Hi 404,

I presume that you need to resubmit, yet not defend it again in a viva, is that correct?

If not viva, as such no means to defend things orally, I think you need to defend things on paper.

In the report you can write:

Recommendation A was in my opinion ambiguous. I have interpretted it as follows... blah blah blah. Therefore I have made the following changes:....... etc.

Hi 404,

I think there are three issues here:

1. Did you acknowledge and address the recommendations?
2. Is the away you addressed them adequate?
3. Is there a quick way of showing that you have addressed the recommendations.

I think 1 and 3 are the most important ones, especially if time is limited. I think examiners are busy people, who dislike having to read things again and who like to cut corners. As such if you provide them with an extra list indicating the changes, I think this would be highly appreciated.

Regarding 2: Again, if you have time, perhaps ask a peer to have a look at the changes regarding content?
:-)

Hi 404,

I presume that you have received written instructions regarding what needs to be changed. The people who will review your corrected thesis will (most likely) go by those instructions. As such I would follow those to the letter and even flag up in your thesis that you have addressed those specific issues.

Taken into account your time restrictions I would stick to that. Make sure that those changes are grammatically correct (I know sounds obvious, yet very easily you miss these type of errors and that just looks untidy). Once you have done that, and you still have time, you can look at fine tuning things a bit.

I think the examiners will not read the whole thesis again, but will just look at whether the recommendations have been addressed.

Hi Murt,

I have not used Atlas ti, yet the amount of codes you have already seems excessive to me, you probably will loose oversight very quickly!

Like you suggest, I would try and make sense of what you have got solar. Have a look at one interview and check whether the categories, as per Atlas, actual do make sense. Perhaps it is an idea to analyse one interview "by hand" (just highlighting (in different colours) yourself what you think the key areas are and which remarks belong together). That would indicate quickly whether you're on the right track or not.

Good luck,

Rick

Hi Pineapple,

you have my sympathy, removing large amounts of text is always difficult, as one gets attached to what one has written.

Obviously, I not know what your examiners have said, yet if it was to reduce the text, I would stick to that. I mean unless they have indicated that you need to add in new developments, I would be careful with that. I think, like you seem to be indicating, there is a high risk that you will collate masses of extra chunks of text and very quickly one can loose sight to what one is doing.

My advice would be (and perhaps you are doing that) to follow the instructions from the examiners to the letter. Good luck.

Kind regards,

Rick:-)

Hi Bilbo,

I wanted the thank you very much for all your help. I think you are a very inspirational person and will miss your postings.

Best wishes,

Rick

Dear all,

at the moment I have a DSL line for internet and this has been working well for literature research, getting e mails etc. I am thinking of changing to mobile internet instead. I would be interested in your experiences with mobile internet for research purposes. Is it fast enough? Reliable? Can it be used as an alternative or is a land line still required?

Kind regards,

Rick

I think Clupea bring forward a good point: certain forenames may be connected with particular prejudice. I know a research paper about a GU med clinic where it was checked whether names were associated with certain diseases.

As such, one needs to be able to justify why you give a participant a particular name.

Although I seen papers were "Mary said..." etc. was used, I would just stick to "a participant" and then provide a code regarding which person in which focus group said that.:-)

Hi Sneaks,

I think that using names would be too much, readers will not remember many names and my find it confusing. You could use certain subgroups, for example: nurses indicated, or a nurse indicated etc.

With such a big group you could also use: many participants etc. As you know, due to the qualitative nature of the project, you cannot generalise even if many participants mentioned something.

I analysed the data, wrote the story and then filled it in with quotes, trying 50-50 for the results part. I think a lot of quotes makes the whole thing readable and interesting.

Kind regards,

Rick

Hi cakeman,

yes you can publish something even if the outcome is not perfect. Normally just a matter of writing the article in the format as requested by the journal, indicating strengths and weaknesses. Stress to the editor that this is a novel approach with promising prospects.

Like Laney, I would be more worried about the patent. Once the method is in the public domain, common sense would suggest that you are no longer the owner, hence that you cannot patent it? Not sure how you could bypass the matter if a publication is required. Perhaps asking legal advice first?

Kind regards,

Rick

Hi KB,

Firstly, a compliment regarding your achievements.

Secondly, sorry to hear that you are not feeling well. It is strange isn't it, that you feel worse now then when you were still working hard for your PhD. On the other hand I think is a relatively well known phenomenon, for example in patients with migraines, some of them get migraines when they are actually relax. Or top athletes often feel low after winning gold medals etc. Perhaps it has got something to do with the quest to reach a target (PhD, gold metal, Everest etc.), the challenge of achieving that, and the very sudden change in life circumstances once the goal has been achieved.

Do you think the above may apply to you?
:-)

Hi Jackson,

must be very hard situation to be in, you have my sympathy.

I presume that you are at the start of your PhD. Do you think you can manage for another 2-3 years with this situation? If yes, obviously, then that is fine. Yet if not, then I would think it would be better to do something now to change matters, then to wait until you are further on in your PhD and when it becomes harder and harder to change. Is it possible to change supervisor? Can you discuss your situation with responsible university staff? etc.

I think many posters in the past have indicated that changing supervisor had been a good thing.:-)

Thanks Bilbo,

had a quick look, seems useful for all.:-)

Hi RLD,

as you have spotted those "gaps" now, I think it is best, like the other posters indicate to address these now. Even though this will have a cost now, in the long run it is money well spent.

However, if doing more focus groups is absolutely not possible, you could also stick to your method. The key thing, I think, is to be very explicit regarding why you have chosen your method, indicate that this method was beneficial, because blah, blah, blah. Then to indicate what the weaknesses were, that you have learned that on hindsight another method might have provided more insight on blah, blah, blah. Therefore on reflection  / future research is required using a more "grounded theory" approach to data analysis etc.

Again, I think the trick is to be explicit, to be aware of the limitations of your work and that on reflection you have learned from the research process.:-)

Hi 4matt,

difficult situation.

Could you specify what the contribution of each of the authors has been? I had a paper published in which four authors had been involved. At the end of the paper, in the "Contributions section", it was indicated who had done what. For example A and B wrote the protocol, A did the field work, A, B and C the analysis etc.

That would make it clear for your PhD what exactly you have done, and for your "somewhat difficult fellow author" what exactly her contribution has been.
:-)