Thankyou so much everyone! I actually think that, with all of your contributions, Im starting to make some headway...Im wondering if the difference, pondering on everyone's thoughts and some of the reading Ive attempted (but which generally confuses me!) is that both suggest the world is 'constructed' (rather than existing 'objectively' a la positivism), but that 'constructivism' assumes some 'bottom-line' realities ie that there exist cognitive processes and a conceptual framework which enables the individual to construct the world (hence its preponderance in psychology, which make more objective/scientific claims than I imagine sociology does). In contrast, 'constructionism' makes no such bottom-line claims, and indeed would suggest that the notion of 'cognitive processes' itself is a social construct...does that make any sense at all to anyone, or am I going slowly mad???

Does anybody know? Im trying to get my head around it, but just cant...I definitely understand (social) constructionism...but whats the 'v' for?

ahaaa! thankyou so much!

Does anyone know where I can access past PhD theses? I used to know, and Ive forgotten! I think it was somewhere on the British Library site (but I cant find it now) and it used to let you download electronic copies of just about anyone's past thesis?

Just as another thought, it might be worth enquiring not only how many students your proposed supervisors have, but how many they have taken through to completion successfully - some students can be 'on the books' for years without being any nearer to completing, so its always worth taking a look at the supervisors' records (also, for any 'drop-outs' as well). I think, given the importance of the supervisor-relationship, this is really important - prob more so if your are self-funding, so will want to complete in as quick a time as possible!

Not crazy - I got 8 publications out of my PhD (5 journal articles and three book chapters!)

45 pages is quite a big ask - remember that it is you doing him the favour here!

Def combine the two - i did for my PhD, and it sounds like - if you're in a dilemma about it - that you have identified a theoretical need for both approaches.

Does anyone know of a website that provides open access to qualitative interview transcripts for students to do analysis on? I vaguely remember Surrey Uni did something, but can no longer find anything...or did i dream of the possibility of such access?

I agree. Have you spoken to the editor direct to clarify the position? I cant understand why it should matter to the journal editor what order the names are in...if its good enough to be published there, then it will be published elsewhere - i agree with the other two posters - sometimes integrity is more important, and your supervisor shouldnt be allowed to pull rank and bully his way into first authorship when he hasnt put in the work to merit it. And this way, he wont try it on again with others after you.

It seems to be in such cases that there is a tension between what it ethical (ie they didnt substantially contribute, so shouldnt be listed) and what university departments 'encourage' (ie the more authors from their dept on published work, the better for them). I think people have made some good points, i would only add that a) more and more journals are stating that all authors must have made 'substantial contributions' to the work - not just got the funding or been a supervisor - so you should seek out one of these journals if you can, thus eliminating the problem. Also, b) it will be at least a year - probably 18 months to two years - until the work actually appears in print - by which time you will (presumably?) be long gone, so go ahead and publish as sole author - what seems like be a big hullabaloo now, wont by then - the dept and supervisors will likely have other things on their mind by then...

Hi Sue - yes, i take your point, but i was probably over-emphasising the point that there is so much more to being a lecturer than having the required knowledge and, that people often worry about having the right 'specific knowledge' (which i think was the original poster's point) when so many other skills are more important e.g. communication skills, being able to challenge and question students etc. However, i am purely speaking from a social sciences (and specifically a psychosocial) perspective - I'm sure other disciplines are very different.

Possibly, but i think the problem might more be in your confidence to teach a basic discipline, rather than whether possible employers can be persuaded. Most people, when they get to PhD level, have to be somewhat 'interdisciplinary' in order to get a rounded approach to any given topic, so you could easily persuade potential employers that you are able to teach basic-level sociology, or whatever, as your PhD will at least be in that field. But also be aware that, ultimately, a PhD teaches you how to 'think', rather than gives you any 'specific knowledge' that would be any use to undergraduates, and it is this ability to think, and question and challenge students, which makes a lecturer...rather than having a huge amount of 'knowledge', which no lecturer really has (although they may pretend they do!) because the knowledge involved in a PhD is sooooo specific and specialised.
SO, what Im trying to say, is that once you've done a PhD, you absolutely WILL be able to teach basic-level sociology/psychology - the issue is whether you have the confidence to persuade yourself (and others) that you can - and persuading yourself is always more difficult!

I think in terms of your question of looking for a job after your PhD (presuming its a lectureship you're after), you would need to offer a 'basic' discipline (ie psychology, sociology) as well as your psychosocial stuff, because even those universities who are 'psychosocial' in their approach (and there are plenty about) still need lecturers to teach the basic psychology stuff to the undergraduates, since Psychology undergraduate degrees are everywhere, and there are very few purely psychosocial undergraduate degrees. So it probably pays to be a bit strategic and get some undergrad teaching experience under your belt, whether covering 'basic' psychology or sociology - is that possible where you are?

Just to reassure you, I pulled out of a conference a year ago - for a much more rubbish reason than yours as well - and a paper got accepted the following year for the same conference (ie its an annual conference), so dont worry.