People around me thought I was mad when I did not change my name when I got married. I did not do it as a huge political statement or anything of the sort...although it was taken as such. My basic reason was pretty simple. When I was 19 I remember discussing with a friend who remarked we might not know what our names would be in a few years, once we got married, etc, we would have a new last name ( surname). I hated that thought!!! My name was...well..who I WAS! And to think that would change? No, I decided then and there, that the name I was born with was the name I was keeping, because it WAS who I WAS, on some very personal level.

I hear ya JoJo. I never changed my name when I was married, although I understood this is a personal decision and people make their own choices. Still I got tired of being called Mrs Fred Blogs...as my name was neither Mrs nor Fred. I also hate the endless questions is this your married or maiden name...I reply Yes. Because its both. In a society where name changes are an option, but not mandatory, its annoying to have to clarify time and again what my name IS...after I have said what my name IS. I would use Dr to get around the idiocy of Ms/Mrs/Miss...

It HAS occured to me that the use of Dr will be handy to get around the Ms/Miss/Mrs thing...which by the way only seems to be a problem in the UK, not in the US, in that---I can use Ms Olivia without a problem in the US, but in the UK, the Ms option is rarely available. Its really annoying. I could use Dr already I suppose, having one professional doctorate under my belt, but its just not done customarily to use Dr with that degree, so I don't.

What's in a title anyway? As a divorced person I don't think the choice of Miss or Mrs are appropriate...do I put ex Mrs Blogs down? I have been tempted!

The UK is a bit too precious about the Miss/Mrs options. It IS a status concious country, in a way that the US, in my experience is not.

I think that if you have earned the degree, its fine to use the title, of course not wanting to be confused with an MD, medical doctor. The UK has a bit of a confused social message on this, if it does not accept people using the title of the degree earned, because it might make others uncomfortable, and yet, it has no problem in maintaining the vestiges of a class system, with a Royal Family, a Queen, and then a House of Lords, where people have titles--some inherited, others given for achievement. In a country of inherited privileges and titles, what on earth can be wrong with using a title EARNED through education?

Cakegirl, what sort of wine would go with trout cakes? I am thinking Merlot, but...?

Since this is food that can be frozen for 6 months it might make the perfect food for a PhD student!

http://www.cooks.com/rec/doc/0,1917,152188-249192,00.html



A recipe for Trout Cakes!!! Honest!!!

I think its possible that we can have information here that does not totally give away who we are and where we are and what we do. Why are supervisors hanging around reading this forum, anyway? Do any of them pretend to be PhD students?! (shock!!! HORROR!!!) If they do read this forum, then they should take on board some of the comments and resolve to become the best supervisors they can. And perhaps to try a few trout receipes as well.

A116--are you named for a motorway?

I have been throwing a methodological tantrum this week anyway ( to myself)--spitting methodological dummies, throwing methodological toys from my methodological pram...because of really circular and silly things in research literature that I won't even begin to try to explain other than to say that to assert that there is any methodology agreed upon in law is a fallacy. Law is a cuckoo when it comes to methodology, taking from other fields, but not often making an overt acknowledgement that it has done so. This results in a welter of confusion when trying to do higher thinking law PhD work--or perhaps an identity crisis. I am all cosied up to sociology with what I am doing...

I think law potentially creeps into just about any subject that is not a hard science ( and maybe it even makes its way there...)...so instead of combining law with JUST business, why not let business just stand on its own, and let law stand on its own? Does business sound more "elite" or special when combined with law? Is there some perceived added value to law when combined with business? I just find the business and law compilation to be very irksome. That means me and my research would have to find a home on the back porch of this, or indeed, feel very orphaned and have to look for a kindly aunt or uncle in another subject to at least give us a warm meal from time to time, to avoid being totally bereft.

My PhD has several titles, none of them probably appropriate for its official name. The titles are along the lines of (*#&$_%@#"?$&$#$&v @!_

Seriously, perhaps the best title to give it is something that gives a not overly long description of what it is. The rage for titles these days seem to be something with a colon ( the punctuation kind, like this: not the anatomical kind)

Something like

Blogs in the Library: A Regressive Analysis of Locating Books in the Shelves or


BLOGS AND FROGS: A Study of Science on the Internet

Although your lifestyle is supposed to improve with age and time, mine took a definite turn for the worse when I started the PhD and moved into Bleak Towers.

I am Olivia, and I am in the decade where the age of reason arrives. If you don't know what that is, well, look it up! Reason arrived and told me I should commence a PhD in the UK. I sometimes wonder if reason had the wrong address, or I mistook something for reason that was not.

I enjoy trout recipes and think trout is a healthy addition to the PhD diet, if you can manage to find it at a reasonable price.

Young and old being relative terms, I do remember feeling old at 25, because you are comparing yourself to a 16 year old for your relative measure. On the other hand, I now feel young, because I no longer compare myself with 16 year olds. So I am feeling more reasonable and younger than I was at 25.

People who want more structure in the early stages or are linear thinkers might not like this process. It works for me, and the end result is what counts, after all, otherwise the processes used have not met their goals.

Once I freed myself up from having to do linear thinking in the early stages of writing, my writing took off. I am not a natural linear thinker, and my strength is finding connections in ideas and concepts that might be missed in a straight linear analysis. Constructivist are us.

This brings some interesting results in when I write, and think, esp. because I am in an academic field ( law) that is known for its linear analytical processes.