======= Date Modified 28 Dec 2008 16:20:51 =======
Could you video the experiments, then use that as a source of evidence for your research? Because it sounds as if your demonstrations are a visual version of what you would explain verbally, so the two methods fit together well and enhance your overall discussion/argument in a way that wouldn't be as powerful separately. You could refer to the content of the video in your writing, maybe also use some stills as illustrations in your text and include it at the end of the written thesis on DVD as an appendix.

I'm not an artist, but have documented a lot of my subject matter as photographs as it's evidence, original data that supports my discussion and is integral to my research. A video/DVD sounds a great idea for you though!

I didn't really watch it, as there's not a lot to see really. I just had the sound on and treated it as if it were a radio feature. Having said that, the disparity in the sound and volume of the participating voices was really irritating and took some getting used to - I found myself wincing every time the interviewer's loud voice chipped in - but I thought it was worth it, on balance.

WJ_gibson, I can sort of understand that, though it does sound very soul destroying. I must admit it worries me sometimes that being interdisciplinary might be interesting for research and to one's supervisors, but doesn't fit very easily into some HE organisational structures. I can envisage similar problems for myself postdoc, unless I align myself strongly with one particular discipline in order to get future jobs, from what you've said.

One of my supervisors ran an MA years back that was regarded in that area as innovative because of its interdisciplinary approach to the subject, and it turned out some great students. All the staff that taught on it had great research profiles too. The course folded in the end, partly as it didn't fit into the existing uni faculty structure, and was a 'problem' as the RAE results didn't belong to just one department. I've seen a similar situation at my current uni where someone with excellent research outputs doesn't fit very obviously into the dept he was employed in, in terms of his subject interests, and I have wondered whether it's hindered his career prospects, compared to others whose work is less high profile but fits better into the dept subject areas.

I think you should ignore it, you could make things even more awkward if you say something. For all you know, she may have other reasons for behaving as she has - maybe realised she should keep a professional distance between her and all her students and treat them all the same, so no-one perceives any sense of favouritism, intellectual or otherwise, ie no night-time phone calls. There is always the possibility that you've misinterpreted the situation too. It's early days if you started in September and you've got a long way till the end of your PhD, so it would be a shame to make things more awkward, as you obviously both got on well until recently and she sounds very good for your actual research. Can you just treat the whole thing like a 9-5 job, save your conversations for tutorials at college or email and see if the whole thing gradually blows over?

Olivia, I'm sorry to hear about your dog. It's better that it happened while you were there though and not here in England, and that your ex was there too (small crumbs of comfort in the circumstances I guess, but maybe better than nothing.)

Stressed, me too! I don't know where my motivation has slipped off to, but it's definitely not here at the moment. I'm in that 'oh well, there's LOADS of time yet' mindset and that's a bit dodgy in my current deadline situation. It's nice knowing I'm not the only one though!!

Smilodon, well, you've put me to shame, I'm impressed! I'm officially back working today too, but am having trouble getting into it :-s yeah and that's an understatement btw. Ah well, I'll ease myself into it slowly... it is that Xmas/New Year limbo period, after all :-)

======= Date Modified 23 Dec 2008 23:31:30 =======
Your questions are really specific procedural things, so I can't see how anyone would know the answers unless they know you, your uni and your funding situation. You need to find out where the responsibility lies for the financial issues you're asking about, and then you'll know who signs off what and how. You should have a finance officer you can ask.

It might be worth checking the details of any funding awards/studentships if you've got one, to see if the awardee has to submit an end of project or interim project monitoring report. Sometimes, though maybe for larger research projects rather than PhDs, a requirement of getting funding is to write a report at the end, which may include details of how the money was spent. It wouldn't be an odd requirement for any funding body to want to know how their money's been spent, particularly if it's public money, as I would expect there to be some form of financial accountability needed at some stage.

All students at my uni all have an individual budget allocation that can be spent on travel, conferences, specialist software etc. The student has to justify why that expenditure is necessary for their research and why the money should be spent accordingly, plus has to keep evidence of the expenditure for the eventual finance audits as invoices, receipts etc. All this has to be agreed with their supervisors before the money is spent.

I've no idea whether any of this is relevant to your particular case though.

======= Date Modified 23 Dec 2008 17:34:54 =======
A PhD student from my uni spent a year travelling and working abroad after finishing her doctorate. She apparently needed the equivalent of a 'brain rinse' to eliminate all doctoral-related stuff from her mind to get back to normality (whatever that is!). She published a few co-authored papers/book chapters towards the end and after her PhD though, and was also part of a larger funded research project while she was doing her doctorate, so she's already got some publications, a lot of contacts and has marked out her area of interest, if she decides to return to academia in the near future.

It might be more difficult to get back into academia if you don't publish anything at all. I think you'd have to try to make some really good contacts and do the networking thing while you're doing your PhD, and keep in touch with your supervisors for references etc when you return though. A negative might be that if your area of interest is very competitive, there's nothing to say others won't pip you at the post for jobs, opportunities etc while you're away. Also, not sure if it's relevant for all subjects, but someone else didn't publish after his PhD and said he missed the boat with it in the end, as his work was part of an academic trend when he did it and then his time passed for getting any decent publications out of it - it wasn't exactly obsolete, but just not very current as a publishable subject any more.

If travelling is your big dream though, I'd go for it - it didn't do that student at my uni any harm. It's your life and if it makes you happy, why not!!!

======= Date Modified 22 Dec 2008 09:53:43 =======
Hi Neena, I'm still working! I'm having xmas and boxing days off, and odd family or shopping trips here and there, but otherwise I need to keep at it really, with a Feb submission deadline looming. I'd rather be working at the moment than have a longer break, I know I wouldn't be able to relax with a nagging feeling in the back of my mind that I might not leave myself enough time for all my corrections. Anyway, I seem to be working ok right now and my supervisors are happy, so I don't want to lose this momentum I allegedly have at the moment lol!!

Very helpful, Eska, thank you! (up) The sound was a bit annoying though, the interviewer was far too loud, but it was very interesting otherwise. Reassuring for me at this point to hear that it's ok not to really know what one's thesis is about until the end. *phew* I liked his idea about the PhD process being boundaried but leaky too.

That sounds a good idea. I did a big diagram, a mind map thing, that made sense of how all the bits fitted together. That was at the beginning of my PhD and is still more or less the structure I have now.

I'd find a human interest angle and a concrete, currently newsworthy example from The Daily Mail or The Sun, then try to condense it into a sentence that only a completely unfeeling pig would argue with. Think of how journalists spin the same story for different popular audiences, to the point that you'd never guess it all stemmed from the same facts. You could have alternative versions for different political opinions. There must be a way to shut people like that up!

Goodness, I see what you mean!!

No way can you be expected to engage seriously with that volume of literature in its entirety. Is there a way you could organise those findings into doable categories? Can you organise them generally according to what medium or application the authors have focussed on? I guess it would depend on precisely what you're looking at, but maybe group them into common themes like general internet, technical research, social networking, video, computer games etc? And then from that, pick out the most influential in terms of citation for academic, popular media, public policy authors etc to show different angles for each topic?

I can sort of understand your horror at the workload, as I've had that with some of my stuff. I'm doing jewellery but have had to engage with certain huge bodies of work that would just be humanly impossible for a PhD timescale. My worst nightmare was bereavement literature, as it's an industry in its own right. I was advised by my sup to use a handful of key influential authors in that field that everyone cites, and from that to only use references that specifically looked at precisely my subject, so not to worry about scrutinising the minutiae of bereavement literature. I had to identify broad theoretical strands so it was clear I knew what was happening in the wider academic context, and was also told to look at undergrad textbooks or readers that condense all the main arguments in that field, in case I was worried I would miss anything critical. Then I pinpointed authors who specifically looked at my topic, and justified it by saying that if it didn't cast any extra light on what I was doing then I didn't need to engage with it in depth. I've done the same for every chapter, so I've got my main lit review that stems from my original proposal and highlights the background to my research questions, but I also had to do a mini lit review for each separate chapter, as each was rooted in a different body of work. It's been hideous, and I've always been so aware of the huge gaps in my knowledge, but the end result is apparently worth it. I think the longer you carry on with the PhD, the more you realise what you *don't* know as what you *do* know as you continue to specialise.

If you do have to grapple with that volume of work then there should be a way to both filter out what you really need without going mad, and also to justify why you can't engage with every single word written in this area due to the sheer scale of it. The fact that there is such an immense body of work available may be quite interesting if you can somehow get on overview of it and cluster it into different areas. Is it all written for different interest groups or bodies of readers? You've obviously narrowed down the field to some extent at some point, or your original Phd proposal wouldn't have been viable. As long as you know what you've not looked at and why, it shows you know what you're doing and you can flag up certain areas for future research too.

Well Phdbug, just for you (!) I've counted the number of refs in my lit review from 2006 and there are 34 in its bibliography. I found that chapter quite problematic, as I realised quite quickly that most stuff on my topic was fairly similar, repeating what other authors had said, so there didn't seem to be anything of use. It took me a while to realise that the deficiencies were a bonus as it left the field open for new interpretations and that an interdisciplinary approach would be useful.

The lit review dictated the theoretical methodology and the organisation of the type of data I wanted to look at in the subsequent chapters. The lit review chapter didn't really gel properly until about the equivalent of the end of a F/T student's second year, when theoretical ideas fell into place explicitly, ideas that had only been implicit until then.

I can't really think of any useful examples of good practice though, everyone I read is located in their own discipline and so doesn't cover the same topic from other perspectives. Death Studies in the UK is quite interdisciplinary these days, at least the DDD conferences and the journal are, in that they attract people from most disciplines which is always thought provoking, but I can't think of anyone offhand that actually weaves that approach into their writing. I think interdisciplinarity is only valid when your actual research questions can only be addressed in that way, if you are left with a nagging feeling that something seems very unsatisfactory in its explanation if you stick to one discipline and leaves you with a lot of intellectual gaps and unanswered questions. Otherwise it can be like a trendy academic equivalent of pick 'n' mix and can end up seeming a bit un-rigorous and flaky.

Woffling on now and not sure if that's any use to you really, but I'm grappling with my methodology and revised lit review at the moment.