Hi Montezuma,

depends on what you want. If you think the results of your research are publishable I would do that. Be aware that this can be a long process. Also be aware that research data go out of date quite quickly, hence waiting to get the PhD first, then submitting etc. may not be that fruitful.

If you you want to get through the whole PhD process as quickly as possible, perhaps better to focus on the thesis only.

I think both approaches can be justified, although personally I prefer to try and publish at least some of my work.

Hi Sneaks,

as you know most books specifically state that nothing out of it should be photocopied, distributed etc. unless one has the written permission of the publisher. I think if your presentation is in a small circle, it probably is not that much of an issue. If it is at a big conference, it could get you into trouble. Obviously the risk is low, yet if I were you I would not do it. Maybe better just to say that your presentation is based on this and this book and just provide the audience, if interested, with the reference.

Karl,

you could see it the other way round: it is actually the strength of your project that the data provided you with other information as you had expected. Why do a project if you know already in advance what will come out of it?

You have a large amount of data, now it is a question of presenting it. As others have mentioned you could just describe main themes that come out of it. Overall you can conclude that the whole concept between addiction and sport is non-liniair and complex, this project have provided some insight in this complexity and that has only been possible due your open minded qualitative approach!

Hi Sneaks,

I can confirm what several of the others have said: usually it is better without powerpoint.

Use a flip-over, try and get some interaction with your audience.

Tip: I you feel insecure, write prompts on the flip-over in pencil. The audience cannot see that, but you will be able to read it easily.
Obviously the interactive part you write with a thick pen.

Good luck.:-)

Hi Kezia,

you can try to write the article without citations and assure this is coherent and complete.

Then add in a few citations, some of which you can put in a box as "illustration". Text in boxes usually does not count towards the word count.

Oops,

I meant "pedantic"

Hi Karl, Bulbs,

I am sure you know this already and it not my intention to be pendantic, however, I think the ideal is to look at he theory first, based on that to choose the most fitting analysis method for your project and then to collect the data in that particular way.

If you have done things the other way round, which I think many researchers do, then you need to look in reverse: To what extent does my way of collecting the data fit most with a theoretical approach.

For example if you have collected all you data and only at the end you have started to analyse, then grounded theory would not fit, and this would seem a more thematic / framework approach.
Vice versa if you have collected data 1, then analysed, adapted your approach based on this analysis, then data 2 etc, then this would fit more with a grounded theory approach.:-)

Well done Heifer, congratulations.

Perhaps you want to share a bit more about the viva experience; What type of questions, pleasant? reasonable? How long it took etc.

Again, congratulations!

Hi Jojo,

I think it is like drawing a picture. At the beginning one needs to put a lot of effort in the composition and in making sure that "eyes and the nose" are in the right place. Once you have this OK, then one can fill in the colours and smaller details.

If you skip this initial part, you are quicker initially yet I do not think you get a good picture: if the nose is too long, it is too long and will not become better by changing the colour.

As such I spend a lot of time on making sure that the backbone of my text is correct and that there is a logical sequence. Once I have that I will fill in the details (which I do know, just have not put them all in one text).

Hope this helps and that I have not confused you more:-)

Hi Cobweb,

you are right, at the beginning of the whole process you will not know what the literature entails nor will you not know exactly what project you will be able to take on. As such I think this plan and first chapter should be more a draft than "a protocol that is cut in stone".

For the plan you could write something like a time table, for example:

Year 1: Literature review, finding out where to fing the literature, working through it, writing the literature review, identifying potential research topics, writing a draft research protocol. Regalar reviews with supervisor. At the end of the year having completed the literature review and having a researh proposal.

Year 2: Setting up the project, finding a research population, doing the actual field work, data collection and analysis.

Year 3: Writing the thesis etc. etc.

For the first chapter (the literature review?) you would write something similar.
:-)

Hi Catalin,

I think you have two choices.

1. To contact / e mail the editor and ask whether it is OK. I have done this and the editor in my case was quite happy with a few extra words (I think it was something like 25).
2. Remove, like mentioned before whole sentences, for example from the background. Keep method compact and provide only a summary of a summary of the results.

:-)

Hi Keenbean,

Firstly it is quite something to teach 70 people! As such the fact that you have managed this is already a major achievement.

Secondly, perhaps the key question is how to get rid of feeling nervous / these unpleasant feelings?
Obviously practice helps, but what do you do now?

I think it really helps if you have an opening gambit / sentence. I would learn this by heart, so that at least you know what to say at the beginning, which is usually the hardest part. Also be in the lecture room already before the others, assure power point etc. is working.

Also it helps if you know what you are going to talk about. So really prepare and be certain that you know your stuff. Then indicate in the beginning what you are going to say, middle part address that, last part / conclusion; repeat what you said at the introduction.

You can do this, good luck
:-)

Hi Jojo,

interesting thread.

Perhaps it is a good idea to look at examples where you think that the writing is particilarly good. I think this is often the case in editorials, in which eminent writers manage to provide an opinion on a complex issue. Often these are only one page long and easy to read.

I think the trick may be, before you do any formal writing, to stand back and really think what you want to say or what you feel is important. Like a journalist look at what the key issues are. Then try and think of a structure, then fill in with "cut and paste" from your previous writing. Leave out side themes or refer to them in a condensed way or indicate with a reference for interested readers where more information can be found.

:-)

Hi Emily,

first congratulations that you have come sofar and nearly have your PhD. That is a major achievement and something to be proud of.

The issue of publications has come up on this forum several times. I think the general feeling is that the PhD is the first priority and that publications are not a must. Saying that if you have managed to publish your work this would be seen as a bonus, especially if you want to stay in the scientific / academic field.

However I am not sure whether it is of any use to worry about this at this stage, as you probably have to concentrate on the final stage of your PdD / viva etc. Obviously it may be useful to look at your material to see whether you can make a publication out of it, although the process between writing, submission and actually seeing your work published is quite a long one.:-)

Hi Walminski,

sometimes the problem is, if you have written a lot, especially about complex issues, that it is very hard to keep an overview (not seeing the wood through the trees). What my professor suggested and which I have used, is to "throw away what you have written" and start with a blank piece of paper. Then from memory write the overview in a simple way, trying to include what you think are the main issues. Often you have a to juggle a bit (often quite a bit!) but eventually you may get a logical, to the point, piece of writing. Then, and only then, one can go back to the original writing to "paste" in details regarding certain subject.

And, in my opinion, health care workers want something to the point, easy to read and concise! I am fairly certain that they would not struggle through a complex text, they would prefer something practical and what is relevant to them.:-)