This will probably sounds slightly ridiculous, but I'm having a problem knowing how much I should edit down my writing to send to my supervisor.

I tend always to go over the suggested word count, but I feel like since I am only in the early stages of writing it is probably better to let my supervisor see the extent of my ideas, since I'm still in the exploratory stage.

I feel like I've a productive month, but am concerned about giving them much more to read! I don't want to seem incapable of editing out material or picking out the very best ideas.

Has anyone else felt this way? It certainly feels like a leftover habit from undergrad days, when you knew you would be punished for going over the word limit!

I think it depends on what you think your supervisors will want. I tended to make my drafts 'final' (sic) products in that I formatted them from the off and tried to get the word count roughly to what I felt was right. However, I know plenty of people who did things differently. One person always tells her supervisor that it's a rough, raw draft and that she is looking for feedback on her ideas as opposed to her writing. Another doesn't format, or indeed include introductions or conclusions with what she sends her supervisor. To be honest, her supervisor has told her that he is not happy with that and admitted that he stopped reading after the first few pages becuase it was too all over the place.

If you're emailing the drafts you could briefly outline what stage the draft is at but I would keep any provisos, explanations etc short, otherwise they might start to dread, or worse, ignore emails from you.

======= Date Modified 03 Dec 2011 11:19:40 =======
======= Date Modified 03 Dec 2011 11:19:26 =======
Thanks for the response, Ady.

I do always send work that is 'complete' and polished, with introductions and conclusions, as though it were to be graded formally. It's just that it is a longer piece of work than is expected, maybe because I include more detail than is required at this stage.

You're right, I think I should just ask my supervisor if what I'm sending them is okay from a practical perspective.

I agree with Ady that it'll depend on your supervisor. Mine have always told me what they expected. Initially it was a 'very rough draft'. At that stage I think they just wanted to get to know the ideas and how they fit together. My first few drafts had my own notes on them(!) (e.g. 'add this paper about this topic here' or 'need to add something about this here') but this is what my supervisors asked me to do.

Lughna, if you're unsure about the length, you could potentially just send everything you have and your sup can give you feedback on what they think shouldn't be there?

No matter how amazing and suppotive a supervisor might be, from my experience, he is not going to waste time reading a rough draft. They are busy. They have a herd of PhD students, lecturing hours, deadlines for research proposals and a desire to watch rubbish TV.

Therefore, I only send something that is pretty much edited already. We only agree on the structure. After the first supervisor reads it and thinks it is good, he involves the 2nd. First I send the structure. If we agree on that, I put bullet points of the main topics and graphs and tables. If we agree, I write one sentence for each paragraph (What is the purpose). Only after that, may I send a complete draft.

Hope this helps. Don't bore them, use supervision time efficiently.

Thank you all for the replies.

I think I phrased my original post badly: I'm not talking about sending a rough draft, but sending something that is clear and well-structured, but possibly more detailed than it needs to be. At this point (several months in), I am trying to convince my supervisor that a certain method is applicable by way of explanation, but I find it difficult to balance being too descriptive/detailed vs. writing that takes it for granted they are experts.

I think that I understand what you mean. I come from a country where word counts are not an issue - actually, the more the better - whereas, here in the UK it seems to be a big issue. Our HoD wouldn't even read an essay that was 100 words over!

It is a fine line between making sure that you include enough background information and giving away too many details. I think that generally supervisors want to see if you are capable of striking that balance, thus of focussing on the core ideas and issues without getting lost in the argument.

I found it very difficult at the beginning, but I then realised that the quality of your piece has little to do with its length. Actually, often quite the opposite.

Yes, this is exactly my issue at the moment. Thank you for explaining it well!
I appreciate that it's quality over quantity. I just worry that if I force myself to reduce the quantity, purely to meet a suggested word limit, then it will actually reduce the quality! Not always, but if I feel I've written productively. I suppose either way I am saving the work with a view to using it elsewhere.

Yes, absolutely. What you are not including in your draft now is not wasted. It may be included in a later draft, or published in an article or book in the future.

I had developed some very good points that weren't strictly relevant for the core argument in my thesis, and it was really annoying to cut them out. But that material will be published shortly, so it's defenitely not wasted.

I don't know at what stage you are in your PhD, but personally my thesis was work in progress until I put the word "end" a week before submission.