Another long period has elapsed since the previous entry. I managed to submit Document 2 by the revised deadline 19th April, but very conscious that I had not read many peer-reviewed journal articles closely related to my main research topic – Document 2 was largely a rather broad-ranging discussion of the context for my choice of topic and the associated methodology, and perhaps insufficient by way of literature review. I am aware however, that ‘literature review’ has by no means finished – it will form a key part also of Documents 3, 4 and 5 (and possibly even a small part of Document 6). While still awaiting actual feedback on Document 2 (now nearly 3 months later), I have nevertheless started in earnest on the actual writing of Document 3 – now strongly aware of the time required not just to commit myself to text but also to insert references in such a way that the Bibliography emerges with minimal need for editing. Firstly I have devised a 4-part structure for Document 3 (based upon the humours/elements and loosely taking pre-Socratic philosophers associated with each as a starting-point for the relevant section). Secondly, I have edited all the items in my RefWorks library, combining them in a single folder rather than separating methodology/community/business/practices – but still finding the insertion of citations extremely tedious. I had considered applying for a further extension for Document 3, as the deadline falls in the middle of the summer holiday while I’ll be away in France, but have been advised that there’s no need for this as I’ll be given six months from the date I receive feedback on Document 2. Having now written about half the number of words required for Documents 3, however, I’m hoping to complete and submit before the first Workshop related to Document 4 (in mid-September) – ideally even before leaving for France. The latter seems rather less likely however, as I haven’t yet even started inviting research participants to help with Document 3, I haven’t completed my Ethical Statement for supervisors to sign-off before I start my proposed fieldwork. What I have written is a justification for my choice of research method, based upon further reading but this time more promptly expressing my ideas in writing. Hoping that somehow I won’t be required to re-write substantial parts of Document 2 before proceeding, I plan to discuss what I’ve written so far to my supervisors within the next month – Kevin in term of philosophical validity, and Tom in terms of structural acceptability. I have also become conscious of Umberto Eco’s demand that one writes to argue a case rather than to prove how clever one is – I fear that, due to lack of confidence, I’m still too much in the latter mode. This is especially brought home to me when I read certain authors’ journal articles etc, in which they succeed in writing in simple language of complex insights: in particular, the book I’ve just finished reading (while away for a long weekend away abroad), ‘Small Change.’ I am aware that I am more and more encountering texts that refer to other texts I’m already aware of, and ‘Small Change’ seemed to offer the particular virtue of bringing together the ideas of numerous authors I’ve already quoted: I interpret this kind of ‘coincidence’ as a sign that I’m now beginning to work at the boundaries of existing knowledge in the field. On the other hand, I’m conscious that neither of my supervisors comes from my own discipline area, and that a specialist external examiner might find the current state of my knowledge rather trite and riddled with significant gaps.
Misgivings following Submission of Document 2
