I think that sounds really good if your employer's keen on you doing a PhD. I suppose the worst thing that can happen in doing the masters first is that you might feel you're wasting time, but if you're studying the subject you're interested in then it can't be wasted. I'd been out of fulltime education for years when I started my masters, just out of interest rather than with a definite PhD in mind. It was useful as it got me back into writing academically again, though my first essay was fairly crap in retrospect. After that, all my work was on the topic that eventually became my PhD. It was useful as so much of what I read contributed to my PhD literature review. It gave me a good grounding in the subject and started to show me what gaps in existing research existed and who the key academics in that area were that I should familiarise myself with. It was also really useful in helping me to research the subject in terms of a theoretical framework, and for practical research methods like using archives, specialist libraries and interviewing people.

I'm sure when you start the course, your own interests will direct you towards a possible PhD topic. Criminology is such a massive area that a masters will be a great basis for developing a research proposal. I don't think you can jump ahead too far without the background, in all honesty, as PhDs are definitely not quick things to do. Also, while you're doing the masters it would be useful to speak to your tutors about the possibility of developing any masters dissertation into a PhD proposal. They should have an idea of your work by then, and if you have a good relationship with them and if you like that uni, maybe they'll want to keep you on there to supervise you. There are a few variables involved there, so maybe see how it goes?

If you're starting your masters in a few weeks, as you said in another thread, you'll find out all this during your course. You'll also be able to find out about how masters degrees are assessed and graded at your university (another of your questions).

During your masters, you'll be able to familiarise yourself with the relevant literature for your subject, including access to completed PhD theses and current research topics. You'll find out whether you're up to doing a PhD during the course. If you're interested in a particular topic then it would be a good idea to focus on this for your dissertation; it'll be your own project, will show you whether you can do self-directed research or not, you'll know the topic really well and will get a good background in research techniques, all necessary on a larger scale for a PhD. My PhD emerged from my masters dissertation and other students at my uni have also done this, so it seems quite usual to continue your own research from masters to a doctorate. Good luck with it!

I don't quite understand your situation, have you completed a bachelors or a masters degree anywhere, or just not in the UK?

The only academic I know who's got a PhD by publication was awarded it years after his book was published, and that was in a humantities area, so that's not much help to you.

As PhDs produce a lot of information including publishable material, is there a problem for you in doing it the usual way - ie PhD then publication? You've still got to research it, write it and make sure it's academically rigorous, whichever way you do it, if it's going to be awarded a PhD.

======= Date Modified 05 Sep 2009 08:40:06 =======
======= Date Modified 05 Sep 2009 08:39:00 =======
You might not be always able to divide a long chapter up into two, as it might not work for your argument. I started off intending to have about 10,000 words for each, but when I started writing it up everything changed! One became 14,000 while another was about 6,000. I had to justify why the chapter lengths were variable in my methods chapter, in case it looked a bit dodgy to the examiners. I realised that my actual source material (data) varied a lot in quantity for different chapters because of the methodology I'd used. Plus some chapters were able to answer my main research questions ok in a relatively small wordcount, so after that I was in danger of duplicating what I'd said just to pad it out for equal chapter lengths. If chapter lengths vary because it's necessary to answer your central research questions then it seems justifiable.

Readability is another thing, maybe you could split a long one into two sections if it should logically stay like that - part one and part two - so the reader doesn't lose the thread? Or could you put some material into an appendix?

That all sounds really good, Bug! You should be really pleased with yourself as all your work seems to be paying off (not that I'd expect any different!). I'm glad you're feeling better too, though keep an eye on that hand (in a manner of speaking!).

We don't seem to get a lot of business and management students on here, so you might be waiting for a while...

If the programs are so similar, why don't you just choose the city you prefer? Personally, I'd pick Newcastle as it's got the Eric Burdon connection, but it's not my life.

Hi Seamonkey and Sue on this thread, hope you find it as useful as I did! There's something about writing down what you intend to do, then allegedly being publicly accountable for it that prodded me into action, but you probably don't need prodding!

Hi Lara, try not to panic, it'll happen anyway and your life won't end after the viva.... they shouldn't kill you off, should they??!! You know far more than you think you do about your thesis, especially now, after all that revision. I think you'll be able to defend it when you have to, as you've spend a LOT of time thinking about it so it'll be stuck in your subconscious (or some other psychological thing that I don't know anything about....). Look after yourself and just do what you can between now and then, you will survive it! (up)

I found it hard defining those too. I'm more or less self funded, well, fees only paid for me....

My title was really general for most of my PhD, just showing what the broad area I was looking at was, a bit vague and with no questions in it. Then when I had to think of the final title for submitting, my supervisor told me to go for the Ronseal effect, ie make sure it just does what it says on the tin, as the advert goes! I thought it turned out a bit clunky, you know, the 'an investigation into blah blah blah' type of title, but she said I could think up something more elegant for a book title in the future, but it didn't matter so much for the thesis, it just had to say what it was and be precise.

My perfectly formed (!!) research questions emerged quite late on in the research really... I sort of knew what I wanted to find out all along, but it took a session with my sup saying well, what *exactly* do want to find out then???? Then I had to write it up in one page. I didn't find it easy to pull focus on a massive project with all the ideas and literature I'd gathered, but it was useful to do. It seemed too easy, just boiling everything down into a couple of questions, but apparently that was it. I found it quite weird, as you have to make something quite complicated into something very simple and short, then go back and make it complicated and extremely lengthy again.

I'd have thought you could work your own individual ideas into any basic research questions, as it seems likely that several people could research the same questions in different ways and possibly come up with quite different theses. The PhD process does seem rigid and restrictive in some ways but it's just the PhD thing, it needn't restrict your freedom any more than having to stick to certain ways of formatting a thesis or using Harvard to reference books does. You can still produce an original thesis within those parameters.

I don't think you should agonise too much, it will take shape as you continue working and you gradually clarify bits as you think about them. Maybe you need more time for it to all simmer away in your mind, before it turns into the title and questions you're happy with!

I send it off when my deadline is seriously looming and I'm in danger of missing it, even if I know something's not quite finished. I really don't like missing deadlines arranged with my supervisor, so having loads of them is a good way to stop me endlessly extending or fiddling about with pieces of writing. That, plus the belated realisation that there will always be more work I can do on certain bits, but you have to draw a line somewhere. You can always extend some stuff as a post-doc project if you're still interested in it.

I know what you mean though, about the start of term when everyone looks rested and healthy, and asks what you did all summer!! Slaving away over a slightly hot computer might sound a strange use of holiday time to non-PhD people! :-)

Walminski, it took long enough for it to happen and I'm certain your time will come!! My mini-epiphany was one of the few good things to emerge from my quagmire of writing-up misery.

You sound more like things are falling into place with your work: good supervisor, you know what you're doing, are getting on with it and enjoying it too, from what you've written! PhDs would be terminally grim if they were 100% struggle with no good bits to remind us of why we wanted to do it in the first place.

I did have a 'so is that it???' moment while I was writing up, when after months of grappling with my methodology I returned to two papers I'd read years back that suddenly seemed horrendously obvious as central to my thesis. They simplified the whole thing and it all became clear, everything fell into place theoretically and I wondered why I'd taken so long to 'get it'. It seemed too straightforward to be right, but my supervisor said that's how you get to ideas sometimes, it's part of the process.

Of course, that's not to say you're not delusional, I really wouldn't like to say, but it could creep up on you anytime! ;-)

You must have been the perfect candidate then, well done! (up)

I just felt that general transferable skills had limited value if you want to pursue a research-orientated career in academia post-doc, as I want to. I know that cv writing skills etc are important, but after that, then what, if you want to stay in HE rather than transfer to another sector? I felt that specialist training such as how to write successful funding proposals for certain subject areas would be much more useful than generalist skills, particularly given the current economic and HE situation in the UK, but that didn't fit the Roberts remit, I was told.

Look after yourself and do have a good rest.

To risk making your RSI worse would be too horrible for you at this stage in your career. At the risk of being a doom-merchant, a friend of mine ended up leaving academia because her RSI got so bad. She couldn't even hold a knife to cut up food for a while as her hand didn't work properly, and using the computer was impossible for months, even taking really strong painkillers. She's very happy now doing horticulture stuff, so the RSI led to something good in a roundabout way, but her experience made me really aware of having to rest when I got twinges during writing up.

Take care! :-)

I have no idea whether Roberts funding was used for them or not, but my uni has always provided training for transferrable skills for doctoral students anyway. We have never had 'Roberts days'. I was sent a recent call for ideas from my research dept for them to apply for Roberts funding, but myself and several colleagues were surprised at how limited and uninspired the range of suggestions outlined in the Roberts documentation were, hence a severe lack of enthusiasm and very poor response from both students and staff. It is difficult to imagine any 'creative ideas' being forthcoming within the narrow parameters provided.

So do you work for them in some capacity?