Hello forumites. I have a very serious issue that I'm hoping to get some input on. In a nutshell, I think my PhD may be too big and ambitious. The problem is that I have stack loads to write about and have not an inkling of how it is all going to fit together. I'm a devil for details and I've spent hours just sitting still, inside my head, thinking: "How the hell is this going to flow?" I do have some chapters written and have stack loads of data analysed. I've got about another 8 months left and still have stack loads of data to collect and analyse. It has been suggested by other academics that my PhD is too big, that much of it could be post-doc work.
The problem is that in order to use my theoretical framework, methodology and a lot of the other stuff, I have to do this now. There's no getting around actually having to do everything I was originally going to do because otherwise my PhD would require complete re-conceptualisation, new methodological design and so, in a nutshell, a complete re-write. I'm not going to do this, even if my I am going to require another year. I wish I had been aware of what problems this could have created at the start - benefit of hindsight and all that.
I have that many ideas and concepts, so much to show and write about, as it stands, that my PhD will necessarily be quite vague and I might not be able to really show what I know and have learnt in my writing. And Christ Almighty, don't even get me started on what the discussion is going to look like...
Anyway, I'm not sure there are any words of advice other than from Nelson in The Simpsons: "Ahhh-haaa!"

I recently spoke to a young viva examiner, who passed his PhD a few years ago. He said the key thing (in my field anyway) in your viva is to demonstrate that you know how your PhD fits in with theory and how it has developed theory - i.e. they want to see a model. If I were you I would sit down and work out what aspects of what you have done make the best model, the one that says what you want, but in a concise and 'tight' way - so there are no gaps to pick holes in. Even if that means not including A LOT of your material (that will potentially raise more questions than answered!). Once you have done this you might be more able to understand 'the story' of the PhD and why you have done what you have done etc.

I would also advise looking at a range of theses to see if you can arrange it in a way you previously haven't considered e.g. VOLUME 1: Wal's crazy thematic analysis and other studies

VOLUME 2: Wal's other crazy studies that mean x, y and z

or summit similar ;-)

Hey Wal...I know what you mean. I'm only in second year of my PhD and I feel overwhelmed when I think about what I am going to do when I have all my data, how it's all going to fit together and make sense, and so on. I have so many ideas for other things I would also like to do that I got really enthusiastic about and researched quite heavily, only to find that actually, I just don't have the time within my PhD (or my word count) to do everything I would like to do. Other people have also said that my PhD seems very ambitious in terms of workload. So I have already had to cut things back to what I actually need to do to have enough for a PhD, and so that I can write it up in some sort of logical flowing fashion. I have already spoken to my supervisor about this issue and she has said that some of my results probably won't even go into my PhD, but I should write them up and publish them anyway. It sounds like you need to take a step back, speak to your supervisor, and re-focus your research question(s). Think about what you actually need to do to get your PhD in terms of amount of data etc. The rule of thumb seems to be that in terms of data, you should have enough to get three papers out of, if you were to publish it, for it to be enough for a PhD. So if you are massively over that then maybe need to speak to your supervisor about the most important bits, which bits are vital, and which are not. I know a couple of people who didn't analyse all of their PhD data who were able to get funding for a 1-year post-doc so they could write up the rest and publish it, so all is not lost if you can't get through all of it and get it all into your thesis. I guess the hard bit is joining all the bits up and making it into a coherent project...def time for a chat with the supervisor I reckon, it can be hard to get your head around it when you're right in the middle of it! KB

hmm yes, actually the only thing of note that i have been repeatedly told since before starting my PhD is "its all about telling the story" - so try a few 'storylines' out and work out what to keep!

I'm in the same boat - not helped by the fact that my 3rd study hasn't kicked off yet, so I don't relaly know which way my story will go (the current (bad) option will take it in a completely different direction - so I feel I can't write anything until the data is there/or not for it).

Thanks Keenbean and Sneaks. I have a supervisory meeting in a week, and I'll bring it up then. It might be Sneaks, as you say, that I'll have to organise it into volumes and have a very big appendix. I need to be careful not to overwhelm the viva examiners with too much stuff. See, I'm making and validating a questionnaire and everything that I have to do for that will create a huge amount of data. And, I don't want to sound simple, but I see my PhD as the story of how it was conceptualised and made within a mixed methods framework. I've already cut it down significantly as I was going to use a lot of psychometric trickery, so it's already a bare bones attempt at making a questionnaire. And it is the absolute minimum I can do to justify my methodology. It's difficult to write at the moment because I don't know where to put the writing, if you know what I mean?

Hi Wal, I've been working on a thesis outline (for god knows how long) and have found it very useful for formulating my framework and thesis structure. It's, basically, a miniature version of the thesis, with at least 1000 words for each chapter, and more for the introduction in which I've been working out the framework. This excercise has allowed me to see the thesis as a whole, and how well the various frameworks I've tried out will operate in each chapter before I commit to writing up or indepth research for all of my chapters. I've made quite a lot of adjustments as a result and am now far more confdent about the way the thesis will fit together when I finally come to writing it up. It's also been a good way of distilling my material down to the most useful and important bits. Maybe a mini version of this excercise will help you. Not sure if this post will help, or just state the obvious, but I thought I'd pass on what has helped me.

Just wanted to tell you that i'm really sympathizing with you, since I'm having the exact same issues at the moment. Really worried that my project is too big and too ambitious, but I'm really torn because at the same time I'm very enthusiastic about the research problem and I can't think of ways to downsize it without destroying the research question itself. It's a real dilemma. I have some sort of exit strategy should it not work, but I do think that this would take away a lot of the interesting bits of the project.. arghh. Sorry for not actually being able to give advice, in any case I feel for you and hope things turn out fine for you without too much more headache!

I can definitely sympathise. I have developed and validated a questionnaire for my second study AND my supervisor has got me to reanalyse my 1st study data using a different technique - and therefore is necessary to bring in a whole new load of research in the lit review. The third study is still up in the air, if my sup gets her way it will be completely unrelated to the rest and need yet more lit (she doesn't listen to what I'm doing and doesn't know enough about my research, I feel, to offer me advice), if I get my way, it will lead nicely on from the questionnaire and be a nice little story - guess time will tell!

Anyway, good luck! I think formulating a few models will help clear your mind.

Hi Walmisnki,

I think you are right that the thesis should be comprehensive and provide an good overview of what you have done, however, I think that it is equally important, if not more important, to create a concise and to the point document.

Like Eska is suggesting, I would suggest to write a summary, perhaps best by heart, indicating what your project is about, what you have done and what the key outcomes are.

I know that it hurts, as obviously you have put a lot of effort in it, and it is hard to "throw things away", yet if there is not clear structure in your thesis and if it is too extensive, no one will actually read it. I have spoken some time ago with a journal editor who stressed the importance of writing to the point and only to present the crucial things. I think the same is true for a thesis. :-)

Hi again, Yeah, I agree with Rick on the editing thing. There is some famous writer, whose name I forget, but whose advice to emerging/wannabe writers is to 'throw away your babies', meaning that, even some of those prescious, lovely passages have to go for the sake of a good overall piece. This is absolutely the case in my discipline, my sup calls it 'putting things in the re-cycling draw' and sees it as the foundations of my future academic output (very flattering! but not, I hope, too optimistic), so still very useful indeed, even though it doesn't go in the thesis.

I'm far less experienced than most posters here (having only discovered the forum yesterday) and I am only 2 months registered into a part-time PhD.  However maybe this will help. I submitted my draft proposal (the formal one for research committee not the one for the application) and I got feedback fomr my supervisors saying there was too much, they couldn't see how it fitted together, why was I doing x when the thesis was about Y and so on.  I really struggled to explain it even though I knew that x was an essential component. In the end I doodled on paper and came up with a diagram (model is far to sophisticated a term for my random scribbles) which showed how x and y fitted in, how the elements linked together where the existing theory fits in, where a new model (which I have already come up with even though I haven't collected any data yet) fits and so on - this all then links to outcomes (both academic and practitioner).  It also demonstrated how each fitted into the aims. Since I did that and sent it to my supervisors (as a nice powerpoint diagram with boxes, clouds, links, dotted links and so on) I have had no questions about why these seemingly (to them) random elements are being included.  I don't know your subject area and I don't know whether you are a doodler (I am always doodling when I am reading) and so don't know whether this approach would work but it worked for me.