Today I had supervision and here is the protocol. We mainly discussed the revision of the ISP. I had sent out [a draft]() before and my supervisors had read and commented on it. Afterwards OJ and SI also sent me their feedback in written form whilst RL just provided me oral feedback during the supervision. The comments I received during the supervision can be summarized as:
- Kappa and portfolio, more important than ISP. ISP can be regarded as a stepping stone or like a formal, bureaucratic document that needs to be filled out but not given the same amount of attention as the other texts. It should however give a clear indication of thoughts, ideas and strategies that will eventually be written in more detail and with more thought behind in the kappa and the portfolio
- RL suggested that my contribution (with the thesis) will likely be more linked to methodology rather than any conceptual framework
- I need to better justify why and how study II was included and in what way it constitutes a complement to the other studies. This could be done separately towards the end of the document.
- Similarly, in the description of year III and year IV, describe more of what has been changed including the work-in-progress for study IV
- Educational courses - there will be no time for that so that can be written explicitly.
- I was given the suggestion to browse conferences and attend a conference around autumn 2022 - can attend even after the PhD is formally over.
- On page 4, I need to change from “study II” to “study III”
- I was recommended to start describing study IV with the aim rather than with the methodology (like I have done with the other studies) as
- “Completion rate” rather than “response rate”
Here below i have listed the written feedback I received from OJ and SI after the supervision: