Hi there, I have found over the years it is hard to digest all of the complex financial, legal, taxation and insurance information on a big ticket item at once and so it is easier to identify one or two key goals for the near future and then learn about that.

You do have to sift through the online sites though on your particular topic and just scan for the things you need to know immediately and then go back once you have a bit of an idea. I've put a link to a post that might help but it would be easier to provide advice on a single topic.

Many major banks I have found have fantastic online tools to help you save for a financial goal and will provide calculators to assist you in finding out what you need to set aside money for.

My supervisers provide some written feedback but pretty much always give work back with extensive face to face feedback, sometimes individually and sometimes they do it together. Sometimes it includes the Graduate Research Coordinator as well.

I have learned not to take any of this personally and now, though it can be tiring and disheartening to hear that so much more needs to occur, it doesn't bother me much beyond this any more. I think you become used to it really. I find also nowadays in the late stages of thesis completion, I don't always agree with them but I try to take most of it on board.

Sometimes they all have a discussion about the work with me there, speaking about me in third person while I am still in the room. "She needs to do this" "Okay but I really think it would be better if she did that because she is saying blah de blah de blah". "Well I'm thinking that the examiners might read this and go...so she really needs to...".

It is hard at first, so you need to be a little kind to yourself when you are at the sharp end of this sort of experience. Take care and best of luck.

Thanks so much, I'll try it this weekend :)

Hi Selkie, when you said that your supervisor said that the field site director was 'suspicious' and wouldn't do anything with out a written research plan, I'm wondering whether you are reading this as a personal comment rather than a general one.

By this I mean that many people in the field are suspicious of researchers-mainly perhaps because they are busy and accommodating researchers and participating in field studies can be time consuming and a distraction for the people actually working in the field.

Often a site may receive many requests for participants to complete surveys, be observed, have reports written about them and they are naturally suspicious of the process and went some form of control over the whole thing. Thus, any director will want a plan that outlines the parameters of the study and the ethical approvals before they even consider having a researcher come on site and start their research. They will also want to know how it is being published and whether they will need some form of control over what is being said or who gets to hear it.

It isn't always personal though, just a natural defensiveness of their territory and thus the request for a plan or outline of the purpose, how data will be collected, the timeline, and the privacy concerns, so they have an idea of what is happening.

Your supervisor may also know of issues in this site already that she can't disclose to you which may be why she is discouraging you from approaching this particular site and trying to direct you to another.

I have found that supervisors are people and like all people you get to know really well, there are great aspects to their personality (or usually there are-sometimes you get a really difficult supervisor) and there are things that don't gel with one and as you become more familiar, get under your skin. Supervisors would have similar issues with their students-so on the balance of things, how is your overall relationship with your supervisor and do you generally get on and make overall progress. Weighing up this against individual issues of contention might help with your decision.

Thanks everyone. I'm just struggling to get some of them on the page. I have formatted them according to APA 6 and most of them look presentable but getting a few of the figures and tables in the right position and in legible font is not an easy task. I think once I have finished the chapter editing (still got around 3 chapters to edit after feedback), I can spend time on the little things-and I'll devote a bit of time to perfecting all of the tables.

I found a couple of sites from universities overseas that offer some good information and support on presentation and figures. Latex sounds great by the way pm133, I will have to check it out although I'm locked into Word for this study and thesis unfortunately.

You are probably right ToL. The thesis will stand on its own merits. Just caught up in editing and feedback hell and getting too perfectionistic. :)

Hi Flyingmonkey, does your internal want the total removal of the entire case study-and all references to it? Or are they just after a reduction in the information of the case in the thesis? As in, much information thinned out and summarised but it is still referenced in the main body (With perhaps other parts moved to appendices or perhaps published separately)?

This is related to presentation only. I have quite a few tables in my thesis and while I can use Microsoft Word to help format my tables, getting them the right size on the page, etc, and looking really appealing, is really quite tricky.

Have any others out there had these sorts of issues and if so, have you considered just getting help in the presentation for the final copy of the thesis. I am not talking about copy editing here or any other part of the document, just the graphics presentations.

My supervisor is fine with this but when I look around on the net or in uni websites, they only seem to mention copy editing or printing or design for brochures etc. Just wondering what others might have done. If you have just persevered, are there any tips or sites or similar that might be useful? Appreciate your thoughts on this one.

I've just finished working through supervisors recommendations for Chapter 4 and am moving onto Ch 5 today. CH 6 and 7 need a reasonable amount of revision, so my timeline is to have completed all suggested revisions prior to Easter and then spend Easter break doing appendices, complete glossary, acknowledgements and abstract. Table of contents being formatted as the headings in each chapter are formalised. Aim to have complete edited draft to both supervisors by April 21st. Provides them with a month to check and then hopefully they will sign me off on a notice of intention to submit on May 20th. Then it would be 8 weeks to submission. Timeline this long as it is all done after hours and part time.

Good luck faded07. A long wait indeed-wishing you all the best for a quick resolution so you can celebrate and move on.

My university provided Endnote, which was good at the start but the program brought in difficulties with my document, so like Chickpea, I ditched it and reformatted everything the old fashioned way. It was great at the beginning and helped to get it all started but the glitches in my word document from the program did my head in. I've just forced myself to be systematic with citation now. There is still the odd reference though that needs checking or correction and has a big yellow highlight on it. Second supervisor is meticulous about this so gets really antsy any time she reads anything and sees an extra space, an incorrect comma or something that is not APA 6.

Well done Litphdgirl and also Zutterfly-great work indeed!

I've had my 6 week break from thesis while moving states, towns and jobs and while it was hectic, the total break from editing and reading was fantastic. Today I sat down and the editing that seemed to be a forever story for my 3rd chapter, was tidied up today, when I saw that I had actually managed to completely reorganise the presentation of data methods last November/December. I was so stressed and caught up in the edits that it just seemed like gobbledegook at the time.

As I am now a distance candidate for my final months, I sent off a completion plan this afternoon and I am hoping to power through each of the final 4 major chapters-one every fortnight (after work that is).I'm planning to be able to give intention to submit by the end of April and get it all done by mid year. A little later than my first and second plans outlined earlier but realistic I think given the part time nature of things and the job.

My main bugbear right now is the presentation and formatting of tables and inserting these in to the word doc without scrambling the data or having everything so small you can't read it-or at least I can't read it.

Good luck everyone and happy editing!

Best of luck with the revisions and congratulations on the successful viva-even if your examiners' responses made it seem as if it wasn't the successful viva that it was!

It will be over soon and you will be Dr Grumpy Mule! Well done-wishing you luck for the next chapter.

Hi there csonm,

Ephiny has mentioned the competitive nature of Phd entry and I think this factor definitely would influence how your qualifications are viewed in applications. So by this, I mean that your 2.2 and research Masters are good enough for you to apply absolutely, but if there are a number of candidates for a post, and they need to be ranked for a highly competitive short listing process, then the 2.2 could make a difference sometimes if all else is equal between you and any of the competition.

However, this wouldn't necessarily be true for every application you apply for and you won't know until you go through the process, much of it will depend on the competition happening for each particular application. Don't lose heart with the author publication, these can take a while to be approved and reviewed as well. I think also the other posters have mentioned the gap between your completion of your qualifications might be a concern as this would put you in competition with others who have less time between their degrees and quals and application for the PhD.

I know your circumstances might seem unfair regarding the much earlier 2.2, but, as pointed out but the other posters, you can't change this- it is what it is. It doesn't make you less intelligent, less apt, or less of a person in any way, shape or form.

So if you can't change the 2.2, and you do have a bit of a gap between your completion of degrees, what sorts of things could you do in the meantime to make yourself more competitive in a highly competitive field?

You might need to consider how to market your abilities to universities to appeal to them now-today. Is there any other qualifying short course you could do that might assist to make your application more competitive, or help you craft a research proposal that is highly appealing to various institutions?

There are some really good pieces of advice in this chain of responses (offered by other posters) and if you have set your heart of hearts on the Phd pathway, then following up on these may help with the next few applications.Good luck with it all-it sounds like a very tough situation for you.

Hollis, how well do you know your supervisor and do you have an established sense of 'trust' with them? I ask because reading your very last post, if I were the employer, I would want to know if what you describe was occurring with members of my team so that I could either provide some support or work through some strategies with you.

I ask about the trust because my in my role (Assistant Principal of Secondary College or 'Assistant Head' in the UK), it wouldn't be uncommon for people on my team to come to discuss problems with their work or with other team members sometimes, and the conversation would go no further than my office. What we would do though is work through the issue and find solutions-usually from a 'no blame-solutions focussed' model. I think, or like to think, that most people work like this, but not all do and so it would be important to have some form of trust relationship with your supervisor, so that you can have a conversation that provides some answers or options and you don't just feel like you are complaining or trying to find fault with a colleague.

Having said this, I wouldn't think that the option would be to punish anyone, just to sort things out so that things were working productively again.

The best option in all cases is to actually have the conversation openly with the post doc himself and try to resolve things but this can depend on the personality of the person as well. When having difficult conversations, with anyone, it is really important to be calm, not to blame, use 'I statements', and listen to the other person (even when you believe you are in the right).

Hollis, it reads as if there are more than one messy issue here all rolled into the one tangled ball, which can make it hard to know what to do. I'm with the others regarding NOT informing your supervisor regarding the post doc's lack of support for others (unless you were directly asked by your supervisor for your opinion-on the supervisor's initiative-not yours).

However, I don't see why it wouldn't be okay to let your supervisor know that the post doc wasn't providing any instruction in specific lab techniques (for yourself), if that is actually what your supervisor is expecting that is and your supervisor has directly said this to you.

Rather than having a blunt (and perhaps angry) conversation, can you have a clarifying and polite conversation with your supervisor that just confirms what you are responsible for in your role and the lab, and what your supervisor expects of others. Don't make it about the post doc, make it about your own need to have clarity around your own responsibilities and role and then, as others have suggested, keep focusing on your own work and data-as really that is your main priority. You could do this just as a way of getting feedback regarding your own progress and role in the lab.

Understand completely the need to have an anonymous or private vent about it. If the post doc is shirking their responsibilities, this would be a frustrating experience to have to live and work with.