Sunday, 4 January 2009

What's wrong with this proposal? or right?

I have to rush to get a proposal together for the May EURAM conference doctoral colloquium, which has to be in by 12 January along with:
  • a letter of recommendation from my supervisors,
  • my CV,
  • my letter of motivation (what on earth is one of those!) and
  • a signed statement stating that "in the case of acceptance for the doctoral colloquium I have the funding and will definitely participate in the doctoral colloquium".
So I've abandoned my transcribing and analysis, and have got the outline of my proposal together. It will be useful to submit it because if you get it in and accepted then they send it out to other participants to read and then you get feedback on it at the colloquium, and that could be really useful. Mind you, what I'm submitting is the proposal for the research that I've already started, and I don't have the time to submit findings, but by May, I'll have findings and a better idea of what I've found. Nevertheless, getting good feedback will be helpful and still in time to use it to amend research questions, case study approach or method of analysis or what literature I need. And they promise you that each discussion group is supervised by a senior researcher. It should be really useful. So I'll get opinions from several sensible people on what is wrong or right with my work.

If you're interested, here's the pdf for the doctoral colloquium. Will you be there?

No comments: