The one you enjoyed most. That way, your heart's in the presentation, and they'll hear it in your voice.

I did mine in the format above, and as someone else said, if you limit it to 3 numbers only, it works out well, and you don't have the problem of referring to page numbers which may change all the time. Also the 3-number system works out well for the Table of Contents. One of the PhDs I proof-read went to five numbers in one chapter and it just looked clunky and awful, so I reformatted it for her. It's looked cleaner and clearer. It also means that you can label your Figs according to the section they refer to.

I TOLD you that you would! So happy for you! I knew you'd knock 'em dead in the aisles! But I've been on the edge of my seat, all day waiting for that news.......BRILLIANT!!!!!

Had exactly the same thing - all the way through the ten drafts - and in the end he was correcting his own bits. After the viva he said, 'why didn't you tell me that's what you'd done? You went behind my back!' and I had to point out he'd seen it all, and corrected it 10 times. In the end, when I was doing corrections, he'd become so useless, that I was in total despair so went away and did them all myself. He never did see the final thesis.

I use Moo, too! I like the mini-cards.

Good luck today, Pineapple!!!!

I mark MA dissertations. The way it goes is that most are marked twice. However, of one marker has passed it, and another marker has failed it, the dissertation goes to a third marker, and that's what they'll be waiting on. Usually, if it fails, you're given time to resubmit, unless the failure is for plagiarism, and then it's a whole different ball-game! So don't panic. It'll either be a pass (third marker agrees with first marker) or a resubmit (third marker agrees with second marker).

I didn't leave a 'job' to do my PhD as I'm self-employed, but I was too impetuous about jumping in at 61! I was self-funded and full time. All things considered, the PhD cost me £100,000, with loss of earnings taken into account. I really wouldn't recommend it. And what's happened since I got my PhD? Nothing! Someone who hasn't had their first full-time tenure in a Uni before the age of 65 can't apply for one. Some application forms say, 'Do not apply if you are within 6 months of your 65th birthday.' I can understand that as we must leave the jobs open for people with their career ahead of them. But as I don't intend to retire until after my 100th birthday, the next 30 odd years of my life won't benefit others, academically, except if I continue to write books. As I will. But I'd hoped to expand rather than contract my options!
Think about this carefully. We're in a recession. You have a regular salary, something I haven't had for very many years. Hold on to your job. Think of research as an end in itself, and do it part-time.

Don't worry about them 'going off topic'. That's part of the data. I interviewed students on the autism spectrum, who do tend to perseverate and lead you down paths! But allowing it is a way of gaining trust, too, so also comes under the heading of 'field relations'. Kvale is easily the best text to read. Essentially he tell you to STOP WORRYING! I've been doing interviews for 30 years so was pretty cool with it. But the thing I learned about qualitative research is that as long as you can justify it, whatever you do is OK!

Acknowledge the poor technique as part of the learning process. Social Science LOVES this, as it shows that you've adopted a reflexive approach within the interpretive paradigm, which is how it should be. I don't know whether you've read Kvale (Doing Interviews) but that's a brilliant text to refer to and it's an easy read, too! Kvale also says that there's nothing wrong with leading questions! The fact that he says that interviewing is a craft that has to be learned through practice is also a very useful reference for you to use when you do the self-critical bit!

I'm with Olivia on this one. I've been divorced for 30 odd years, but carry my ex-husband's surname, as this is my professional name. I have a horror of titles in general and refer to myself in my professional name without any title. But Dr is useful in sidestepping the 'Mrs or Miss?' question which, like Olivia, I hate. The other place it's really useful is in answering the phone to cold callers. They ask if they could speak to Mr or Mrs X. I say that there's no one of either name who lives here. My cold call numbers have dropped very significantly!

It's often easier when you're writing, to cut your day into 2. In the afternoon, write. In the morning, edit and tailor from yesterday. I'm a professional writer (who just got my doctorate at 66!) and sorting out the best way to write long documents is something I've had to do for my working life. This one certainly works best for me. It means that I edit/tighten as I go along, and also helps the afternoon writing session, as I've had a catch-up with the themes and general tone. It also makes me enthusiastic to keep at it, and means that if I get really wrapped up in what I'm writing, I can go on until bed time, if I have to.

I'm 14 years older than you, and was 11 years older when I started. I have little good to say about the process. I found academia to be light years behind my own real life experience as a self-employed writer/researcher/broadcaster. However, I needed to satisfy my passion, and that bit worked although no one at my university, sadly, shared that passion or knew anything about it. I was a one woman band - so no change there. I was alone as all the other full-time PhD students were 'international'.
I feel that my own experience as a squarish peg in an octahedral prismic hole was pretty unusually bad, so don't want to bias you.
Go for it! At your age I was accepted on to a PhD in another discipline, and may have been less 'difficult' (knowing?) then, and would have been working in a department in which everyone knew something about my subject and could have been supportive, intellectually and socially. That would have eased it all.
Think carefully. You'll have to deal with unjustified arrogance so learn button your lip. Wear lycra. Get a rail pass. Make Poundland your shop of choice. Learn to love chicken wings, discarded veg, and mince. One is always nearer by not keeping still (Thom Gunn).

Hi Rick, I've been quite careful in this forum, not to mention the esoteric field I work in. I could be identified immediately if I did that. But just to repeat what I said when I wrote my first post here, I'm a professional writer/journalist/broadcaster, and I truly can't believe the mess I walked into when I came to do my PhD. I don't fit into any box that they've ever encountered. I'm too old, too sussed, and no UK national in my broad area in my Uni (Education is the School I went into) had ever done a full-time PhD (they usually go for EdD, and only International students do that full-time). So no one had ever walked down this route before. Consequently my Uni and School had no knowledge of the fee-structures, help/funding available, and it's been the blind leading (or rather tripping up) the blind. I have few good words to say about my PhD experience, except I got it. I sold my wonderful art collection, my collection of Private Press books, my Mortgage endowment policy, and my sup (mistakenly as I've now found out) insisted that for the 3+ years I was in there that I did no interviews or writing, as these might contaminate my results. So I had to take those years out of my career, totally, only to find that no UK University will employ a first full-time academic within 6 months of their 65th birthday. But actually, now I've thought about it, I may be better off out of there!

Keenbean, I agree with what others have said. Leave it in. It's the essence of critical writing to examine theoretics very closely, and from what you've said, it appears that you've done all the right things - ie said that this doesn't apply universally, but may be interesting to explore in further research, as it may be applicable to a small sub-group and would appear to be potentially a partial explanation of some of your results. Anomalies are ALWAYS interesting and any good researcher looks carefully at them. We shouldn't toe a line. I think your approach is spot on. Just remember to put in all the caveats, and you'll be fine. It could lead to an interesting discussion in the viva, too, especially if you're quite cool about it! Just own it! I do have issues with people who believe that one theory explains all, and is over-arching. That's just too positivist for comfort! I thought we'd all moved on from there?