======= Date Modified 01 Oct 2009 23:39:09 =======
Thanks very much W!

In your MSc, did you study one aspect of your PhD in depth, or did you study the same breadth of your PhD to a shallower depth? (And would you recommend that approach?)

For example, I want to apply a psychological framework to war grievances. In my MSc, I could either do a general study of the relevance and usefulness of the psychological framework to the study of war grievances. Alternatively I could study whether one specific prediction from the psychological framework also turns out to be true of war grievances. The broad shallow approach would provide some general idea of the usefulness of the concept, and broader reading, but won't test whether the idea has enough depth for a PhD (the most common reason for friends' problems). The detailed approach will test the depth of the idea, but if the particular aspect I study is inconclusive, it doesn't provide any illumination regarding the PhD.

Does that make sense? I suspect the answer is "it depends", but if anything comes to mind I'd be grateful to hear it.

Thanks again for your time and all the best with your PhD
Chris

Hi all

I have a fairly specific idea of the subject I want to do a PhD in, and I am all done in my MSc other than my dissertation. Is it possible to shape the MSc dissertation to make the PhD easier?

For example the majority of my PhD earning friends explained that they had a few false starts to their PhDs and had to revise the subject and start again. Is it possible to do a MSc dissertation that helps preclude this possibility?

In case it is relevant, my course is International Development and my interests are conflict and post-conflict reconciliation, and specifically, incorporating psychology into interventions, (I have some relevant ideas, contacts, experience and qualifications).

Thanks for any time and comments,
Chris