So I belong to this sort of multidisciplinary discussion group that meets weekly. Someone from the group submits a piece of research they're working on at the moment and the others critique it. Thing is, I can't always find anything to critique about the paper. I'm an MSc student still and a lot of this stuff is written by people way ahead of me, as the group is composed of people at my level right up to well established academics. So some weeks I remain completely silent, as I can't find anything wrong with their work. Other weeks I can begin to grasp what the problems might be, but I can rarely phrase it as well as the more established people, so I'm lucky if I can utter a sentence.

I'm very pleased that I'm even invited to the group, but I wonder often if I will ever be as astute as the established academics. How do you know whether your own apparent stupidity and dumbfoundedness is simply a matter of lack of experience, or actual lack of ability? I'm doing well mostly at my MSc, but is there any way of gauging one's ability prior to getting embroiled in a PhD? Or is it just a simple matter of taking the risk and hard graft improving one's ability? I wish I could go back in time and see these established people when they were at my level... or maybe they were incredible even then....

Anyway, I'm rambling, but does anyone get what I mean?!?

Is the research always in an area you are familiar with? We have similar departmental research seminars once a month and as we are a geography department we have the full spectrum from real science with experiments right through to really soggy (The Head of Department's term for his own research interests) social science stuff - my background is in management so I don't really fit in either camp.  At the first seminar I presented (which was research from my then recently completed MSc) I was totally ripped to pieces (and not in a good way either) and it knocked my confidence such that I never opened my mouth at other seminars for ages (several years) after. I found it much less stressful presenting at an international conference with some big hitters (who when they made critiques did so in such a way as to make me feel tht they were contributing to the development of my research rather than finding fault).  My point is that for some people these seminars are the chance to show off how well read etc they are and I have come to realise that for many it is a game and that finding fault is part of that game.

At the next seminar try to find one thing that you find interesting, where you can see similarities with research of your own, one methodological approach that is innovative or just something you'd like to know more about.  Get your "easy" question or comment in early (before the vultures start). Or if you don't feel that confident - go up to the presenter after the seminar and say something - I have done that when a point I wanted to make was not really of general interest or when time ran out.

Good Luck - you will get there.

Ogriv,

What you say sounds absolutely standard to me.

Do you enjoy the group? You say you are pleased to be invited - are all MSc students invited, or is it because of who you are working with? (Or your amazing talent? :p ) Do you have a place to study a PhD?

Ejc x

I often wonder the same thing. My supervisor is so intelligent, articulate, and intimidating, that I can't imagine him as a PhD student--making mistakes and being criticised, and he's only in his late 30s. However, once he did tell me that he can't bear to even LOOK at his thesis any more, because it's so unsophisticated, and his views have changed so much. I guess the PhD is just the first step on an academic career, and it's all a learning curve. Everyone has to start somewhere..x

I completely understand what you're saying too - its very hard. I do think though that yes, they were all stupid, but then stupid isn't the word to use really. You aren't stupid, anything but, look at you, you're doing an MSc, you simply cannot be stupid! You just don't have the depth and breadth of knowledge yet that comes from years and years and years of study. That's the only difference between you and them, time, pure and simple. The people that you're talking to all have more of that under their belt, more reading, more writing, more of these seminars ;-) I have always found it very intimidating, they just know so much (or appear to) and make me feel like an utter fool who would do better going back to reception class and starting again lol! But the thing is, that in time you too will be one of them lol, and the great tutors and lecturers are the ones that remember that - that are fantastic and knowledgeable, but remember how it feels to be at the beginning and help you through by being constructive. I don't think how you're feeling now says anything about your ability, only about the time you've had so far and the level you're working at - we're rookies Ogriv lol, we'll get there, but its a long journey and we're just at the beginning of it :-)

My supervisor is another who cringes at his PhD thesis, and tbh, having read it I can see why lmao!!!! I mean, its very good, better than I could do now (but he had many years to do it) but compared to what he does now its so simplistic, so basic, written in a totally different style, and through that I can see how he's developed and why he's now a prof but that once upon a time he too was a rookie student!

It is good to have been invited to the meeting as you only really learn about it by word of mouth. I was invited by an ex-supervisor of mine who was running it at the time, but I have this paranoia that he only invited me cos he finds me entertaining in the pub afterwards!

The multidisciplinary nature of the meeting DOES sometimes make things harder as people often disagree with the research methods used by the other fields. We are actually united by a common theoretical framework though.

I hope to be able to utter a constructive sentence at the meeting in approximately 4-6 years' time! Seriously, however, the advice from one of you (can't see your frigging names while typing this - think was perhaps Jepson) to say one of my tentative thoughts early before the vultures set in is probably a very good idea and I think I will try that. Some of the ideas I have are actually said by the clever people but I don't say them because I think they might be stupid. And a lot of the ideas I have are rubbish too. That's ideas for you - they come with no initial quality control!

It feels like a real leap of faith to apply for PhD - I have an interested sup and we will be applying for funding together, while I continue to sniff around for others in case it doesn't work. But I suppose I must take the leap and assume that years of practice will improve my understanding in some way. (up)