Doing a part-time PhD

Doing a PhD is a massive challenge regardless, but when it is carried out part-time the challenge is magnified as we try to fit the research and writing of the thesis in alongside a job, family and broader life.

I did my PhD part-time between 1997 and 2004. Unlike full-time students there is little opportunity to engage with other students. Visits to the university tend to be focused on supervision time or trips to the library to pick up self-generated reading lists.

To alleviate this, I developed a supportive network which I described in the thesis. Here is an edited version of that writing. Some of the support methods are equally useful in other settings.

Mentor support

Conversations with three mentors had given me three very different perspectives to reflect upon. One of these was in the NHS, one in a university and the other was a freelance consultant. In each case, the ideas that I was working with had been mirrored and placed within their own theoretical frame of reference. The material that I had collected from these people was rich, and would support the development of theory that was evolving as I unravelled the case studies.

As well as these mentors, I was also supported by two forms of supervision, a set of peers and a networking group.

Supervision

The two principal sources of mentoring and guidance in the form of supervision came from my academic supervisor and my work supervisor both of whom met with me regularly throughout the period of the study. It was the subtle reactions of these two people to the theories as they developed that helped to shape the overall direction.

Clearly, these two people also provided feedback on the development of ideas in ways similar to the three mentors.

Support from others doing PhDs

The other group that contributed to the idea formation were a small number of peers who commented and provided support as things evolved.

Some of these people were also pursuing their own areas of study. This network helped me to continue to ground the work. It must be very difficult to carry out a study that looks at subjective and objective data as inputs without having a group to support the work and provide regular feedback.

Learning Sets

As well as the individuals who provided this input on a one-to-one basis, there was also a group of people who I formed at the beginning of the study. This initiative was developed around a loosely formed framework, the Creative Leadership Learning Sets. The original idea had been to form a learning set of 10 to 12 people in senior management, below executive level, who would explore the concept of creativity and leadership in a non-hierarchical group. In fact the response to the initiative was so significant that some 70 people formed a number of groups which met over a period of a year. The groups came together at the end of the initiative to celebrate the relative successes and failures of the approach.

I kept a parallel learning diary of each of the meetings of the group I attended, which sat alongside the Learning Journals for the Research, and provided additional material from which to draw.

The support network in its entirety

Those involved in the network came from a range of backgrounds within and beyond the NHS. Some were involved to ensure that they clarified NHS policy, others were involved for their intellectual contribution, others for the diversity of background and experience. Some were involved on an individual basis, others within a group.

This was not a cosmetic function. The network was a key element of the “reality checking”, or the triangulation methods adopted to test out the perceptions as they materialised. Given the potentially subjective nature of the techniques I used in the research, the ‘network’ was one method by which to sound out the products of the Archetypal Casting Toolkit (this was the unique product of the research) and ensure that its outputs were archetypally based rather than ego-focused.

[Thinking of doing a PhD and want to chat it through – get in touch. I’m always happy to help you to decide whether to go ahead.]