Personally I think unless you have masses of interviews, it's best to transcribe them yourself. I found initially it took me ages to transcribe, but I got quicker. It saves having to listen to them again, which you would have to do otherwise.

Good luck! :-)

I think it's good that your supervisor isn't putting too much pressure on you, and I wouldn't view his advice as a prohibition on publishing more articles. What I'm doing is the opposite way round from Heather, I'm writing articles that will then go into thesis chapters - only because it's the way I can motivate myself - and as Heather points out, you then have had peer review of your work. The most important thing is to make sure that your thesis is of the highest standard.

I do think it's important to phrase things courteously - it doesn't mean that you don't point out the flaws in the paper though.

I haven't considered quitting, but that's due to my particular circumstances. A PhD is a long slog, and it's completely different to being an undergraduate. In some ways , it's amazing that I've kept on going as I've always had a problem knuckling down and finishing big projects. It helps that I find the project I've chosen fascinating.

I think not wanting to add his name to a paper that he's added nothing to is a sign of great honesty, personally. I added my supervisor to a paper because he helped a great deal with it, but he wouldn't have expected it otherwise.

The most important thing IMO is picking a project you will enjoy doing.

I've written stuff for journals and edited books which is also going into my thesis - as long as you acknowledge it, it's not a problem (I checked with my supervisor).

I find that the thing with QDA software is partly that it's meant to help you make connections. I make better connections just through my transcripts, plus I do my own transcription so I'm close to my data. My remit is not loose enough to be genuine grounded theory, depending on what definition of grounded theory you use of course!
My interviews have been semi-structured interviews of individuals.

That's what I do anyway, Marasp. As you've alluded to, the purpose of the abstract is to whet the appetite of the potential audience to entice them into attending.

It must depend on the subject - I mean where the paper revolves around large amounts of original data, it's easier than writing a paper that requires some original analysis eg a law paper.

If the problem is entirely or mostly down to your supervisor, then it's possible to change your supervisor. You must remember that as a PhD student, your supervisor may well expect you to take the initiative, so I don't believe that he should have to arrange meetings necessarily.

I have access, but that issue is embargoed currently.

My only proper academic paper so far I co-wrote with my supervisor. The papers I will be submitting next have been all my own work. I had another paper which I had been recommended to submit for publication, but after 3 different journals have turned it down, I've given up on that one. Actually I've given on submitting papers on medical ethics full stop, despite being a qualified medic.
So it's certainly not easy to get the hang of what exactly it is particular journals want.