Revising Research Questions: Academically not Personally Challenging

I spend a lot of my time revising research proposals, making sure that questions are realistic and correctly framed.  I find myself regularly saying they are too large or too grand or too many.  Questions need to be realistic, acheivable and engaging.  So, I can hand out the advice but when it comes to my own for the PhD it has not been as easy. 

I had 6 of them which included reviewing far too much literature and to be frank were full or jargon.  Leading by example, as you can see. 

And yet, we had a very painful tutorial back in November on how they need reframing and I have spend a lot of time revising them.  I also added some definitions of the terms which I am using.  All good but I found the whole thing incredably personal and challenging: I now know how my academics feel but I need to learn that it is my argument being attacked and not me. 

Waiting and Working

Submitted my methodology chapter a week ago today and am now awaiting for the outcome. It is a little odd waiting for the reply and the outcome. Will they like it? Am I still miles off?
In the mean time, this weekend I am working on a draft of the Literature Review to be submitted by 2nd October. Not easy to know how much it should contain, what I should be saying in it and whether it is analytical enough. I am trying to weave the theories of social capital and soft power through but in such a way that the entire chapter builds to the discussion (and adoption) of these standpoints but without overlooking or rushing other arguments. This really is a little harder than I would have expected.
It is also about adapting a style that, for me, both tells a story and guides the reader simply through (like journalism) but also allows for discussion. I am aiming for the style of Peter Scott - himself a former journalist - in his writing about Higher Education. Some academics are said to be 'hard to read' or 'challengin'; whilst not wanting to reduce academic levels, what is the point in not trying to make sure the writing can be accessible and thought-provoking for as many as possible.
So whilst waiting for the feedback on the one chapter, working on another, it is clear that there is a long way to go in terms of being a confident, accessible and engaging academic writer.

So it’s been a while…

And there has been a good reason for this. AS you know, I’ve been changing tutors. 10 days ago it was confirmed that I am changing to Dr. Chris Lloyd and retaining Dr. David Rose.

All good news and I am pleased with the final resolution; that said given that and everything else that has been going on my life, the PhD is running a bit behind on me graduating in 15 months time and is mor looking like 2 years hence but it is still hopeful.

I am in the process of updating all the work and submitting drafts of the methodology and literature review chapters. As I do this, new thoughts are coming up and I am feeling more invogorated with the research. I am also feeling keen to finish the work. Just finishing will also help me to think where I am going in life and where I want my career to head.

So, no promises of regular blogs vut there should be now something to type about!!

Research Diary 04/01/12

Hours Carried Forward from Last Session: -3 hours (none done first 3 days of year)

Hours & Work Undertaken: 5 hours - redrafting philosophy of research essay. 

Hours Carried Forward to Next Session & Job List: +2 hours - reflect on 2nd draft of essay, start condencing reading for lit review. 

Notes:
After not finishing the re-draft of the essay at home (too many other distractions), I finished this evening and have sent it to a couple of friends to have a look at. 

Found sorting the philosophical considerations behind my research a little tough.  You're not meant to fit your methodology or paradigm to the methods or the research questions but in a sense I feel I have had to after not sorting this to start off with.  I suppose this is part of the learning process in doing a major research project.  Next time I will sort the lit review and methodology ahead of actually starting the research. 

Sort of got hear around the whole epistemology and ontology question (I am an interpretivist and social constructionist, on the whole) but need to work out how I express that. 

Style wise - a little muddy I suspect in places.  Tried to get it that each section (epistemologival, ontological and political considerations) to one author/thinker.   Almost there on the first and last but not really got to the bottom of who the key thinker in social constructionism is, yet.  It would be tidier and more pleasing stylistically if I could simplify the structure. 

Tomorrow I will have a break on this and look at the lit review.  Need a change of task and just a quick data-basing my reading will make a nice contrast and help me focus on what I am reading.