This is completely irrelevant to the main topic of this thread, but I am going to apologise for the number of typos in my writing in recent weeks. I put it down to 'scrambled egg brain' brought on by excessive writing, editing and proofing fatigue (due to my submission in three weeks time) and eye sight that is progressively worse since I began this thesis some years ago. Please excuse. I can only hope it all improves after a bit of a rest and I have time to get my eyes checked and glasses updated. :)

Hi Helebon, people disagreeing with and critiquing your research or arguing with your position is part of academic life. Sometimes these feedback is accurate and relevant and sometimes it is down to the other person's critical perspective which is different.

They have a different perspective or take on the matter and take a different critical position or stance on the issue, and it will always be different from yours. As Tudor_Queen has said, you can just let it go; there are likely to be other times when this happens.

If the comment is about your work, and not the presentation style, and you need or wish to adjust your work before submitting it, so as to counter this person's criticism/feedback, can you build a counter argument into your work that reinforces your position and explains why this alternative perspective does not apply in your context?

Best wishes, P.

I used basic statistics and means. I used this method as I did not collect as much quantitative data as I would have liked, so I thought that basic descriptive statistics was the best representation of my own data given lower numbers of participants. I presented most of this data using frequency tables. Like you, I also used the quantitative survey to provide an introduction to the case and areas of focus, in a similar way to what you have suggested above. It became my first data set and provided an overview to the case.

Done! Good luck with the data collection.

Just a thought. Can you include the shortened table (without variables) in the data chapters still, even while you include the full table in an appendix as suggested by other posters. This might help the reader, who will still have a visual display of major data in the main text (albeit a much briefer one without the dummies) and while you still discuss the variables within your chapter, you can state that readers can refer to appendix to see the complete table including the variables.

Well done on passing your viva and for being almost there. Congratulations!

Hi there again E, you are right, your theory and methods sound great and I, for one, could not offer too much in the way of a pathway forward given the specific theory you are using, of which my knowledge is limited.

However, perhaps it is just that your contribution to knowledge, where you are addressing the 'so what' factor, needs to be given more emphasis in the methods chapter, so that readers focus on these strengths (i.e. what you are doing and saying rather than what you are not addressing).

With the generalising from the case study to other situations, perhaps you could give 'a nod' to this, with a qualifier, suggesting that findings from case studies, in the main, may apply to other situations and experiences that share similar characteristics and in your specific case, this could apply given similar circumstances. However, theoretical considerations place greater emphasis on the uniqueness of X...and thus your contribution to knowledge is X...

This may be completely useless advice in your situation, so just ignore it if so, I won't be offended (lol). Cheers and good luck navigating your way through the murky waters of theory :)

Hi there again, you do need support, so I hope I didn't give you the impression otherwise. I just know from my own experience that other than regular meetings (every 9-10 weeks or so as I was part time) with some conversation around what I was doing, at the early stages, I pretty much did it all by myself. I think this is true for many, if not all.

My supervisors became far more active much further into the thesis, where they read finished chapter drafts and critiqued these and pointed out inconsistencies, making suggestions for clarification.

You might still try seeking out support from other doctoral students and networking at conferences to help with the feelings of isolation. Does your university stipulate meeting schedules or is it just up to your supervisor to set these? Do you feel confident enough to explain to him that you would find it helpful to have a regular meeting time (even if it is just for a brief catch up), especially at this early stage. How do you think this might work?

Mariba, I'm wondering whether what you are expecting from your supervisor is the sort of support you might have received as an undergrad or honours student. Once you get to PhD level, much of the work you do is on your own and it is completely different to undergrad and course work Masters courses.

PhD candidates are expected to find their own research literature. Often supervisors take a long time to read reports-not all supervisors and not every time but it isn't unusual to wait a bit before they provide feedback on things you write. All the while this is happening, (as in them having writing to look at or in between meetings) they are just expecting you to get on with things independently.

When you say declined regular meetings, do you mean you have no idea when you will meet him next? Has he given any indication as to when you would next meet with him? My own university's regulations mandates a meeting once a month for full time students and every 2 months for part-timers. These meetings are not always long-it depends on what we are discussing.

I think companionship and support during a PhD often comes from fellow students. Are there any groups, post-grad societies or research groups you can join? Or perhaps you can enrol in some short workshops or courses related to your field or check out local conferences?

Best wishes. The beginning of a PhD can be very confusing while you try to sort out your topic properly and get a feel for the literature in your field. Much of it though happens independently, with your supervisor just being a bit of guide during this process (at least this is how I found it).

Hi Effinineffable,

Are you able to specify what methodology you are using (grounded theory, phenomenology, narrative, ethnographic or case study, or...) and how she wants you to structure the methods chapter? This might help readers with providing strategies.

I've ended up doing an explanatory mixed methods collective case study, with an interpretive-constructivist epistemology underpinning it and, to be honest, I've felt uncomfortable following my supervisors' (both supervisors) advice at times.

They have advised a very traditional 'classic thesis structure' and I've had to rework my methods chapter quite a bit to suit their suggestions, while still trying to make sure I acknowledged where my method fit with my epistemology. It has been a compromise. I did spend some time early on in the methods chapter exploring how my epistemology fit with the structure and where it didn't and justifying how this did not impact on the study. I used the word 'pragmatic' and 'pragmatism' quite a bit as well and threw in a bit of that to justify any straying from the theory.

My supervisors also made regular comments about 'sticking too closely to theory' (or similar ones at least).

Hi Marshall, what an experience! I agree with Effingeffable. I think the editor has overstepped the editing role and that you need to trust your supervisors. I have two points or questions that come to mind:

Is your editor an academic with experience in your area and methodology (or are they someone who works as an academic editor)? What are their credentials? If they do have a PhD themselves, is it in your area? It will be experienced academics with some understanding of your work and methods who mark your thesis, not a professional copy editor-even if they do specialise in academic thesis work.

The whole world of academia with regard to argument especially within social sciences, humanities and related theory is one big world of grey. If you can justify your methods appropriately to support your thesis statement then that is what is needed to pass.

I'd personally keep on working while waiting for your principle supervisor's response, even if it is on other parts or technical aspects of the thesis and start looking for another copy editor or reader.

Congratulations Dr Drew, well done on achieving your PhD and completing an excellent viva!

Thanks for that TQ! The papers definitely were not published as conference proceedings in the second conference which was directed at practitioners as much as it was academics, so article here we come (in a couple of months that is). That information is good to know.

Ive had two different experiences with this particular issue. When writing my Masters thesis some years ago, I presented at a National Conference. My Masters supervisor was present at my presentation and her recommendation was that I shaped up my presentation into a journal article for an international journal. I did this on her recommendation, and certainly the article was different to my presentation-the presentation was prepared visually and to be spoken, whereas the journal article was much denser and followed the appropriate social science presentation format. Anyway it was published and that was great. The abstract was similar but again much more focused and a bit sharper than the original. It also followed the journal's guidelines so brought in a few more alterations.

However, last year I presented findings from one of my data sets at a conference (international) and asked my current supervisor whether I could submit a version of this to a journal. She indicated this wasn't appropriate and the article needed to be quite different-and I don't think she meant just reformatted. So I've been a bit torn regarding how I am going to publish the findings from this data set.

One thing I've noticed though is that one- even experienced academics are not always right on this one, and two- they change their minds. I'm currently altering something in my thesis that I did (actually changed)on the advice of one supervisor some time ago, that they now tell me needs to be redone in the way I originally did it. Go figure!

It might be a placebo but I find taking Vitamin C and Echinachia supplements really help as well as making sure you get plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables, and stay hydrated. (As great as coffee is to drink-it tends to have a dehydrating affect). I'm on my final four weeks and got a horrible bug two weeks ago which laid me low physically and mentally for a full week. Once I could eat, I went onto herbal tea, cut coffee, and took the supplements. Back on track now. Best wishes with it all. Editing can be hell at times. :)

Doodle Berry, really sorry to learn of your result. Did your supervisor not say anything to you after the result was given? Some form of debrief or discussion? Surely after being given an R & R (with viva) you would be entitled to ask some questions and talk it over?

Are you up to being persistent with making contact with your supervisor? By this I mean, it is a tough blow (by no means meaning you won't be able to overcome this and pass this after some work) and sometimes instinct in these cases is to curl up in a ball rather than ask legitimate questions of the person who took you up to this point and signed you off on submission.