Greetings to all,

After 4 years of work I am now at the final stage to complete my PhD, in Palaeontology, I will be submitting my thesis in a month and getting ready for the VIVA.

My research is based in the Cretaceous climate and biosphere conditions, and it is divided in 3 main parts:

In the first 2 parts I used 2 different methods and the results were positive. The last part consisted of a microscopic analysis of an initially Cretaceous wood that my supervisor provided me enthusiastically, and was showing good results. However, at the very end of my analysis I found that such fantastic wood was from the Neogene period, and hence I could not use it in my study about the CRETACEOUS climate.

I speeded 1&1/2 years studying the wood sample, and after the terrible finding I had no time to analyse another wood and had to focus on writing the thesis.

I have now almost completed the writing, but I am having trouble with the discussion, because it's to hard for me to link the first 2 parts with the 3rd one and finding a way to making it look reasonable. I do not know how to discuss my findings about a wood that shouldn't have been used in the first place.

My supervisor is a super busy Doctor, who hardly ever writes a feedback and just seems now trying to push me out of the office, as if 4 years of work is long enough to submitt and go.

Could anyone provide me with an advice to how should I conect all my results together (including the alien wood)? And how should I defend the titled of my thesis when the material used for one of the analysis is not appropriate and cannot support it?

Thanks so much in advance.

Arianna Solaris

Could you alternatively include only the first 2 parts in your PhD? Is it possible to publish part 3 as an independent study?

It is really not my field so I wouldn't know if it is acceptable to say climate conditions in Phanerozoic period...

Good luck with your work
Chin up!

Thank you DrJeckyll for your response.

The 3rd part is actually important and cannot be removed from the thesis and even though it has nothing to do with my research, so far I am writing in the discussion that further study and re-examination should be undertaken of some wood samples to make sure they belong to the period they are assigned to...

That is how far I can go with it at the moment, but if anyone has more ideas of how to approach this issue I will truly appreciate it.

Hi Ariana,

I am from a completely different field, but what seems reasonable to me is to say

- why you (your supervisor) thought the piece of wood is from that period in the first place
- how you found out that it is not
- how it compares to wood from that period

Hi that's awful to have something like that happen but it's not the end of the world!

It's hard to suggest much without hearing more details. What was the purpose of using the wood? How did you use the first 2 pieces to show climate and biosphere conditions? Can you do a comparsion study using the alien wood to compare the Cretaceous and the Neogene climate? It's a bit of a stretch but can you work on it into one of your hypotheses?

I had a similar problem with my data as I didn't think it was going to prove my hypotheses but luckily it did in the end but not as I had anticipated. Is there any other way you could use the results? A negative result is just as good as a postive one (which is satisfying to prove something) but not proving it is just as good! We have a perception of only positive results being good as nobody every talks about the negative ones so you could use your result to show that! It'd be original.

How are you getting on? I hope you are getting something sorted.

I would suggest working along the lines suggested by Doodles: "It's a bit of a stretch but can you work on it into one of your hypotheses?" After four years most people would be thinking in a pretty linear fashion, so maybe take a break from it for a few days, and come back to it with a fresh mind ready to see things in a new perspective. No doubt you have already tried something like this, but if all else has failed it might be worth trying it again, possibly with the help of a couple of specific strategies e.g. Tony Buzan's 'po'. Might sound far fetched, but could be worth a try.