errm, I am the "poor guy from California".

Yes, I google all of you. I know everything.

No, actually I just wanted to raise awareness that it is foolish to put the date of birth or too much personal information into a username/posts etc.

Really, from your past posts it seems very likely that you have actually started your PhD in September or October 2005.

As that's 22 months ago, please forget my previous advise which was directed at someone at 12months stage. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Just checked the archives and saw that you actually quit your PhD in May 2006? Or not?

Don't worry. You only spent one year doing this and as you will be awarded a Master it wasn't even a waste of time. In fact, it's a win-win. You gained new skills, did something different for a year and got a Master.

If you ever apply for a job you don't even need to mention that you were originally planning to do a PhD, just leave it as a Master and it won't be a disadvantage. 12 months have passed, I'm sure you have learnt a lot, so take a break, and get ready for a new challenge. In fact, I wish I had had the guts to leave after one year, it takes a lot of courage and I think it is the best time to leave. Prior to completion or after three years it's almost too late as there are implications for your CV, age and so on. So I would advise everybody to stick with it and complete after 16 months or later, but in your case you seem to have made the right decision. Lots of luck.

Is it not rather insulting to ask obvious questions or to avoid typing one word into a search engine? Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are almost 29 years of age and thus old enought to find basic information yourself. Google it or type it into a search engine..

Very little. Obviously enough to write a proposal, perhaps get through the interview stage and get accepted in the first place. But from your PhD start date it is expected that you acquire knowledge, not know everything already. I spent the first 16 months of my PhD reading only.

I thought that was shampo-ology, R.Academic?

What I'm saying is, a little bit of effort should go into giving advice. Ignorance does not justify the act of giving out wrong or useless information. If somebody knows something, he or she is able to give advice. Silence might be better if this is not the case.

Retrospectively I even have to say that my original answer was not rude. So please delete the "Sorry to be rude". Rather, I clarified that the information given above was wrong and the comment by P. was useless, don't know what's rude about that.

That's ridiculous. It is rather rude to offer wrong or useless information. Trying to help itself is not synonymous to giving good advice. Still, unlike you, P.Neuron offered at least something, whereas your comment must be dismissed altogether!

Sorry to be rude, but Phenomenography and Phenomenology are two separate issues. At least the definition for the latter provided by one forum un-named user above starting with a P. is completely useless. Said forum user mixes up a number of things within her explanation and has terminology problems.

Personally, I have no idea what Phenomenography is. But Phenomenology is an epistemological stance, determined by a guy called Schutz (1967). If you read a book called "Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis" by Burrell and Morgan (1979), you will find a lot of information about this.

Furthermore, it has nothing to do with data analysis per se, as it is completely detached from the latter. Unlike many believe, epistemological stances does NOT determine or justify your research approach, methods of data collection or data analysis.

" finished my undergrad at Oxford "

Maybe Claireg only finished her undergrad at Oxford Brookes University, as nothing else is specified.


....waiting for the scream:"No, UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD"

What means smart casual? No jeans and no trainers? Or are jeans acceptable?

Hi Shani

thanks for your response.

Actually quite interesting what you wrote. So you're basically saying that I cannot say something like "PhD is not a proper job" if it is subject to personal opinion? That doesn't make any sense to me at all. Rather, from the perspective of my personal opinion, the statement is true. If someone else has a different opinion, then it is false, from the other person's personal opinion perspective. As a result, making a statement like:"a PhD is not a proper job" is not sweeping at all; as long as we are clear about the fact that it must be seen in the context of the person who said it (which is of course not generalisable).

Why do academics always have to be so nit-picking?? (by the way, that IS a sweeping statement

Sorry to disappoint but my post wasn't cynic at all. I was actually quite serious.

Of course this is subject to disagreement and personal evaluation, but for me a "proper" (if it really exists) is a job where you take a significant amount of money home every month. Studentships etc. don't count as a salary, in my personal view.

In different words, if somebody doesn't do a PhD full-time, but earns money in a different job (which could be part-time teaching etc.), i.e. the PhD studies are not the central daily occupation, then he or she has a proper job. Contrary, if the PhD is the main thing, then it's obviously not a proper job because doing a PhD is "studying", not working.