Eska, I'm so happy for you. I tried completing my thesis in another uni but due to Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), it was best to complete it in my present university. There is less of an IP issue when you transfer after the upgrade, unless the department funded your first year: one of the reasons why I did not go after the first year.
Well, you can chill out till Christmas. It'll be a well deserved break.

Brilliant news! Just a few queries:
1. Are you leaving the uni or just the department?
2. Is the new sup within the existing faculty?
Outcome:
1. If you intend to leave the department/school, the HOD might want a sup within the department as he/she would not want to lose a thesis
2. If the new sup is from another faculty, that would impact on the focus of your thesis.
3. Paperwork might take 10-20 working days (min) for transfer of supervision. In my case, it took 9months! I was hopping mad and I made sure the VC knew about the incompetence of the people involved. Sounds like yours will be a smooth transfer. Well done, mate.

Very rude, indeed. No need for the ranting and raving.

Hi Eska,
I'm pleased you've come to that decision. Staying on will just give the sups more guts to raise the stakes for the next poor sod. I encouraged two of my junior PhDer to continue their PhD elsewhere after their upgrade - they left and are soooo happy and sucessful. Taking the first step in the right direction is scary but "feel the fear and do it anyway" - just believe in yourself.
Nope, changing sups have not made a dent in my academic career. Infact, my new team is more dynamic than the previous poxy ones. Citing the new team as referees has definitely increased my chances of getting shortlisted for academic posts. Within the academic world, everyone knows the men from the boys. There is a Chinese saying: " Where flowers around, its naturally fragant. If you have it, you don't need to flaunt it - others around will know who you are without you telling them how great you are".

Hi Eska,
I did not come make the decision lightly. Infact, I was 6 months to submission when it blew up in my face. I had crap supervision from Day 1 but hung on because I thought that a PhD was all about independent research and that supervisors were meant to be nasty. After 3 and half years, I just could not take another ounce of crap from them and my self worth was more important than the PhD. I should have walked out after the upgrade viva but stayed on in the unhealthy relationship because I wanted to do the PhD so much. I have no regrets about taking them to the cleaners. I'm sure you will do what you feel is best.
Good luck with your upgrade.

Erm... I think citing Wikepedia as a "voice of authority" is dubious. If you want to change the world, even if it was slowly, take on the big boys. Perhaps someone out there might think you have a point. If your language expertise in not in the "hard languages", may I suggest that you temper your personal views and attempt an academic dialogue? I might learn something from you. Otherwise, let's draw a line under this matter. Give a chance to some some Chinese linguist out there who might be able to shed light on this topic: dialect or language?

Well, Corrine, it is the fear of the future which makes all PhDers pull back from doing the right thing, and rogue supervisors grow in confidence with behaving badly. When I sent mine to the cleaners, the Post Grad Research Tutor reminded me of my future career in academia saying that my supervisors were worldclass academics (NOT!). That remark just spurned me on. Nobody and nothing is going to make me a spineless academic. Yes, the "old boys club" is small, but its not that small! And they can't be experts in All areas. So perish the fallacy about the invincibility of supervisors. In reality, they fare dismally in the real world.

This message is for Eska.
Don't take the crap anymore. Send them to the cleaners. Make sure your case don't collapse procedurely ie follow the university's complaint procedure.
Remember, your supervisors are expandable and they are only as powerful as you allow them to have power over you.
Good luck.

Hi Rick,
Glad you checked it out for yourself. Writing is painfully slooooow. Now in the 5th chapter. Will take up to a year to finish the rest of it.
How's your fieldwork coming along? And what's your research interest?

Yep! In my university there are Staff Development Training Courses designed for supervisors. Outside uni there is a City and Guilds Course called Further Adult Education Certificate specifically designed to teach Adults to teach other Adults (sorry for the clumsy speech). One important take home message for me was how to give constructive criticism - the skill of delivering a "shit sandwich". Basically, first, tell them how good they are; then how crap they are and finally, how good they are - leaves the person completely confused but not crushed. Nonetheless, mission accomplished. The student usually get the message.

Hey Swantje,
I'm really curious as to why this topic is of interest to you. Why are you so keen to insist that Cantonese is a language? In my case, I need to sort out the translation issues. What's your point?

Hi Rick,
As with all electronic messages, it can go a bit skewy. When I mentioned "abuse", it was just an example of sensitive topic(s) that just pop up when the researcher least expects it. In my case, one of the group members wanted to talk about his suicide attempts but I did not venture into exploring it with subsequent focus groups.
I've finished my fieldwork and am in my write-up.
Good luck with yours and feel free to ask any questions. Glad to be of help anytime.

Mmmm... not sure if we've lost the plot somewhere in the long and convoluted discussion. The bottom line is: if you want to be a supervisor, do the decent thing and learn to be one. Also, take on students in areas of your expertise. This way, the academic world might be a much nicer place. Rogue academics should be named and shamed!

Refining your f/g interview schedule is recommended by leading academics in f/g methods (See Kitzinger, Bloor et al, Kreuger etc). Your subsequent group discussions should not be significantly longer than the previous ones. One way of ensuring that you keep to similar time frames is to move the discussion forward when familiar issues are raised so that you have more time to introduce the new(er) topics. Regarding sensitve issues: the possibility of sexual dysfunction and suicide were hinted at the focus group sessions. I explored these at the individual interviews.

Very timely query. After 3 focus groups, issues would have emerged that you want to chase. Stick to the same interview schedule - its crucial to validity and insert additional questions (those which emerged from the first three groups. However, if the additional questions are of a sensitive nature (eg abuse etc)- these can only be addressed at individual interviews. I had to refine my focus group interview schedule after 3 groups and some issues could only be explored at individual interviews.
Hope that helps.