Hello
Im just coming into the final year of a 3-year studentship, and my department is advertising for a new PhD studentship - with the maintenance grant over £1000 per annum more than i receive. Its not fixed, as mine goes up incrementally each year with inflation so I'm guessing the new studentship will as well. This strikes me as really unfair - does anyone have any experience of this, or whether i have grounds to whinge/complain?

For mine there were 6 of us, for 2 studentships.