Thanks. I have my first year upgrade in a week or so, and I now feel that the coding scheme is too broad, and the questions themselves are slightly too broad. Both need to be refined. So it is acceptable to discuss this and where I'm up to on how I might develop them?
I know this sounds odd but up to now (undergrad, masters) I've always come up with questions and a design to answer them and then just followed the plan. So I am a bit uncertain about what is the norm and good science when it comes to refining thoughts and plans (as opposed to being sneaky and trying to get significant results). I suppose it might be because in papers you often just read about the final product, rather than how the authors got there, what they changed along the way etc. ?
I think at first year upgrade point they would expect to hear about tweaks based on early learning. At mine I talked about my pilot studies and how they had helped me amend my method and focus. My eventual research questions were not the ones I started with but they were similar. In my thesis there was a section on learning and what I could have done differently but you don't see that in journals!
Masters DegreesSearch For Masters Degrees
An active and supportive community.
Support and advice from your peers.
Your postgraduate questions answered.
Use your experience to help others.
Enter your email address below to get started with your forum account
Enter your username below to login to your account
An email has been sent to your email account along with instructions on how to reset your password. If you do not recieve your email, or have any futher problems accessing your account, then please contact our customer support.
or continue as guest