Hi Zelda

Yup - I agree with the others. It helps if you think of the methodology as another kind of lit review... and consider the idea that sometimes we write to inform, sometimes we write to understand. In this respect, the methodology is a little bit of both... as you write, to inform and justify others your choice of method (as one amongst many - hence the lit review ref), so too your own understanding of why the method is suitable, apt and applicable should emerge and, like myself and others who have commented - you may find your path shifting.

... Then resubmit it somewhere where it might fit better. As to the paralytic fear, as with anything that has a value, I find the fear subsides as you try things out more and get used to the parameters of the thing. And the thing to remember is... what journals want is the right article for them, at the right time... and rejection isn't always a rejection of you as a person. It's also as well to remember that publication in peer-reviewed journals are not easily achieved... but they're not impossible either. Practice, patience and perseverence help a lot, I think.

Hi RA

I guess, after a long-drawn out year of trying to get just one article accepted (revising and discussing) then giving up on it just as it was on the final revision because I had no more time to give to it... I can understand what you're feeling. At the same time, I'm also an editor for a journal, so I can see the other side of things too. Mostly I just treat it as a submit, accept, good; submit, not accepted, try again kind of thing. There are so many variables involved in whether an article is suitable or not. If you've researched your target publication well, have written well and have something interesting to say - you should be okay. *grin* And if you're not - don't worry... look at the feedback you get (assuming you get some) and work with it to improve the article.

Is this for your PhD topic? Or just general? To frame the question, you should think about angles... what is it about podcasting you want to focus on? Its use in undergrad ed? What area? What subject? By students? By lecturers? By both? Are you interested in podcasting as a learning object, e.g. in design for e-learning? There are lots of different approaches you could take. You might make a good start by going to look at the Duke iPod initiative... http://www.duke.edu/ddi/ There has been quite a lot of work in this area... so you may find it difficult to find something especially novel...

Sorry to hear you're finding things tough but... well, sorry to say it - but you're in the same boat as most of the rest of us. The academic life can be very rewarding (intellectually, at least) and it is a worry when your funds run out - but, if you want to get the PhD, you'll figure it out. Maybe it's time for you to take responsibility for your own desires. Talking about others as slappers and gold-diggers isn't particularly endearing. I thought your issue was with your own funding (or lack of it) - not other people's apparent shortcomings.

My research is in technolgy, education and culture... so, potentially similar in some ways to yours on ethnicity, identity and radio, technology... what stage are you at, early, late... wondering how to illustrate the theory? Think of the methodological stuff as a way of showing people why the question and the theoretical framework are important. At the end of the day... the biggest question you're audience will have is "So what, and why should I care?" You need, through your lit review, methodology and empirical work, to show them why what you care about is worth caring about. Just to say so isn't enough.

I struggled with this difference for ages. The book "Doing and Writing Qualitative Research" by Adrian Holliday might be useful to you. The thing is you need to situate your ideas so that others know where you're coming from (as you so rightly said at the beginning). Something I learned to work with (struggling with the empirical side) was, in the end, what's the point of theory if it isn't useful in practice. Sometimes, the empirical helps you to make sense of the theory in a good way (She says, having just finished writing up her pilot study).

Ethnicity, identity, radio and technology. Hmm. Sounds to me like you are in communication or cultural field. You could look at Geertz on culture. The social constructivist perspective isn't all that bad - it depends what you want to do in your research. Are you looking at meaning making? Information exchange? It's kind of difficult to help you without knowing the kind of questions you are asking. Something you need to think about is the idea that there are two kinds of theoreticla framework - they are linked, but different. There is, for example, the theory attached to your research problem, perhaps you have a framework you hope to use, like, for example Bourdieu's concept of 'habitus'... on the other hand, there is also a methodological literature and this focuses on how you will investigate or operationalise the theoretical framework.

JA

Sounds more like a confidence thing than a content thing. If you have enough detail for a poster, you probably have enough for a presentation. If it helps, just think of the presentation as a poster, with sections. You'll be surprised how quickly 10 minutes passes. It depends what your topic is how you present it... there's are formats to follow if it helps... but depends if you've completed empirical work or are just planning empirical work as to how you pitch it. I say go for it.

Be reassured, Methuselah... you're not as old as you think! On the studentship front - not so sure, but the OU do often have some - you should ask.

http://www.brunel.ac.uk/news/universitynews/2004/cdata/BruneltovalidateoldestPhDstudentintheWorld

As for my intro chapter... here's how it works (roughly) - begins with rationale for the research (how it fills a gap)... situating it in general context of 'this kind of work'. Follows on with some background as context - how I became interested in this area. Then the research aims - what I want to get from the research - specifically, closely followed by an outline of the research questions. Lastly, the structure of the chapters of the thesis is set out (difficult to do this part until you've done some work and know where you're headed)... with a general intro, then specific sections, briefly outlined (about 50-100 words per chapter) - kind of summarising content of thesis and showing thread of research. It changes, as your thesis develops but it also works as a good organising device which helps you to 'keep the general framework of your research' in your head.

Hey, Pea - good to find a fellow cultural-technologist type... 'culture' is a real !!!! to deal with, isn't it. And, vis the writing - yeah, it's real easy to get bogged down in the mechanics of the thing (and it'll happen again and again as you work you way through things - don't worry, though - provided you get through the 'not knowing' - you emerge with a better understanding eventually). On my structure, it's a bit unusual as it has two lit review chapters - most folk wouldn't separate out theory/practice - I had to because I'm trying to show the contribution of one theoretical framework to another and using an empirical study to show how. Also, most people make only a brief ref to pilot study at end of methodology but again because mine was so exploratory - it needed a chapter on its own in the end.

Mmm... baklava would be a bit sweet for me, I prefer savoury stuff. The name is a made up one - I was visiting Baku in Azerbaijan for an extended stay and needed an email name my friends back home would remember easily... so I came up with Baku + via (road to Baku).

Hi Pea

I'm in a similar area to you (technology in education, culture, semiotics)... if it helps - mine goes something like: Intro, Lit Review 1 (theory), Lit Review 2 (empirical), Methodology, Pilot, Main Study, Discussion, Conclusions. How I used the intro was as a 'setup' for the chapters that followed basically, so it made sense to put it first, although I guess it depends what you mean by 'intro' and what it contains. Although, generally, the word 'intro' would tend to suggest that it comes first, no? Good luck with it anyway.

I agree with alicepalace... basically, identifying cited material in the past tense suggests that something has since superceded the material... whereas representing cited material in the present tense suggests that the theories is current and still holds true, hasn't changed, etc.