Part of my (social science) phd is an analysis of the development of an instituion - which means mentioning a host of people who where instrumental in setting it up (e.g board of directors, steering groups, executive directors, etc, etc). my supervisor suggested that i should include biographical details of the various people involved in the main body of the text - but as I've struggled and failed to make any insightful comments on these people it seems a bit pointless having a chapter filled with endless biographies even though these are key people. i was just wanting to put everyone's biographies in an appendix...anybody else had/ having similar experience? What did you do? Thanks!

I'm doing an oral history project so I've been including biographical details to introduce key people and position them within the period I'm looking at. I started out trying to put them into the main body of the text but I found this a bit clumsy and I didn't feel able to include as much detail without detracting from the flow of writing (...if my writing ever could be said to 'flow' even at the best of times!)

I did consider putting them all at the back but in the end I've used footnotes. I usually give date and place of of birth, what people studied, where and when (education is one of the factors I'm looking at though) and what they're primarily recognised for professionally / relevant moments in their careers.

I find that writing them is actually a bit of an escape from struggling with more complex stuff.

thanks bettyspaghetti - I''ll give the footnote biogs a go!