yeah, I heard this on the radio this morning. I reckon I'm ok, because although I'm technically at my computer all day, I spend at least 10 out of 11 hours procrastinating :p

Ok, so you think its fine to put e.g. all the correlations relating to gender as spearman's coefficients in the same table as pearsons coefficients for all the other variables?

Ok - I may put a footnote to say it. Plus I will put (see Dunni, 2011)

I need to do a spearman's correlation, as I have gender (0, 1) to add into the mix.

However, my sup reckons you can report (in the SAME table) pearsons and spearmans. So just reporting spearmans coefficients for the ones related to gender and then the rest as pearsons.

Is this right? it sounds a bit dodgy to me

I'd provide a brief overview of what you did but focus on your research skills (e.g. analysis types, quant/qual techniques), your contribution, your plans for dissemination e.g. conferences, publications and any previous ones you have. Even if you haven't planned to publish them I'd stick them down anyway. I do this e.g.

Sneaks (in prep). Journey of a procrastinator. To be sent to [amazing 4* journal]

I found it and have pmd you

I did one of these last summer - I think there is actually a thread on it somewhere here.

Anyway, mine was more on my contribution to teaching and research at the uni in question.

I was told its much better to focus on 'research interests and experience' rather than say "my phd" as the latter sounds like that's all you've done (it may be but you don't want to highlight it!)

The best thing I did in it, was that on my last slide I did like a spider diagram of my research interests and how these linked into the departments research interests. If I can find the ppt I'll try and pm it to you.

My sup has seen my raw qual data -she had to as she needed to train me on the analysis technique I was using. She's not asked for my quant, but its becoming more common for journals in my field to ask for you to send your data in when you submit an article, so people can re-analyse it. That freaks me out a bit. Imagine if someone put in another paper titled " A comment on Sneaks (2010) - she messed up the stats!"

======= Date Modified 04 Apr 2011 15:10:50 =======
======= Date Modified 04 Apr 2011 15:09:34 =======
Hey Emmaki,

up for a limited time :-)

http://tinyurl.com/3hrktx2

hopefully that works :-)

I'm still waiting on mine - it still says reviews received -awaiting decision. How long can it take to say "yes" or "no"

:-s

yeah, it does change, Sometimes I've been able to see the all important 'missing' page, just by opening it up on 2 computers at the same time.

I like the big words you're using :p

Hubby's just submitted his and we signposted that throughout - there was a whole table at the beginning with an explanation of each chapter and then each chapter began and ended with what went before and what was coming up. I'll probably be doing that, I was just worried about the first 'this thesis has three studies which...' bit, before I've actually discussed the literature. I guess its about being a bit more vague until I've discussed the lit e.g "study 3 examines concepts xyz that arose from stud 1"

oooooh - I like those ideas.

I'm also not sure when to put this. In my hubby's thesis, we put it at the end of a short introduction section e.g. 2000 word section. But I'm not sure if it needs to go at the end of my lit review - but then its going to be about 15k words in and maybe a bit late.

I need to put a little signposting in my first chapter - the introduction, to say something like "this thesis has 3 studies. The first examines xyz because....., the second ......" etc etc

But my 1st 2 studies are straightforward and I have justification for them from the gaps in the literature.

But the 3rd study was done because it leads on from ideas that emerged in the 1st study.

How do I signpost this when I haven't covered much of the literature in the literature review? (I have it in the related chapter instead).

I guess I'm thinking - do I let on that XYZ emergerd from study 1, before the reader has read that chapter ? and therefore explaining more clearly why I did study 3?

I'm not sure if I've explained this well!

I am frequently harrassed on my train. For some reason, I can't get a cheap day return with a railcard from the machine, so I have to queue for the man at the window - they're either not open or only 1 person there. PLUS, the car parking takes about 30 mins to sort out. So basically I arrive 30 mins before the train leaves to sort all this out. Sometimes the train arrives and I'm still in the queue so I've hopped on - thinking, if they can't organise themselves to be able to sell me a ticket within 30mins, then I don't really see why I should be penalised for not buying one.

I've had guards say they're going to charge me £50 fine and then the ticket cost or chuck me off at the next stop etc. they're pretty nasty, but I just act dumb, flutter my eyelashes and usually get away with it :$

ALthough now I deliberately take about 10 mins to find my ticket in bag, especially if they have announced "please get your tickets ready" beforehand :p

I hate train companies!

I'd write as you go. I decided to get straight in after 4 months and collect data. It was originally going to be a kind of pilot study - but that data now forms 2 out of my 3 studies :-) and I built on the findings for my 3rd study. I had all my data collection complete by half way through the 2nd year. I just dragged my heels with the writing :-(