Just a quick update...

The potential supervisor who proposed the refocus of my proposal decided that he was unable to supervise. In the end this was probably for the best as the proposed refocus substantially changed the project to be a purely jurisdictional analysis in a loosely related area which I had no real interest in. That said, I spent several weeks following this decision panicking that I may have just blown my best chance at doctoral study. My initial application had been with a university ranked around 20-25 in the league tables and would have constituted a step up in terms of academic credibility for me as my previous study had been at universities at around 40-45 in the rankings (obviously rankings aren't everything...)

I then made contact with two academics at a university (ranked 3-5 for law) based in London, who expressed interest in my proposal with only minor changes. Unfortunately, both academics were on sabbaticals of a year and a year and a half respectively and I would hav needed to reapply upon their return.

I was then made aware of a leading academic who specialises in the exact field of law (and indeed sub-field) of my proposed study. I contacted him directly and was told that my proposal needed no amendments and he would be happy to supervise if I was successful in my application to the university. Three nervous weeks later and I have been accepted into a top 5 university for research in law in the UK under the supervision of an academic who ranks as one of the top 5 experts in my field worldwide, who will be acting as my main supervisor! Over the moon!

Looking back at the application process, and being very cynical perhaps, I got the impression early on that the departments at the other institutions were seeking to get me to refocus or amend my proposal, not in terms of making it viable for a PhD study, but more in terms of making it viable in respect of suiting the supervisors from within their faculty that were available for students. This is, to a degree, a sensible approach, as the research must be worthwhile for both you and your supervisor, and of course, I understand that without adequate expertise a supervisor could end up steering you towards a Masters level qualification at the end of the process rather than a PhD. That said, I think it is important that you don't end up studying a subject that your supervisor is interested in but that has no resemblance to your original proposed interest, just so that you conduct your research at that level (and perhaps at that institution), which is what I felt was happening early on.

Now there are new anxieties (do they ever end?)...

I will be conducting my studies on a part-time basis and will not be living in the same city as the institution. I am a practising barrister in the south of England and will remain resident here. The university is about 250 miles north. I will travel up for any supervisory sessions with my supervisors and am anticipating much of my contact will be by way of e-mail or telephone. Being law, most of my resources are available online or in law libraries, of which there are several in my immediate vicinity.

Has anyone else carried out a PhD in this way?

How did you find it (travelling, supervision, library access etc)?

Just wondered how Durham and UCL rank compared to other British universities in terms of the quality of research and PhD graduates it produces. Are these institutions well respected in academic circles? I've heard nothing but great reviews from the contacts I have but I wondered what the forums views are on this.

Thank you for your reply Baltar... that has certainly put my mind at rest.

I was recently contacted by an admissions officer with comments forwarded from a Professor at a good law faculty who is currently considering my proposal (passed to him by the admissions officer).

The academic has described my proposed area of research as being of interest and suggested a few ways in which the focus of my proposal could be narrowed in order to make it more suited for PhD level study.

In addition he suggested a change of focus that bore no resemblance whatsoever to the focus of the initial proposal. I believe he may have suggested this approach in order to tie in more closely with his own area of specialism.

The admissions officer has since contacted me to see whether I could have a think about my proposal taking the comments into account and re-focus it. He also asked me to let him know if I was happy to do this. I have written back stating that I agreed with several of the points made and made several suggestions as to how the area could be sufficiently narrowed.

However, I also stressed that I wished the central focus of my research to be based on two legal approaches to the subject of the research, and not the entirely different approach advocated by the academic.

Essentially, the only resemblance that the position advocated had to my original proposal was the specific action to which it related...

My query is whether those on the forum think I've just signed the death warrant on my proposal at this particular institution or whether this precisely the type of discussion that is needed before committing yourself to years of research.

(As a side note academics from a different equally distinguished institution who are currently considering my proposal have expressed no concerns with my envisaged approach to the subject matter but are currently assessing the availability of a particular academic in the near future... which leads me to think that there is nothing inherently wrong with approaching the subject matter as I propose... in fact I would suggest that's where the originality of the research stems from...)

Any advice would be much appreciated... starting to stress.