Thursday’s end of year viva went well and I have been given the all clear to proceed to my third year, and that the registration will be for PhD not MPhil. I rather enjoyed the grilling from Dr Stevens. I had prepared a list of ‘awkward questions’ of which only one was raised (Why is my sample of churches not proportionate?)

I had not re-read my submitted report until on train journey to Lboro. (Contains progress report, draft methodology & draft literature review). Apart from spotting a few more typos, I also found myself able to critique the work from a relatively distant viewpoint. So I was not surprised when a few of these issues were raised in the viva. Does my title actually reflect what I am doing? Are there too many aims & objectives? (Is anyone ever clear about which is which? I have spent a disproportionate amount of time on this particular question). Is my literature review presenting a good story, in the right order?

There is now a new list of things to do. Some are ‘housekeeping’ (tidying up references) and some are more fundamental, but I’m now full steam ahead for the forthcoming year. (Once tomorrow is out of the way).

Thursday also involved lots of activity arising from the posting on the CT blog; replying to offers of interviews, noting comments and exploring some of the new avenues that this may be opening. So on the whole, if we ignore the train delays and slightly idiotic loss of original advance purchase tickets, Thursday was a good day.

This is probably a bit self-referential since I think many visitors here will have come via the Church Times blog article, (welcome!) but I was rather pleased today that my project was featured. I have had some good feedback and some volunteers to be interviewed which is encouraging after two years spent in glorious isolation!

Just to re-iterate though, the findings are preliminary, and I will be searching again in July and December to see if there are new websites available. In May last year, of my sample of 400 churches, I found a site for 42%, which had risen to 49% by January 2010.

This week I have my second year viva. I will be presenting the work I have completed in the past year and a bit; and what I intend to do next. No doubt I will also be fielding awkward questions (I have answers prepared for a couple about sample sizes and baseline measures).

I’ve written the presentation. I know more or less what I am going to say. Last year I was terribly nervous as I hadn’t been through the process before. This time I’m not exactly complacent but I am more at ease with what the day will involve.

English churches and websites – view my presentation on Slideshare

I finished and sent my second year report in ahead of schedule. That left me a rather nice weekend of tying up loose ends, filing, and generally having a bit of a rest. I am trying to strike the balance between putting things on the mental back burner so ideas and approaches can simmer away, to allow inspiration to strike; and accidentally moving the pan of ponderings off the heat all together and completely losing track of my thinking.

What’s nice in my report is that I now have a couple of sets of numbers. I now know what proportion of churches have a working website that is findable via Google: and it’s still only around half. I haven’t got further than anything more than descriptive statistics so far, and it’ll be the end of 2010 before I make any inferences about rate of change and so forth. But it’s great having *something* to show for the last two years’ work!

OK, so it’s cheesy in places, it’s written by college students and it’s very American, but it’s worth reposting this, which I read about at Stephen’s Lighthouse

85 Reasons to be Thankful for Librarians

And since we’re only 6 days into 2010 I don’t feel I am too belated in wishing everyone a Happy New Year.

So I have the date for it: February 4th; have my train tickets all booked and hopefully people to meet for a pint on my return to London after my second year-end viva.

I am making pretty good progress, I think; I have  a report that is almost done; a methods chapter that looks recognisably like something that might make it to the final thesis (I reckon maybe 5% will!) and an updated literature review. I’ve found some useful new work to help contextualise mine in recent months.

So far… so good…

I had another conference call supervision meeting with Anne (Goulding) and Louise on December 15. I am finding that the conference calls work really well. It saves me a day-long trip to Loughborough for a 60-minute meeting; not only saving money but time and annual leave. I can use the annual leave for days to work on the project not sit on trains. Plus, whilst I’m at Lboro I don’t really have a place to go – no office and no other colleagues, so there’s no space other than a library packed with noisy undergraduates to work whilst waiting for the train home.

The meeting was to discuss my progress so far on the project and on writing it up in my second year report. I had submitted a good draft – a bit Morecambe & Wise (all the right words but not necessarily in the right order). As well as checking some of the technical aspects, and the deadlines for submission and so on, we also discussed whether:

- the literature on content analysis of websites is better placed in the methods or the literature review

- I need to keep my health sites analysis as a comparable set of literature

- the intended work on online church still has a place within the project

In relation to this last point, it probably doesn’t: I had become increasingly convinced over the summer that it was really only something that had seemed like a good idea at the time. But as my focus is on the actual church and the actual website, there’s not really much room for the online varieties. I will still need to make reference to online church as it’s relevant, but not central. It’s the first major direction change of the project and I am quite pleased to have made the decision.

My second year viva is on 4 February so it looks like Christmas will be spent in preparation for this.

During the week ending 4 December I worked more or less full time on the research and writeup.

I met with another part-time distance student on Thursday, which was a great help in terms of sharing experience and some of the frustrations. In particular, just wanting to ‘get on with it’ when admin or life just seem to be in the way.

My targets for the week were to produce a draft methodology chapter, revise my literature review and write a substantial draft of the necessary second year report. I also wanted to pilot the sampling for the content analysis and the categories I had developed for this analysis. To a large extent, I met these objectives.

I’d more or less lost Saturday after the arrival of the iPhone, that put paid to any serious concentration but I did plan for the week ahead. By thinking about my other commitments and shifting work so that the content analysis was the first thing I tackled and the reading came later, I avoided what could have been a demoralising disaster when my internet access was knocked out for all of Tuesday afternoon and evening. I had done the internet-intensive work on Sunday and Monday and mostly had reading and writing to do, neither of which require the internet connected. In fact, removing online distractions was a bonus. If Refworks wasn’t online I should go and lock myself into an offline room every time I needed to hit a deadline!

I have struggled with spending time on admin and planning in the past. It doesn’t feel like real work; I want to be getting results, not taking time to re-write project plans. That feels a lot like colouring in revision timetables. And the admin is a faff; Lboro graduate school processes run at snail’s pace; forms are never quite where I remember them to be and writing up reflective practice for the PGR can feel somewhat pointless. However, I will concede that planning the week’s work into manageable chunks and keeping a record in my research journal was A Good Thing To Do. The difficulty of working part-time is maintaining momentum; I’ve been immersed in the research for a week, yet the next week I will be lucky if I can spent commuting time reading or revising.

So, this is where I am so far. I have a supervision call planned for 15 December to talk about the work I’ve submitted so far. I suggested when I emailed it that this could be considered Draft 0, as I was aware of many technical shortcomings. I found it frustrating in previous meetings when I sent work in ahead of time – cautioning that it constituted a draft, but then spending a whole session discussing presentation and paragraph structure rather than the ideas and the substantive content. I’ve sent a draft report, in which I have updated my introduction and revised my aims and objectives, and outlined the key milestones for year 3. I’ve updated and revised my literature review; a couple of relevant articles have been published in the last year which have given me new avenues to pursue. I have a whole section in the review from last year looking at the health website literature, much as it pains me to delete, I don’t think this will make the final cut. I’ve piloted my content analysis sampling – it’s going to work – and I have revised my categories. On a practical level after a couple of websites I realised I needed to change the order in which they appeared, to stop endless scrolling up and down a spreadsheet. And I’ve written a draft methods chapter. Of course discovering three papers about content analysis that I had forgotten to include means that sections need re-writing already, but that’s the way it goes I suppose!

I had a good and productive weekend of PhD-ing. Not only did I overcome the urge to clean everything in sight, but I also managed to fix some of the problems with this computer, fix the fairly major problem with my little Asus EEE PC, and I read some philosophy and history of science without falling asleep at my desk.

I’m pretty chuffed at that. I have now re-registered officially for next year, too.

I did spend some time printing a nice flowery cover page for my PhD journal, to record what I have done each session, and more importantly, what I am about to do next. This seems like the best way to keep my momentum going, and saves me having to start my thought processes from a complete cold start each time.

I re-read my first year literature review in full for the first time yesterday. It’s pretty dire – not only are my sentences convoluted, but several are nonsense.  I’ve scribbled notes-to-self all over it and will be rectifying some of these glaring problems as I add in new research uncovered this year.

I probably should not have left it so long, but it was a salutory lesson in re-reading one’s own work when one is less invested in it. Or indeed had forgotten all but the major themes.

Variously interesting links from del.icio.us