I was a history student, so I did research in historical documents. For example I transcribed library borrowing records - thousands and thousands and thousands of borrowings - as well as trawling through diaries, letters, memoirs, autobiographies etc, looking for relevant references.

My previous go at a PhD wasn't life science, but computer science, so building software solutions. Very very different from humanities. But I've always been a historical researcher, since a very young age, so I took to the second go like a duck to a water. I also retrained from scratch: after I left my computer science PhD (left due to MS-like illness developing) I got a new BA in history, then a Masters. So I was fully retrained the second time around.

As an archaeology student wouldn't you be working with artefacts, either directly or second-hand, so writing about what has been found? Or archaeological surveys? You should be doing mre than just writing about what other people have done.

Personally I don't think you need to attend conferences at all. Actually I think it's a waste of money, especially if you are self-funding. It's also not as important for a CV as, for example, publishing in academic journals.

I know this is quite a contentious view, but I think some people (not looking at anyone in particular on this forum) attend far too many conferences, sometimes at the expense of getting on with your thesis. Then they over-run, and conferences (including writing talks and time out) can be a factor.

Focus on working on your thesis. If you can attend conferences as well then that's a bonus. But it's not something IMHO that you should prioritise.

I attended an international conference 18 months into my part-time PhD. It was fun, but not essential. I was lucky to get funding from the conference organisers and my department to pay for my air fair to Canada and accommodation. But, again, it was hardly essential.

Even with a good supervisor a thesis can fail. This happened to a superb student in my department, who had just about the best supervisor. She wasn't even offered a Masters at her viva, but failed outright. This sent shockwaves through my department.

However a PhD has to make an adequate contribution to knowledge. I'd be very sceptical that something based purely on a literature review could do that. Or at the very least there's more of a chance that that might not be deemed acceptable.

I started a full-time science PhD over a decade ago. Recently I completed a part-time (6 year) history PhD. So I've been through the process twice. My second PhD was in humanities, but involved a substantial amount of new research. The literature review was a teeny weeny bit, maybe no more than 10% in total, probably not even that.

Should have saiud that a good reason for working your way up is you learn the process more gently that way. Peer review can be very cruel. It's possibly easier if you go through it with a more kindly inclined journal (probably one best suited to your research, and not too ambitious). And then, when you tackle a more ambitious journal later, you'll be more familiar with the process.

I'm not sure if I'd have got the feedback I got from one of my recent journal papers I'd have been confident to carry on. But having had 2 papers published already I just knuckled down to the revisions.

I'm working my way up. I published 2 articles during my 6-year part-time PhD. One was in quite a prominent journal, but definitely not top tier. And it helped that the editor was a prof in my department, so I was able to approach him directly. Still had to pass peer review of course. The other article was also peer reviewed, but in a minor journal.

Now I'm a post-doc, albeit an independent researcher, I'm being more ambitious. I have submitted 2 journals to incredibly high-flying journals. If they're not accepted (one has been revised and resubmitted, the other I'm waiting to hear about) I will try further down the pecking order. But, now, I'm being ambitious.

My research is in a very niche area of history and it would be easy for me to get it published in incredibly specialised journals. But both my supervisors have encouraged me to try to get a wider readership, in higher impact more general journals. So that's what I'm trying. it's quite a high risk strategy, but ultimately I will have more journal papers.

Also when you get to this stage it helps to have multiple papers on the go. I wrote and submitted 2 at the same time. While those were in review stage I then worked on the next 2, and thought about others in the background. You have to be a bit like a conveyor belt!

However I can't work in academia (barring my honorary research fellowship), because of severely disabling progressive neurological illness. So I'm not publishing for employment/career reasons, but for personal satisfaction. I'm still trying to do as good a job of it as possible though.

Self-funding is very common in the humanities. This is because PhD funding for this field, even before the latest spending cuts, is very limited. Most self-funding PhD humanities students are part-time, typically working full-time or nearly full-time to allow them to do research as needed. Sometimes they can get some help with costs, for example to attend a conference, where the department may help a little with travel expenses. But generally self-funders are totally reliant.

I started my part-time history PhD self-funding. But I was very lucky to win funding from AHRC from the second year onwards.

I felt most detached from my literature review, out of all of my thesis. But I had written it 6 years previously (I took almost 6 years to complete my part-time PhD, including a 5-month medical break in the middle which extended the chronology further) so it's little wonder! But it was functional, and covered the essentials. I also don't think it needs to be particularly analytical really. It's setting the scene. There's a limit to how far you need to take that first starting point.

So long as you are happy with the bulk of your thesis I think that's the main thing. If your examiners did have issues with the literature review (I suspect this is unlikely to happen) you could decide on the day how much you want to defend it (and you'd need a better explanation than it "not being yours"!), and how much you would be willing to rewrite it. But I would recommend going for the first of those.

It's quite common in history for people to work as independent researchers. Often, like me, that happens after they complete a PhD. But sometimes they don't have a PhD. And journal papers are accepted from such researchers. But I suspect this would be much rarer in your subject.

The big drawback with not being affiliated, when it comes to writing journal papers, is that you do not have access to academic research resources like electronic journal papers, which are often restricted to university staff and students. To write a good journal paper you need to keep up to date with current research and publications. You can't just write about what you've done. and without access to electronic journals this can be a huge problem.

It applies to independent researchers all over the world, who battle against it to various degrees. My university awarded me an honorary research fellowship, which means I still have access to e-resources. Otherwise I'd be really struggling as I turn my PhD thesis into more journal papers.

There probably isn't a shortcut. You wouldn't need a viva, but you would need to produce a thesis of acceptable quality for the Masters, and that's not just an incomplete PhD thesis.

The alternative is to get an MRes elsewhere, but that would involve even more work and cost.

I thought it was common for an MPhil to be offered, if anything. You'd have to check with your own institution to see what its rules are. That's the crucial thing, not what applies at other places.

At my uni appendices don't count towards the word count.

My chapters were on average 10,000 words long. Dunleavy in his book says that's a good length - not too long, not too short, and good for comprehension - though it depends on your content as to what length they come in at.

My final thesis was too short though. Mine was 70K, and my department expects 80-100K. I asked for advice about whether I should try to lengthen it. I was told no, but it was recommended that I make it look a bit more weighty by including electronic appendices on CD.

And I passed. My examiners never commented on the length. But I was 10K below what would normally be expected in my department. My supervisor said that was better than the opposite problem of being way too long.

======= Date Modified 16 Feb 2011 18:13:09 =======
You could try, but I wouldn't be optimistic of your chances. I've been a PhD student twice. Neither university waives self-funding fees in the way you describe. I self-funded the start of my second go at a PhD, before winning AHRC funding for the remainder. But I started expecting to have to pay the fees for the duration.

Going part-time can ease the self-funding fee burden. I was a part-timer the second time. You still usually have to pay the same fees total, but it's split over a longer period, so can be more manageable.

Good luck though.

Well done! I remember how happy I was when I submitted my thesis. It's a lovely feeling.

I was a history student, and my PhD was in a totally new topic to me, even if it fell under the wider cultural context of my Masters. I started writing from the word go, but expected early drafts to be gibberish. Only about halfway through my part-time PhD did I start writing properly. Even then there was a lot of gibberish! However I found the writing process helpful, if painful, for working out my ideas and conclusions, which I couldn't have reached without doing the writing.

I had to refocus my thesis in the final year/months, linking up the chapters, and writing an overall conclusions chapter. But it was still surprising just how much of my early writing carried through to the completed thesis.

I also personally think it's highly optimistic in a humanities discipline just to think you can write up in the last full-time year (or part-time equivalent). Humanities theses are very long, and very complex/interlinked. They take time to produce. So the earlier you can start, the better. And the more writing you do - however awful it might seem early on - the better you will get at it. I had huge writing problems too. I needed that extra time to improve my writing to the required standard. I virtually had to restart my writing from scratch at one point. This was despite sailing through a Masters with distinction.

Also I was rather in charge of my own schedule and writing. I was a mature part-time student, so dictated my own deadlines and structure. My supervisors were much more in a supporting role, rather than telling me what to do. I'd tell them what I was going to do and how they were to help me :p

Does that help at all? I think you need to speak to your supervisors about your concerns. But it sounds as though you might benefit from woking on your writing at the moment. And if you are having problems now, might you not also if you left it to the very last stages?

Good luck!