Dear Jojo,

As above responders have indicated I think it depends on the kind of research you are doing. The following are some examples without trying to be pedantic.

If a quantitative study, for example a randomised controlled trial, then you are probably doing the study because there is some sort of problem (for example patients with high blood pressure suffer more heart attacks).
You make a hypothesis (reducing blood pressure will reduce heart attacks), and set the research question (does reducing blood pressure reduce heart attacks?)You do the trial: one group with medication, one without (obviously ethically not defendable) and based on the results either confirm (yes reducing blood pressure does reduce...) or reject your hypothesis.

If a qualitative study, there is a problem ( it is unclear why customers buy product X), you set an open question (what are the views of customers on product X), you collect data for example via focus groups and perhaps based on data analysis are able to provide explanations for why people not buy the product.
:-)

Thanks Satchi,

nice to hear a positive message.

Wish you a pleasant weekend as well.



:-)

Dear DanB,

these seem wise words which you bring forward. I like especially the issue to detaching yourself, taking on something else to do.

How long did the whole PhD process take you?
Any regrets?

Dear Star shaped,

I think it depends. If the paper is well written, the review process is usually a formality, with suggestions, which usually do not take long. If your supervisor has judged it as good, probably the peer reviewers would see it in a similar way. However I think it is the editor of the journal who has the final say. Please be aware that the actual process from submission to publication can take quite a long time.:-)

Hi Phdbug,

as the others indicated I can confirm that there should not be any refererences in the abstract, refererences should be related to the main text.

You could look at an old article, from which you think the abstact is well written and use that as an example for style. Key issue is that it is written clearly, that one understands what was done and what the outcome was. Normally about 300 words

Dear Hypothesis,

I see what you mean, it is extremely frustrating to wait for feedback! Yet do not give up, eventually you will get there!

Rick:-)

Hi confused.com,

from my employer I get half a day a week allocated for my research project, as such most of the time I spend on it is in the evenings or in the weekend. For some of my focus groups I used some leave days.

It is tough, but do-able.

I think the main advantage is the balance: My normal job keeps me in contact with "normal society" and helps to put research issues into perspective.

Do not know about changing to 100% PhD, as mentioned I like the combination of job and research.

Hi confused.com,

like you seem to be indicating yourself it may be an idea to do the job and the PhD. As you can read from previous entries the money while you are doing a PhD is not great, and as such, if it is a good job that has been offered, it would be a pity to decline that.

Obviously it is hard work to do a PhD aside of a (part-time) job, it can be done and it may also keep you "sane" as your we stay with both feet in normal society.

I am doing my doctorate and work full time

Hi Louise,

it also amazes me how educated people, like supervisors and professors, can be didactically so poor. I have been frequently to seminars regarding education and often you are asked regarding your worst and best educational experience. Nearly always the worst experience is regarding a teacher who humiliates the student!
It is well known in educational circles that feedback should be given according to Pendleton's rules: first the student mentions what went well, the supervisor what went well, student what could be done differently and the supervisor what could be done differently and how!

What do you think?

Dear Jinio,

how I understand it: Framework approach is used when every interview is done in a (semi)structured way, in the end all interviews are collected and analysed. Thus you do your semi-structured interview, the next interview you do the same way, etc. In the end you have several interviews having more or less the same structure. The framework approach addresses this in a structured way. This is quick and quite reliable, yet may lack the in depth information from "Grounded Theory" analysis.

"Grounded Theory" analyis is based on an iterative process, whereby after every interview you analyse, this provides you with new issues, which are addressed in the next interview etc. etc.

Hi Jojo,

nice to see you are still there, I hope you are OK.

I recognise your issue: Sometimes one particular paper is very good and provides most of relevant information for a review. As the others state ideally the review should be based on more papers, but what to do if there is nothing more available?

As you will be aware the literature list from that particular paper may provide more options to refer to. One can read these articles and this may provide new insights or you may be able to quote issues in a different way.

Also I think it is key to describe explicitly what searches you have done, library visits etc. so that you can justify why most references are from one particular article.

As you know it is not just what you write, but also how you present it what counts!

Hairui,

very sorry to see that is has gone so terribly wrong.

I think you are absolutely right: one cannot change the focus of the project once this has been nearly completed, as you say, this would go against the ethical approval and as such would not only be immoral yet also illegal.

Not sure whether this will make you feel worse; I had a meeting with my professor and supervisor, and the professor strongly criticised my project approach (which had been agreed with her previously!) yet she did accept that the focus could not be changed (as most of the data had already been collected). As such I will continue in the same way.

Again, I am sorry regarding the situation you are in at the moment, it sounds awful. Surely there must be an "Umbudsman at the university to help you? Or have you got access to any legal advice?

Well done Aloha, congratulations.

I think it is normal to "feel flat" as this stage, often the tiredness after a lot of work comes after finishing it.

Rick

Hi Juno,

just seen your thread.

Indeed it difficult that you get so much on your plate. Sometimes it is related to difficulties in saying "no" and fear of conflict.

I find saying "no" hard, as I am worried that that may have negative repurcussions. As a result more and more people come to me with their problems and issues and I get a large of amount of extra work. Others just say "no" and usually that has actually no real implications.

What are your views? :-)

Hi Juno,

I would translate these as follows:

mal de pecho = chest pain (probably related to pain on the chest /? cardiac origin)
enfermedades del corazon = heart disease / coronary heart disease
irritation del higado = ? strange term, does not sound like a proper medical term, maybe fatty liver disease of even hepatitis. Could also be related to abnormalities at histological level?