======= Date Modified 06 Nov 2011 14:04:42 =======
======= Date Modified 06 Nov 2011 14:04:14 =======
Hi everyone,

I recently had a meeting about my 2nd draft of the PhD methodology chapter, and was once again told that it was not at doctoral level and I seemed to be stuck writing at Masters level.

I was gutted and really upset. The advice I'm being given isn't brilliant, but I'm being told that I'm not defending and justifying the project in the correct way (which I thought I had done).

My project looks at recovery from gambling addiction, and the fieldwork (should I ever be allowed to undertake) shall involve interviewing people who are in support for problem gambling.

Is there any advice any of you kind and intelligent people could offer me with regard to the methodology chapter? At my last meeting, the 2nd supervisor who was there hinted that he personally found his own PhD methodology chapter to be the most difficult.

For example, in my first draft I had epistemology and ontology as two headings to draw attention to, but a large criticism was that I was describing their definition too much, rather than applying these premises to my research. I can see that being too close to Masters level, but I'm confused how to escalate that into an acceptable level.

Any advice would be very much appreciated.

Thanks everyone,

Lylio

Can you locate a thesis in your field and see how they've approached things?

======= Date Modified 06 Nov 2011 16:15:29 =======
I was going to suggest similar to Delta. Have a look through other theses to see how the author sets things up and discusses what they did but most importantly WHY they did it that way. Here is the link if you don't know it to downloadable theses at the British library
http://ethos.bl.uk/Home.do;jsessionid=B70CA576E236A5092E3BF910B921342B

tbh, if I was going to put a specific section on 'ontology' or 'epistemology' I would probably put it in my introduction chapter. That way, you set the scene early on for your particular 'take' on things, thus leaving you clear to discuss what you did in your methodology chapter. To my mind, you need to convey in your methodology chapter that while you are aware of alternative approaches, here is what you did and argue for why it is so appropriate for the problem at hand.