Hello,
I've been agonising over my subject matter for a while now and repeatedly formulating and reformulating my thesis proposal/design. I don't have a problem with saying something new or making an original contribution (that part is the easy part), I have a problem with my plan of approach. I recently submitted another draft of my proposal to my sup and having laid out what I've been thinking, and while it would be brilliant to write it and it would be a barnstorming idea, I've realised its massive and would require about two chapters that would have very few references to anyone else's work (because no-one's done much on the areas.) So, I started asking myself - do I want to write something brilliant, or do I want a PhD?

However, last night I was thinking and I may have come up with a way to make a much tighter argument that expresses some of my ideas by focusing solely on the policies of a recent American administration (I'm doing the politics of oil, bet you can't guess which administration.) The problem that I've run up against is that it would be relentlessly slating the policies (from a unique perspective) and would be very very critical. I was wondering, is anyone else doing something like this? Can a PhD amount to a condemnation of something?

Thanks for listening/reading(sprout)

I guess it depends on how confident you are that 'you know your stuff' and are objective - so it doesn't turn into a personal rant about that administration. Can you imagine if you had a 'sympathiser' with that administration as a viva examiner! - they are out there, my father in law is one :$

Yes, your PhD can be critical/negative of a situation. You need to make sure you have the argument and the evidence tho - not just you going off on a rant. Even tho others may not have come up with your perspective, I think you'd need to situate your criticisms more broadly in the field, to show your place, and also use others' theories to back you up. If you have a sound theoretical basis and a good lit review, it won't look like your arguments are coming out of nowhere. Even if your approach is original, there are likely to be adjacent arguments/theories etc. And then of course, there's the evidence you're going to present to back up your arguments. Be critical, but be robust!