======= Date Modified 01 May 2012 16:08:35 =======
Hi, I m redrafting my literature review at the moment, according to very detailed and helpful feedback from my supervisors. Looking at their comments and from what they have said in supervisions, they don't think that I engage with the literature deeply enough, although when I do I do it quite well. They have no problems with the ideas that I generate with the literature, they say that I am "very good" at this, but I seem to move on from them too quickly. The worrying thing is that they think this indicates a lack of understanding of certain areas, naturally I'm really concerned about this and trying to rectify it.

I am really trying to improve my writing by adding more detail where they have asked for it, I read things very closely and make notes etc. so I don't think it is a lack of understanding. When we discuss these concepts in supervison I have no problems in terms of understanding and ability to communicate, I just can't seem to write very well. I feel stupid and as if I am letting myself and my supervisors down.

I'd really appreciate any advice about this, or about getting over bad writing habits more generally.

Thanks in advance, Natassia

With regard to writing, I find it's all in the copyediting. I spend considerably more time editing a document than on the initial writing process. As a rule I work to eliminate long, clause-heavy sentences that can become fatiguing for the reader.

I also pay particular attention to the grouping of material and ensure each section has a clearly defined and conclusive thesis. Furthermore, I take time to ensure different sections serve a larger chapter thesis (or what's the point of including the material). I'm not suggesting I'm a paragon of good writing practice, but people generally seem happy with my writing, even if they take issue with my argument and position.

There's always a discrepancy between someone's perception of their own writing and that of the reader. I say this having edited a peer reviewed journal, which often involves extensive dialogue with authors regarding clarity of phrasing. Many points that seem perfectly clear to authors can read confusingly to the uninitiated. Most of the time, breaking up long sentences and removing examples of verbosity help immeasurably.

Perhaps the best thing is to let a chapter sit for a while, then go back to it with relatively fresh eyes. This often reveals a multitude of writing sins that were obscured by proximity to the document and the process of writing it.  

I'm not sure if that helps at all. If you're in a humanities subject then you'll likely go through multiple drafts of every chapter, each becoming clearer and tighter than the previous effort. In other words, chin up, you'll get there!

Excellent advice from Nick1 ! Group things together so each paragraph talks about one thing.

So say that you found 5 papers that found a weird relationship between eating ice-cream and getting taller. So you group all these researchers together with the expected outcome (rather than mentioning each one separately). Then you say who disagrees and try to find an explanation (a flow in the methodology). And finally you back it all up with national statistics that prove that taller nations eat more ice-cream.

I think I redrafted my lit review more often that I was showering :)

Thank you both for the advice, it is reassuring to know that others have to go through quite a few drafts before a chapter is 'perfet'. My supervisors seem to expect me to go from comments on the first draft to perfection, and when there quite a lot of comments, that is a big ask I think. I just constantly feel like I'm not good enough for them, but that is probably part of the process.

They're having a feedback meeting about my literature review today and then they're going to email me, probably in the next hour. I'm feeling quite sick to be honest.

Oh Natassia, you sound exactly like me! Please don't worry, my sups are exactly the same! They have high expectations then are mega disappointed when I don't meet them! You are definitely not alone!

Come on!

you shouldn't be feeling sick before a meeting with the supervisor! I think you should communicate your emotions with them, so they change their attitude. The most important part is that you enjoy your PhD! It is completely unacceptable to feel physically sick... But you also have to ignore how valuable their feedback is and you are really lucky to have high quality feedback.

Just to make you feel better, 3 years ago it was my first attempt to write a lit review-I wasn't a PhD student yet, I was a research assistant- my sup sent me *terrible* email feedback and threw the paper in the bin when I went to his office! I didn't even blink, I went back to the library and kept working on the bloody paper. However, everyone reacts different, and we all come from various educational backgrounds so in a way I have developed a thick skin.

My supervisors are fantastic and I really appreciate the support they give and of course the detailed feedback. I just never think I am good enough for them. I think that ultimately that is quite motivating as I try to improve all the time, but that also rests upon a lack of confidence and a working relationship that is probably a little too unbalanced.

I think that I do need to develop a thicker skin, I am quite sensitive really and would feel uncomfortable about telling them how I feel in case I burst into tears! I have a meeting nect week and hopefully it will be okay, I do think it's easier and better to meet in person rather than receiving comments over email.

I think this is part of the PhD process, I am beginning my fieldwork and heading for my transfer so this is a stressful stage, they just want me to get through it in one piece.