Thanks. I have my first year upgrade in a week or so, and I now feel that the coding scheme is too broad, and the questions themselves are slightly too broad. Both need to be refined. So it is acceptable to discuss this and where I'm up to on how I might develop them?
I know this sounds odd but up to now (undergrad, masters) I've always come up with questions and a design to answer them and then just followed the plan. So I am a bit uncertain about what is the norm and good science when it comes to refining thoughts and plans (as opposed to being sneaky and trying to get significant results). I suppose it might be because in papers you often just read about the final product, rather than how the authors got there, what they changed along the way etc. ?