Ah... ;-) Doesn't surprise me at all! Heh Heh

Hi PhDBug

You might find this site/book interesting. http://mediacology.com/

There's also "The Handbook of New Media" - http://www.sagepub.co.uk/booksProdDesc.nav?prodId=Book228372

and Growing up online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kidsonline/

Although I'm sure you don't need any more references. *laughing*

*grin* Yes indeedy... although, if not DB and close as in distance... I could have another guess but won't... heh heh. ;-)

David Buckingham - mind you, having said that... he's more into television than Web 2.0, I suspect. *grin*

Hi PhDBug

Is your supervisor DB? *laughing* Sounds very like the interests of someone I know.

For 3 months in, and from your talk, I think you're doing well already. As you say, it's a struggle to get your thinking organised in the early stages... I like your RQ and there's some good stuff out there both on new media and Web 2.0 and young people.

I'm going to have a coffee now and to think about your question. Feel free to PM me if you'd like to chat off-forum about your research as it seems we have an overlap in interests.
:-)

Hi PhDBug

Hey, very interesting area... (looked up the MA at Aberystwyth). I'm not in cultural studies either but, actually, started out in semiotics and now falling into complexity studies... I can see how this area is located at the intersection of multiple fields... but it still appears to have histories/traditions that will inform your work... the digital literacies work is a minefield... goes on forever and ever! But, as you say, interesting.

You seem to have some good ideas and a sense of direction and an awareness of the complexity of the area... so I think you'll be fine. As others have said, just continually ask yourself ... what's my question - how does this piece of literature contribute to it? So, to use your example - what does it say about Phenomenon X, what does it say about niche Y, how does it fit (or not) with established views in these (policy, disciplinary, etc.) areas... and so on.

Best of luck with meeting all your deadlines - looks like you are going to be incredibly busy but you also sound highly enthusiastic about the work and that always helps. :-) Papers and presentations are really good for sharpening your focus, too, and feedback from an audience is great (expert or non-expert, positive or critical).(up)

Hi again

Sorry didn't read your earlier posts properly - so, not necessarily 'young people' - more of a transdisciplinary group of people looked at through the lens of a particular application ... is that right? So, thinking about your comment 'phenomenon X' applied to niche 'Y'... looked at through these different lenses (applications in social communities) might work as an organising mechanism. So, you might have something like:

Phenomenon (a digital media application or practice) - niche (a setting) - social group (a community of practice) - applications - kinds of activity (themed)

and then you might apply that to, e.g. policy. Is that how you're seeing things?

I liked your comments:

BUT, the benefits are: First, immensely satisfying, Second, does give you a great trans disciplinary vision, Third: helps in flagging out future research areas and fourth, i think it generates confidence about why you want to do what you want to do

And totally agree with you... having reached all of these conclusions in my own work. :-) Don't know how far into your studies you are... but if you're thinking like this, then that's a good place to be.

Hi PhDBug

*grin* We're working in the same area and I know exactly what you mean. From what you say, your work is what we call 'transdisciplinary' and not 'interdisciplinary'. It seems to me (but correct me if I'm wrong) that your key foci are digital media, young people and policy. So, I guess if it were me, I would have my key references from those fields. Also, I would determine which of these three are 'the' key element ... and there might be more there. Another thing to consider - just because you have references doesn't mean you need to include all of them... use only those that frame your key arguments (which either support or disconfirm them)... I would very rarely have more than two citations per point made and often the same citation will cover several points. What you consider important may also depend on your starting discipline and how they treat this kind of information (so cultural studies is different from semiotics is different from education is different from policy - but all are inter-related).

Understandably, you will possibly also (I'm guessing) have interests in areas like: social discourse, learning, networking, types of media, media representations, etc., culture, meanings, etc. In this kind of field, it is really important to have a tight grip on your research questions... for example, I began with 'technology-mediated learning' (too wide) and then narrowed this down to a very specific area of TML... focusing only on learners, digital texts and meaning making (when I say 'only' - this is still hugely complex).

You sound like you have a decent method for comparing and theming the literature... although the numbers I quoted to you are what actually appear in my lit review and thesis overall... my actual readings are probably (over the 3.5 years) closer to the high levels you mention. In reality, reading a lot and sifting out what fits and what doesn't is what will help you locate yourself sharply... and also what will enable you to communicate intelligently with other disciplines - this is especially important in a transdisciplinary study.

Hope this helps - and best of luck with it - it really is an interesting area. But, as you say - lots of stuff out there and, so, really important to sort the wheat from the chaffe and to know your 'own space'.

PS In my thesis overall (at about 2/3 of way through) - I have around 200-250 references in all, in case that helps.

Hi PhDBug

I'm in the final-ish stages of my PhD now (4th-year part-time) - social sciences (technology and education with an element of semiotics). I have a main lit review and a subsidiary one at present (total around 12,000 words). Conceptual framework is developed throughout thesis (as this is what I'm trying to 'prove' - it's a methodological thesis). Because my lit review is both 'internally' and 'externally' comparative it perhaps has more sources than 'the norm'... particularly as the area is new, transdisciplinary and there are fewer books and more articles on the topic area. In my main lit review chapter (9,500 words) I probably have around 65 references.

I first did a full chapter length version in the early part of my 2nd year (having written a 'full' version prior to that which was chronologically comparative). The chronological didn't work and that's when I knew it needed to be a mix of chronological and thematic - I needed the thematic for the conceptual framework. So, the comparative element remained chronological but the laying out of the conceptual work (within the section on the theorist I was looking at) was thematic. Within the comparative element, I also had themes but these were chronological rather than conceptual - if that makes sense.

That said, I did a semi-systematic review for the subsidiary literature chapter, shorter chapter but more references and differently themes (according to applications of a theory) and I read 200 papers/book chapters for that, and used 150 of them for the systematic review. I decided that was way too much for the thesis, so am in the process of cutting that down to key thematic examples (with probably around 25-30 references) and am using the systematic review for a paper instead.

On last questions... not sure. I've been reading Wendy Wheelers "The Whole Creature: Complexity, Biosemiotics and the Evolution of Culture" recently and her first chapter has a nice thematic lit review - in fact the whole book is more or less a review of the literature on perspectives of complexity between the 'hard' and 'soft' sciences. You can find it on Google books if you want to browse.

Futurelab has a series of Systematic Lit Reviews you could look at to get an idea of comparative, thematic reviews - the one on Creativity in Education is quite good.

http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications-reports-articles/literature-reviews .

Happy Christmas.

:-)

Hi Whitey

I don't think you're necessarily all that different from a lot of users on here... for sure, many are full-time and funded but just as many are part-time and unfunded (like myself).

Okay, let's see... supervisor - do they need to be an expert... no, not necessarily (although it helps). What they do need to be, however, is interested. A supervisor isn't just someone who helps you understand what the university side of a PhD is (although that's an important element). A supervisor (if they are a good one) is an ally, a supporter, a protagonist, a mentor. A good supervisor needs to be interested in your work (why else would they care?). What do these things matter? Well, some way down the line, when you're wondering what a PhD is for... what it's all about... it's a good supervisor that will keep you going, discuss your ideas, check the paths your treading and so on. Why might an expert be a good idea? Well, because, if they are already recognised in the field, then they know the field and can help you move on in your work after the PhD. Of course, if you just want a PhD and are not worried about what comes after, then that's not so big a deal, I guess.

I realise that Australia's a bigger land mass than the UK and so it probably makes sense to apply to a university that's geographically close to you... if you haven't already, why don't you plan a visit to the doctoral school at that university and discuss things with the postgraduate tutor there, and see if you can get some answers that are more applicable to you in your local situation. That might help.

Hi Bourdieu

I'm doing my PhD at IoE and love it. Great bunch of folks, great resources. Other than that, I think Nottingham and Exeter are okay. Bristol, if it's in your list is also quite good, as is Manchester. It depends, I guess, on your specialist area, who the leading researchers in the field are and which Institution they're at. Other than that, as others say - it's a question of costs, convenience, etc. and, I suppose what your career aims are at the end of the PhD. For me, being in London has been good in terms of attending events and such like - there's always something going on. It's also good because it's within easy reach of lots of other education faculties in other universities.

Hi Whitey

1) You could but you should probably do a bit of research first. Does the university have suitably qualified people in your field? Who are they? What kind of work are they doing? Can you find any research papers they have written. Usually, you would submit a proposal outlining your particular interests, at the very least - to enable the university to match you up with a suitable supervisor.

2) Yes, it matters. Not surprised the Professor wasn't super-keen. You need a supervisor who thinks your ideas for your PhD are interesting, something they would be 'in to', that they could help with and learn from. Supervision is, in many ways, a two-way street. As for supervisors in another state - would you really want to have your key expert working with you at a distance?

3) No and I doubt you'd get very far this way. Knowledge of research methods is good (and something any good supervisor should be able to help you with) but knowledge of your research area is more important. And, yes, there are quite a few people around who do want to supervise PhD students... (from a share and learn point of view).

Some suggestions:

1) Use Google scholar to find some research papers in your field (you could use keywords like: medical+education+simulation+training+australia)
2) Read a good book on 'How to get a PhD' or 'The PhD process' (see, for example: "The Posgraduate Research Handbook" by Gina Wisker or "Your PhD Companion" by Stephen Marshall & Nick Green, or "The Unwritten Rules of PhD Research" by Gordon Rugg and Marian Petre.

Best of luck.

slow

Here are two useful online resources:

http://onlineqda.hud.ac.uk/Intro_QDA/what_is_qda.php

http://www.trentrdsu.org.uk/resources_resource_qualitative.html

Here's one for Grounded Theory:

http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/grounded.html

This book is really good for Thematic Analysis:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Transforming-Qualitative-Information-Thematic-Development/dp/0761909613

This site is good for Conversational Analysis:

http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~ssca1/sitemenu.htm

A simple key word search of these terms in Google or Google Scholar will give you plenty of material on this stuff.

Grounded Theory is a good way of detecting patterns in your data, basically analysing data 'without' a theory, allowing the theory to emerge from the data itself. Bit of a paradox that one, but anyway. Thematic analysis is developing a set of themes/patterns which say something about your data (and builds on nicely from Grounded Theory approach). Conversational Analysis is good for thinking about interview transcripts - turn-taking, power in discourse, etc.