HHHmmm, I think I may be having a half way through the PhD crisis or something.

I don't know why my work is important. I like doing it and it is fascinating, but I just don't know why it would matter to the wider world that much.

Plus I have become aware of PhD students who are making a real splash with their work and I can't see now how mine will do that. It's great, and my skills in some areas of the field are fab - my supervisor says I have rare strengths - he's even said I can do things he can't. But I'm worried that my stuff may not be fashionable enough and cause a splash. Do we have to do this to be well known and respected in our fields do you think?

hmm, my experience of this is that its all down to networking and showing off haha! I know people who have done PhDs on seemingly dull topics, by my, do they talk them up! There's one person who whenever I hear him talk I think "wow! - his work is amazing!" but when I go home and think about what he does, its actually no different than mine. In that sense, I think if you have a bit of the max clifford about you, then you can spin your research and promote it in such a way that it does make a splash. I prefer to be a bit more modest (which my sup HATES) and I down play everything I do.

Liklihood is - if its making that much of a splash then they probably haven't read all the literature - I'm doing a topic where there have only been 20 articles in 50 years on it, but I'm forever finding things that are simlar in other disciplines. I could spin it to say there is NO research on this, but I've taken the approach of saying, "well actually xyz have looked at this, but I'm looking at it from our perspective"

I'm rambling. Anyway, no - PhDs are usually babysteps, its how you promote it that matters I think.

I really struggled with the issue of relevance all the way through and constantly worried about 'what's the point of what I'm doing; I'm not exactly splitting the atom here, am I?' This bothered me to the extent that I have a whole sub-section on relevance in my intro. Ironically it is one of the few things my supv said he liked, without asking for any ammendments! My first stab at 'contribution to knowledge' in my PhD conclusion was frankly pathetic. My second effort was much better, so much so that I surprised myself that maybe, just maybe what I'm looking at and my findings are worth noting.

Try not to worry about it too much as it will all come together at the end. As Sneaks' says, 'baby steps' and it's all about adding to knowledge. I think if you're not in the pure sciences (which I'm not) it can be hard to see where you fit in, and how your work adds to knowledge. However, your supv seems to think you're on the ball so take heart from that. If you can do things he can't, those things alone could your contribution to knowledge, ie how you do things differently to how it's been done before.

If I can add to knowledge, anybody can!

Thank you Sneaks.

What I'm researching has only been written about in one book chapter so it is new. Plus I think it's really relevant in the grand scheme of my topic, but I just don't think it's that fashionable a topic right now. I guess, like you say, it's up to me to make it fashionable.

Maybe also because I am only half way through, my work is still pretty much unformed.

Thank you Ady. Also, I'm finding it more and more difficult to see what I am doing objectively the deeper into I get. I was really sure about th contribution it would make at the start, but as learnt more about what has been written - I can see that what I'm doing is more a development of a branch of my subject - not a 'splash'. What you say about the way I do things is really interesting too - I think I could present that as a 'unique' method. I like that, I reckon I could be happy with that for a very long time :).

Sneaks you are right, the big splash PhDs seems so at the time and then I walk away and what they do is really more of a development.:-)