For the past six months I've struggled with very poor concentration. My GP tested me for everything and I came back medically healthy. I was then referred to two counsellors who offered CBT but didn't help. Finally, last week, my doctor suggested I may have atypical depression and prescribed medication.

Should I tell my supervisor that I am on antidepressants? I have a very supportive advisory team, but who are starting to feel frustrated with my lack of results. If I am honest I probably do have low-level depression about my PhD and my future but I do not have the full symptoms.

I'm not sure what to do with this diagnosis? Do I use it to explain my lack of progress? Or do I just tell them out of respect? Or do I just say nothing? They've always been very, very supportive but I don't want them to lose trust in me, as there is still a lot of stigma around depression and mental health, particularly in academia.

I don't know what to do.

Hi Sneaks,

Thanks, I am hoping to use multimedia for a portion of my thesis which would be impossible to fit into an appendix. It works much better as a video but I haven't got approval from my school yet. For the other work, unfortunately it does need to be done because each one provides the framework for the more complex analysis. I need the basic results per experiment in order to build the remaining chapters. 100 plots was an exaggeration, there are actually only about 40, and I can scale them down to fit at least 4 per page (one main large and three small), which still leaves about 10 near-identical pages of graphs, all in greyscale, which is going to be very dull.

I haven't chosen an external examiner yet because my supervisor and I want to see where my results go. My examiners don't need to be notified until January so I have time. I have chosen one in my mind, and keep trying to see my work from his viewpoint, but I don't want to cause problems for myself if it ends up being a different examiner.

======= Date Modified 03 Jul 2012 17:35:24 =======

Thank you, Sneaks.

Actually, my situation is slightly complicated by the fact that I am in a multidisciplinary science, spanning three different fields. All three fields have very different standards of what is justifiable science and what isn't. I keep trying to tailor my analysis to start at the simplest view and lead rapidly up to the more complicated work to avoid alienating anyone. It can be very difficult trying to balance the conventions of three different fields, particularly as many other theses on the same topic generally lean more towards one of the parent sciences or another.

Here is a question: how can you come up with a hundred plots, all in greyscale, and make each one look interesting enough to captivate the audience's attention? At least a quarter of my plots are showing changes in numerous variables over time. These kinds of plots do frequently appear in journals, but I have so many of them for my thesis that it is difficult to see how any examiner is going to read through them all without getting frustrated or bored. I could start to summarise them in different ways, but then, as you point out, I would then be using methods not common in my field.

I am at a stage where I am beginning to write up my results and analyse my data. I understand my own methodology etc., but I am struggling with creating plots and graphs that both look good and get the information across in a clear way. My supervisors are excellent sources of advice but they prefer to leave stylistic choices up to me and comment only on the content.

Does anyone have any advice or recommendations of good websites, books etc., that give advice on creating plots and graphs? I see it is a weakness not just in my own work but in other students in my department, but I'm not sure where to start in looking for advice.

To clarify, I don't just mean labelling axes, annotating with text etc. My question is quite broad and covers everything from knowing how to choose the right graph, to making it look visually appealing, and to ordering those graphs in the right order so that they continue to tell a clear and logical "story" about the results. There is so much advice on writing a literature review or choosing the right statistical test, that it is surprising how difficult I am finding it to find clear and useful advice on visualising data for a PhD.

I would imagine that one way forward is trying to tailor the skills gained in a PhD to the employer's need rather than trying to hide the PhD. For a purely hypothetical example, if I had a PhD in Nuclear Physics and wanted to apply for a job as a regional manager for a small firm, my strategy would be to only mention that I gained a PhD, what University it was from, and what year. I wouldn't list the title or subject on the CV, perhaps not even the department, and underneath would create a heading along the lines of "relevant skills: time management, self-motivation, coordination of large project, working to deadlines, public speaking, and database maintenance." I would just keep it very brief and vague, and concentrate elsewhere on what else I could bring to the business.

I definitely wouldn't mention anything along the lines of, "'Nature paper, 2011,' 'Einstein Prize for Best Postgraduate Presentation,' 'Time Magazine Young Researcher of the Year Award,' '£100,000 business development grant, AWE'"

Of course, this example is silly, but you get the idea. There are ways of massively dumbing down a CV without lying or pretending that the last three years haven't happened. I would feel heartbroken if I were in a situation where I had to lie about, or even apologise for, my PhD. I hope I can always be in a position where I can take even 1% of it and justify why it gives me an edge to any employer, even in casual work, and simply ignore the 99% that makes me sound scary and overqualified.

Also, when companies turn you down for being overqualified, what do they really mean? Does anyone know? Do they think that a PhD makes someone too independent, too much of a risk, too likely to demand more money or promotion? Or are they afraid that an employee will be bored in the work, or be seen as a threat by other employees or even managers? Perhaps understanding what employers are afraid of, as well as what they want, might make it easier to tailor that CV to their needs?