Hi all,

I am doing my PhD in History/Library studies and wanted to ask some advice on the difference between a lit review and theoretical framework in the context of an interdisciplinary humanites PhD. I have tried to read up but a lot of it seems to be referring to science PhD's so I just wondered if anyone had any advice on if I have understood correctly and if the below makes sense in a humanities contexts:

- A literature review is the mandate for your research- this will change from the beginning to the end stage of the PhD from finding the gap and justifying the research to updating this to position research already done

- A theoretical framework takes the problem identified and outlines how you have approached the problem. I guess the theoretical framework is a kind of literature review- as you are assessing types of approach- but slightly different because you are taking concepts or approaches and arranging them to answer your research question? In this, it is more original research than a critical assessment of what exists?

Thanks in advance for any help

Hey, thanks so much for the advice.

It is online- it was first cancelled and then they decided to put it online. Will be strange doing my first ever conference over zoom!

Hi all,

I am presenting at my first conference in a few weeks and was just hoping to get some advice around how to structure the presentation. There is a lot of advice online around general structure that follows something similar to:
* What is the issue and why should people care
* my approach
* findings and results
* conclusions and implications

However, as a first year I am concerned that what I have is very literature heavy with little for findings and results (and I know a presentation should not just be a literature review). Is it acceptable to present your research agenda and what you hope to do/ answer at a conference?

Thanks in advance for any help.

I am 7 months into my PhD, it's a collaborative interdisciplinary PhD in indigenous studies, library studies and digital humanities. I honestly feel like I have achieved nothing in 7 months and I have never experienced anxiety at this level. So far, I have written a really bad literature review and hopped between different avenues of research without fully immersing myself in anything because I constantly think I am doing something wrong and I am aware of everything I haven't done. Above all, I have extremely vague research questions and no method or plan for how to answer them. I am currently spending my time trying to go back and read in-depth the literature but this anxiety and sense of aimlessness makes everything difficult. I know that many people experience similar levels of anxiety/ concern but sometimes it is hard to tell what level is 'normal'- every day there is a period of time where I feel overcome with panic and sometimes I think that I should just quit.

Also, I know that my anxiety stems from feeling like I don't know what I'm doing. While I know everyone progresses differently and it's hard (and you shouldn't) compare, is it normal to spend the first year feeling like this, mainly searching and feeling like you have no focused plan? I keep telling myself that if I can secure research questions and a plan to answer it by the end first year and the 12 month review, then this will be a good place to be and I can spend the second year more focused. Again, I find it really difficult as the answer I always get from my supervisors is 'everyone progresses differently', but when you have no yardsticks and feel like every goal you set yourself is wrong it can be hard to have any sense as to where you are. I guess I just feel like I must be behind as I don't even know what I'm trying to answer at this stage.

Thanks for any help