No idea what the topic is about. But Wikipedia has quite a lot of criticism of the topic. It might be good to start there and work forward.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource-based_view

Do the project that you will enjoy the most. A PhD is a long time and you want to be motivated in the project no the location. Sit down and deeply look through what each PhD might entail and were it will lead you research wise. If one of the stands out and keeps you interested, go for it.

Also, have you talked with the supervisors about each project? Do you feel that you get on better with one of them better than the others?

Only you can answer that. Generally, you include work if it adds to your thesis without it becoming a distraction. So that you have as much evidence as possible to defend your idea and draw conclusions from.

Ask your supervisor what you independent and dependent variables are!

Make them ever so different and you will be fine. Like, talk more about the methodology in one conference and the other talk more about the implications.

There are people who keep presenting the exact same work for a few years because that is all they have. No one will call you out for it, so don't worry.

Completed

Hi Tudor queen, I have the exact same problem!

My supervisor gave me a huge data set and said: "write a paper with these conclusions". I keep getting lost among it all wondering how do I do this. When I ask her questions about it, I get vague 4-word answers. When I say we need to change the conclusions I get "but that won't get us further grant money". I am literally supposed to make up some convoluted logic scheme that ties the data to her conclusions. You are not as extreme as I am (you at least get first author) but I feel your pain.

But you are the first author, so write a draft and give it to her/him. If they have major issues ask them to rewrite it themself. You can include whatever you want as you are first author and if she doesn't agree say, it doesn't flow. Take a bit of confidence as they wouldn't have asked you to do it if they didn't think you could do it. You are becoming an academic, not just a student anymore, so you can make those decisions. And if they respect you they will listen to your opinions. At least they have specified the conclusions they want.

Get a hobby or some way to relax. Or go on holiday.

Don't let the PhD consume you because if it is all you do, you can easily lose motivation. Taking that break may let you recharge and come back with that missing motivation. We get bored with the familiar, so make sure you always plan some time not working on the project.

Don't make an official complaint, causes too much trouble and people usually get very defensive. Rarely hear of good stories about complaints in universities.

It is summer and for all you know the committee might be having issues due to half the university being on holiday. If there is a head, drop a casual email asking politely about it being longer than 4 weeks, delaying you PhD. Then say as it is not your fault for the delays that you want an extension on your PhD because of them not following their own rules. Might work.

Yes, it is. You have gained a particular set of skills, skills you have acquired over a long Ph.D. career. Skills that can use to make a large contribution to another lab or research group. Just work out what you have to offer and look around as most postdoc roles are mainly looking for people with the right experience, as to cut down on training time.

I have done this and mostly got away with it. Just be vague and say what you think/literature expects the results to be. Talk about the concept and the possible benefits of the concept instead of actual results.

The reviewers know enough to see a no data abstract from a mile away and they can make up their own mind. If they are interested they might take a risk, if not they can only reject you.

Get a pet. They never argue back, always look cute and have serious de-stressing properties. Seriously, pets are awesome and always give you motivation, to forget about your PhD. Proper downtime is most precious thing in a PhD in my opinion, as your life tends to revolve round work.

Also, study buddies are overrated. Office/lab mates that are serious and driven are boring, they are usually too focused on their own work. Driven people tend to be too focused on themselves to be collaborative and only collaborate when it benefits them. They are the people that argue about authorship and hide results to benefit themselves. Serious people kill collaborative atmospheres and are the best way to ruin a lab. Long days in the lab can be hard and if you are surrounded by people who only want to talk about work, can make your life hell. So don't be that overly serious person that ruins it for everyone else because of their misplaced "drive" that makes them utterly one-dimensional. I don't care if you want to improve your knowledge by asking me to help to you and then do not reciprocate. Be a good lab mate and help other people, then expect them to help you. That is a better way find a work mate.

Finally, we can only be 100% productive for so many hours a day, slacking isn't bad if you are getting the results. Lying back and relaxing, gives you that break to be productive. If they are in the same position as you work wise and doing far less work, they are far more efficient. Don't hate on them because they work smart, learn from them. I see too many people that think just being present is "work", it isn't. While it really is about results and if relaxing means you can think/learn better in shorter bursts, doesn't mean they are not driven.

Sorry about the rant. I really should delete this but I feel it kinda adds to the conversation.

Hi Arab,

It can be difficult if you are doing research were there is minimal support. I am assuming that the technicians are competent but don't have experience in your methods, so you have to do all the method development yourself. I totally know the feeling, same problems here (especially with HPLC). It sucks not having much of a research group or more experienced lab mates to help with even the most basic stuff.

The thing is that this it what a PhD is. Other people might have it easier with more support but they still have to learn/develop/use methods. It can be hard but if you don't enjoy it, it isn't for you. If you enjoy it you won't go insane, you are just having the usual breakdown in confidence/motivation. You will be fine.

The way I see it is that I am getting far more experience than if I was in a big group. I am trying to do all the same experiments, might have to work incredible hours to get the method working but I know the method very well now. How many people in big groups, use a method but have no real understanding of it?

Agree with Tudor_queen, try and get a visit to another lab. My supervisor got me a 2 month visit in another lab plus a couple of young researcher events that helped a lot. Just to pick up some good habits or get insights on how other people work, is great. Most universities/societies have money for external lab visits, use one of them to get some experience. Your supervisor should be able to help you find a lab.

pm133, is also right. This is a PhD and it is you got to take responsibility for your own work. Usually the best thing you can do is work harder and not to expect help. Help is a bonus or like Christmas. Most of the time no-one gives a sh*t about your work except yourself, so get used to it.

I don't know if this is applicable but i have seen a thesis where he had 4 published papers and his chapters were like;

Chapter X
Paper abstract
Preview (explained why he did it and experimental issues and reviewers feedback)
The paper copied and pasted
Discussion (talked about how paper fitted into his overall PhD project)

Though this was engineering and he had fully published the papers

So it sounds like the reanalyzed study one is very good, which is why you want to keep it.

So can you say that your methodology for studies 2&3 proves that you should use the methodology from study1. With a section explaining that 2&3 had to be started before you fully analysed 1, therefore using the results of 2&3 to partially validate 1. It might make it more coherent but at the expense of demeaning the results of 2&3.