Goodness, I see what you mean!!

No way can you be expected to engage seriously with that volume of literature in its entirety. Is there a way you could organise those findings into doable categories? Can you organise them generally according to what medium or application the authors have focussed on? I guess it would depend on precisely what you're looking at, but maybe group them into common themes like general internet, technical research, social networking, video, computer games etc? And then from that, pick out the most influential in terms of citation for academic, popular media, public policy authors etc to show different angles for each topic?

I can sort of understand your horror at the workload, as I've had that with some of my stuff. I'm doing jewellery but have had to engage with certain huge bodies of work that would just be humanly impossible for a PhD timescale. My worst nightmare was bereavement literature, as it's an industry in its own right. I was advised by my sup to use a handful of key influential authors in that field that everyone cites, and from that to only use references that specifically looked at precisely my subject, so not to worry about scrutinising the minutiae of bereavement literature. I had to identify broad theoretical strands so it was clear I knew what was happening in the wider academic context, and was also told to look at undergrad textbooks or readers that condense all the main arguments in that field, in case I was worried I would miss anything critical. Then I pinpointed authors who specifically looked at my topic, and justified it by saying that if it didn't cast any extra light on what I was doing then I didn't need to engage with it in depth. I've done the same for every chapter, so I've got my main lit review that stems from my original proposal and highlights the background to my research questions, but I also had to do a mini lit review for each separate chapter, as each was rooted in a different body of work. It's been hideous, and I've always been so aware of the huge gaps in my knowledge, but the end result is apparently worth it. I think the longer you carry on with the PhD, the more you realise what you *don't* know as what you *do* know as you continue to specialise.

If you do have to grapple with that volume of work then there should be a way to both filter out what you really need without going mad, and also to justify why you can't engage with every single word written in this area due to the sheer scale of it. The fact that there is such an immense body of work available may be quite interesting if you can somehow get on overview of it and cluster it into different areas. Is it all written for different interest groups or bodies of readers? You've obviously narrowed down the field to some extent at some point, or your original Phd proposal wouldn't have been viable. As long as you know what you've not looked at and why, it shows you know what you're doing and you can flag up certain areas for future research too.

======= Date Modified 21 Dec 2008 11:34:18 =======
Hi

Thanks for all the replies. @Stressed, I have a 10000 word lit rev due on 15th Jan. My exploratory empirical work (slightly more ambitious than a pilot, as there is an article thats supposed to emerge) is scheduled from 17th jan to 10th Feb. Conceptual framework sketch due 15th Feb. It's terrifying.

Also, a paper due for submission 10th Jan, a presentation in front of one of the 4 scholars in my conceptual framework (yes, just imagine, he is an emeritus GREAT!) that's also in jan and which has to be fantastic (oh my gosh!), and a project with my sup that's on a commissioned grant, for early jan, and a piece emergent from some fieldwork by April.

And then a board, in summer.

======= Date Modified 21 Dec 2008 11:34:48 =======
Yes Rubyw, exactly. I am developing a matrix for myself, grouping stuff (as you so usefully pointed out) by theme, approach, method (and a variety of other field specific stuff which I;m not going into here). That is useful, also because then what happens is that the web that Alice talks of automatically emerges, you see, from what seems like a linear and slightly mechanically acquired list.

Personally, i am a very graphical thinker, so matrices and tables worked from the most obscure of theories work well for me. The challenge is the intricacies of the process.

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 :)

That sounds a good idea. I did a big diagram, a mind map thing, that made sense of how all the bits fitted together. That was at the beginning of my PhD and is still more or less the structure I have now.

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'.

Hey, great that's fantastic! Uhmm, I dont work with cultural studies though, i belong to the audience reception studies tradition, and my work is kind of at a place that is trying to re-gear reception theory to interact with Web 2.0, so yes, all of the things you mention are somewhere on my map, but the ultimate theoretical and empirical agenda is to deal with reception studies (which is currently being creatively reframed with the help of digital literacies)..hmm,,,

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.

======= Date Modified 21 Dec 2008 12:51:45 =======
Hi bakuvia,

I am starting the 3rd month of my studies right now.

here's the core theoretical theme that inspires me and my supervisor for this project: As audience studies evolved with the interpretative skills people developed for televisual media, what are the challenges that emerge with the use of interactive digital media: What in other words are the new kinds of interpretative fits that develop between 'genre' and 'reader' (who is also now a writer, and where does all of this take audience reception in the new media age?

Our theoretical approach is that of digital literacies, and the 'case' selected is social network sites as a great instance of an emergent 'genre'.

Methods include tried and tested ones, as well as completely new creative/unorthodox ones.

Bodies of theory in interaction derive from communications studies, literary studies, literacy studies and indeed reception studies!

PS: Oh and indeed the people I work with are all young people, and late teens, and yes, part of the strategy is to link this all with the larger policy debates around youth and digital media in the UK, so yes, i am working with and indeed in conversation with policy debates in the field, in my research.

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)

======= Date Modified 21 Dec 2008 13:00:10 =======
Hey Thanks!

yes, indeed the Aber group has taken a major step in our field with their programme and their journal , which is the first of its kind in our field and therefore quite the centre point of attention (where incidentally I have a brief piece forthcoming!)

Thanks for the advice, and keep in touch :)

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.
:-)

DB?

Who's that?

No, mine isn't DB at all!

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

======= Date Modified 21 Dec 2008 13:15:12 =======
Ahhhhhhh him!!!

No, but very close guess indeed! Okay, no more on this! This is an anon forum hehehe ;)

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