I am Life Science graduate with a Master. I am about to embark on a non experimental part-time PhD which combines life science and history. My potential supervisor has given me the topics to research but Im finding it hard to come up with reasons as to why they are worth researching and also a suitable methodology.



My research involves studying medically important animals and their role in the history of humans (ancient to modern),

- Their geographical distribution, where they originate from and why did they move

- Species that were important medically in the past but no longer exist (why?)



Im finding it difficult to justify why this is important? This would be a non experimental PhD which gives me further concern since I have no clue on how I would go about researching in a non scientific experimental way. I could ask my potential supervisor but Im too scared to put them off by asking to many “trivial” questions at such an early stage.



I would appreciate any help or advise (eg good books to read to learn about non science research methods etc).



My biggest fear is to start this PhD and be told 5-6 years down the line that its only worth a masters!

In a PhD, you have to make a contribution to the knowledge.

that doesn't mean you have to make ground breaking discoveries, just that it is something unique that no one has ever done before. The focus here is being unique.

My PhD is certainly not ground breaking, but I believe it is worthy of a PhD because what I have done something that no one else has done before. It is a well studied field, but hasn't been applied to the participants I used. That alone is unique. Then I adapted methods and tools to suit this participant group. That's unique. I developed analysis method that is new - that's unique, and I made general findings between my group and those that have been done to death -that's unique.

If you want to find out more about 'what counts' as a PhD, have a read through this book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Get-PhD-Handbook-Supervisors/dp/0335216846/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1298559361&sr=8-3

Thank you!

My main concern is that most of the research appears to be just reading through literature and then combining it all in a long essay! May be this is normal for non science PhD so please excuse my ignorance since Im so used to a experimental approach to problem where a literature review is done merely to justify my experiments and methods.

As I wrote in my OP, my research involves studying medically important animals and their role in the history of humans (ancient to modern),

- Their geographical distribution, where they originate from and why did they move

- Species that were important medically in the past but no longer exist (why?)

All of this just involves a lot of reading. Where are the experiments? What am I proving? What is the point of it all? It looks as if Im just writing a glorified essay.

In case you’re wondering, Im doing a non experimental PhD since I cannot afford the bench fees. It took me a long time to find a suitable supervisor (in a topic that interests me) who was willing to supervise me for a part-time experimental PhD. We both had the same interests and he was keen to supervise me but part of me fears that Im being used to do his literature research :(

Im contemplating giving up! It took me years of e-mailing and calling to find a supervisor who was willing to supervise me in a non experimental life science PhD in a topic i like. I cannot afford to do a lab PhD in the topic I like, I cannot afford to quit my job and do it full time and funded. If I was in my early 20’s this would be no problem but I have a family now. Im just too scared that 5 years down the line I will be told that I wrote a very good essay and that they will give me a Masters for my trouble and money!

Hi

This sounds to me an absolutely fascinating PhD topic, maybe a bit broad but definately very interesting and very worthwhile. Let me say I'm a historian, not a scientist, and can see definate worth in non-experimental research ;-)

What you need to understand is that its not just reading - that would be your literature review, you will need to identify primary and secondary sources, translations, define arguments etc, and then analyse the findings from the primary sources - we don't use test-tubes, we use documents and words for our 'experiments'. The literature review, combined with your reports on your sources and methods, plus your discussion of the sources, and analysis of the information you collect will combine to make a thesis - that's how it works in humanities.

As I say, I think your topic sounds brilliant, just brilliant, so fascinating, but you have to see that for yourself :-)

Historical research is rarely going to save lives, so it doesn't have the same sort of value as a life sciences PhD. However it should extend knowledge, so it is extremely valuable from that point of view. And you need to start seeing the value in it yourself!

The research will almost certainly involve researching in historical documents or records or newspapers or something like that. Sometimes this phase can be like looking for a needle in a haystack, and can be very hard work. It can also be quite difficult to predict in advance how you will get on. But the search in itself should lead to a good result that you can write up.

A humanities thesis *is* rather like a long essay! But a very advanced and substantial essay. There is always a chance at the end that it would be graded as MPhil standard, but you work very hard to avoid this. The key thing is to have a substantial contribution to knowledge, a large body of research material (trawling through the primary sources), and a high level of analysis.

Hope this helps. I completed my part-time history PhD (focusing on the 18th century) last year with viva last March.

Thanks Bilbo and Stressed!

Can you recommend a good book or website where I can read about different hostory and humanities research methods?

I dont understand how you guys use "documents and words" for your experiments so I will need to read up on skills and methods you guys use.

It will be a PhD done as part of the Life Science department. Its in fact an experiment by them since no one in the life science dept have ever supervised a PhD like this (i.e. non experimental) so Im a little scared that their experiment will be at my expense if they realise it does not work and give me an MPhill.

Thanks Bilbo and Stressed!

Can you recommend a good book or website where I can read about different hostory and humanities research methods?

I dont understand how you guys use "documents and words" for your experiments so I will need to read up on skills and methods you guys use.

It will be a PhD done as part of the Life Science department. Its in fact an experiment by them since no one in the life science dept have ever supervised a PhD like this (i.e. non experimental) so Im a little scared that their experiment will be at my expense if they realise it does not work and give me an MPhill.

Mmm. Difficult to recommend a book, because I was a historical researcher from the age of about 12 onwards, even if I did initially do a science degree. So I took to it like a duck to water.

However checking Amazon finds a few relevant titles. Maybe your uni library would have these on their shelves:

Studying History (Palgrave Study Skills), by Jeremy Black and Donald M. MacRaild, ISBN 1403987343

The Pursuit of History, by John Tosh, ISBN 0582894123

Historical Research: A Guide, by Dr W. H. McDowell, ISBN 0582294592

From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods, by Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier, ISBN 0801485606

The only one of those I've looked at myself (quite a few years ago) is the book by Tosh.

Have you checked with your department/faculty that this is suitable to be carried out there? When I first started, my department was worried that I was going to end up with a PhD that is unrelated to the department. I don't think this would stop you from getting a PhD, but you could have issues getting the right help/advice.

It may be a good idea to see if they have someone in the history department that is willing to be a 2nd supervisor, or at least so that you can get advice on the validity of your methods?

Im in a simmilar situation. I wondering if Im also being used by the supervisor just to do their boring research work.

Perhaps an aspect of this would also be analysing people's attitudes towards these animals and how they have changed and developed in relationship to time, place and culture. This in turn may have an impact on the animals survival, migration, etc. Also the one's that didn't survive? Why-did people realise their value-were the products these animals provided replaced by something else due to technology or some other advance or change? How does this impact on the overall relationship between people and such animals-is the relationship different depending on the people and their cultural values?
There could be a very interesting book or departmental publication at the end of it.

======= Date Modified 25 Feb 2011 21:22:12 =======
My response to your original post and other people's really useful replies is that I can see links to what you're proposing and historical geography and medical geography. A lot of the work in historical geography has traced the spatial distribution and evolution of early civilisations. Medical geography has also done historical analysis in relation to the spatial distribution of infectious diseases.

I sense your unease at a 'desk-based' PhD but such PhDs are valid - everything doesn't have to take place in a lab, you know!! No, you're entire PhD can't really be an extended literature review but in analysing the work of others you can make suggestions for the future. It is also likely that you will be able to draw on your scientific knowledge to further analyse, perhaps at a deeper level to what was done historically, the results of other studies.

I think it will be through deep reading that you will be able to develop your unique contribution to the field, very likely perhaps in an inter-disciplinary sense

I think it all sounds fascinating :-)

Sounds great. The work of Glyn Daniels and Carl Sauer might be a good place to start re: tracing distribution of ancient civilisations.