She is an academic, researcher and activist with substantial experience in gender and human rights issues. She has country knowledge and experience of working in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Serbia, Denmark, Mexico and the United Kingdom. Ritu is a founder and moderator of the South Asian Sexual Health (SASH) Forum and an Editor of the AIDS-ASIA eForum.

She is also the Director of Spatial and Social Development Perspectives – UK.

http://ritumahendru.wordpress.com/about/

http://mishtimli.blogspot.com/

Priyali: Hi Ritu, welcome to the “Let’s Talk” blog which is a platform for people within higher education and those simply interested in it, to talk about the things that concern us.

First off, many congratulations on completing your doctorate in Sociology. Would you like to comment on your early career experiences now that you’ve got it under your belt? What are your career plans, and what do you think of the present job market in the UK and outside it?

Ritu: Thanks Priyali. As you are aware, opportunities for PhD graduates are sporadic. I have not had much success in securing a full time academic position in the UK, something that I was looking forward to after finishing my PhD. However, I have specific engagements with various UK universities. Elsewhere, I am in negotiation with universities to establish international programmes – this is a lengthy and time consuming process.

Preferably, I would like to teach Gender and Public Health from sociological perspectives, and engage myself in social research simultaneously. I do have a company and would like to keep that as a tool to continue my engagement with countries like India, Afghanistan, South Africa etc. It may appear that I am adhering to the doctrine of utilitarianism. However, the job market in the UK is bleak so I have created a job for myself and carved my own path. I am hoping that one day the situation within UK universities will change, and I will have a full-time position at a University here.

Priyali: What or whom do you hope to influence with your work as a social science researcher?

Ritu: I wouldn’t necessarily like to influence anyone. Instead, I would like to facilitate and/or provide space for discussions on the issues of migration, gender and health. This would create knowledge of social marginalization through theoretical and methodological understanding. I am interested in the conceptualisation of diasporas and health and how the two are deeply interlinked. I made initiatives to enable this dialogue and founded SASH – an online forum that attempts to address the sexual health needs of migrants  and diasporic communities in the UK.

Next post: 7 March. Dr. Mahendru comments on being able to work across cultures, and on career planning for doctoral researchers.

I think he meant by this that there is a craft and a science to producing that finished piece of work, whatever the discipline.  When the moment comes that you submit, defend and are finally awarded a doctorate by your examiners, you are being recognized as a worthy peer by the academy.

What is it then in your hands to do with the piece of work you have invested several years of your life in?

Publication – yes, but in what form and with whom? I was approached shortly after being awarded my doctorate by a company that wanted to publish my thesis. However, they did not have a peer review process. A friend of mine was similarly approached, and accepted. But she is a communications professional. The value of having her work out in book form supercedes the necessity of peer review. For someone like me who is building a career in scholarship, peer review makes the difference between work that will stand me in good stead when being considered for a lectureship, and work that may not carry so much weight.

How do you find the right publisher and the right audience for your work? Who will hold the copyright and for how long? How long will it take to appear in print?

To all researchers – please consider this an open call to write in with publication questions and answers. The greater our knowledge, the better our decisions.

In my last post I looked at the issue of teaching modules which may seem to be at some distance from the discipline in which you did your research.

From amongst a wide circle of friends and colleagues who are both research active and teaching-active – to coin a new phrase – I’d say it’s extremely important to acknowledge that flexibility is both a personal and professional good. A friend who was awarded her doctorate in 2006 found a permanent teaching post within twelve months of completing. Her lectureship was not in History which was her “home” discipline if you like but in Criminology – she was able to develop a subsidiary interest into one which she could use as a foundation for her career.

In my present teaching post where the focus is on English for Academic Purposes, language and study skills  although I am not teaching literature, I find myself drawing upon my doctoral research constantly. Accuracy, structure and space for the imagination – are the three things I would name as the basis of every class I teach.

To put it another way – the proof of the research commitment is in the teaching practice.

Here’s to all researchers and teachers, as they seek to bring two worlds together : ).

To coin a metaphor, it’s rather like preparing a one course meal from the grand banquet you prepared for a once-in-a-lifetime festival. What to put in? More importantly – what to leave out? Most ironically, it is becoming clear to me that this whole process is in a sense the opposite of what it took to produce the thesis itself.

Let me explain with reference to the actual context. As a scholarly writer my great struggle has always been – to find the right design and the right connecting axes for my argument. Structure, structure, structure. Words and ideas rushed in on me  – but the simple and absolute necessity of putting each one in the right place occupied my days and nights.

However that story doesn’t concern us for the purposes of this post – somehow, like other survivors of this marathon, I found a way through this terrain and at an unsuspecting moment reached my destination. Aspects of this journey have been discussed elsewhere on this site by Heather http://www.jobs.ac.uk/blogs/phd-student/2011/06/15/what-makes-a-phd/ and Kat http://www.jobs.ac.uk/blogs/language-and-literature/2011/05/30/world-building-with-mind-mapping/. My own work now is to scale down – to sift through the first chapter of the thesis and produce a unified miniature – something which will tell the reader what I feel it is important for them to know about the forty two year poetic career of my subject:  D.L. Richardson. A British-born poet and teacher who, like many of that generation of Anglo-Indians, lived between nineteenth-century Calcutta and London. The first time around it took me 20,000 words.

Hm.

Well…the FIRST thing I’m doing is to follow my supervisor’s advice to “write what you need to write.” I mean that I’m following the mysterious, rational and more than rational shaping instinct which allowed me to form a view of Richardson’s life in the first place – I’m combing through the chapter and cutting and pasting the sentences and passages which form an outline of his poetic life into a new document. It’s amazing how your focus changes with your word count –like packing a smaller suitcase.

The SECOND thing – is that I’m making space for change. Putting in the final full stop was definitely not the end of my thinking about Richardson, the nineteenth century or the Romantic movement. It was a stage in the development of that thinking, and I would like the finished chapter to reflect that ongoing growth.  Nothing complicated about this – I’m simply adding in new thoughts and ideas as I go along in brackets containing both short, haiku-like questions and long, rambling ones (nothing like the bracket for relieving the military precision of linear sentences, eh?).

The THIRD thing is– carving out and creating time to deal with the copyright permissions I’m going to need to get and the formatting of the chapter in accordance with a new (to me) set of style rules.  

And – finally – given the hours, energy and patience this takes, I make time to remember why I’m doing this. The joy of work can seem very far away after hours at a stretch on my laptop – so I need to remember that ,in fact, I’m recovering – or rather helping to recover – the life and hopes  of a real person. And presenting him to an audience that probably would never otherwise come across his work or feel any relationship to it.

I had a look at one or two commentaries in the library and was reassured to see that they aren’t too scary, more a chance to talk about wonderful stories and inspirational writers who have influenced a writer’s own work. But where to start?

I came to the PhD with a useful amount of background reading already done — loads of texts that I love and which definitely influence my writing, from non-fiction like The Artist’s Way by Julia Cameron to surf fiction like Breath by Tim Winton and Welsh writing in English novels such as my favourites by Niall Griffiths (Grits, Sheepshagger and Runt).

It’s all really varied stuff, in terms of perceived literary merit, age, subject matter, audience, themes and so on. So how on earth am I going to synthesise all this material? I have some idea of how I want to analyse each text in terms of my research questions, but I also want to look at how I write, and for that I need to look at storytelling in general.

My supervisor recommended that I read The Writer’s Journey by Christopher Vogler, almost a textbook for film students and Hollywood employees. It’s ‘a practical guide for designing and troubleshooting stories’ (xi) — in all forms, not just film. The author is at pains to point out that this is not a formula, but an exploration, via Joseph Campbell, of the simple idea that: ‘All stories consist of a few common structural elements found universally in myths, fairy tales, dreams, and movies.’ (1).

He might well have added ‘novels’ to that list. Straight away I was excited, because my story is all of the above (except, at this embryonic stage, a record-breaking Hollywood blockbuster…).

Vogler’s book is an attempt to map the stages that stories present, and the way that mirrors human life and experience. I was skeptical about putting all stories into a mould or formula, but Vogler stresses that ‘It should be used as a form, not a formula, a reference point and a source of inspiration, not a dictatorial mandate’ (xix).

The simple structure that he explains is amazing, an explanation in clear terms of something that readers — and in fact anyone who comes across stories in any medium and thinks about their creation — will instantly latch on to. It clarifies and helps with writing, and it’s fun to point out the different stages as seen in films or books — “Hey! That guy is definitely going to be a Mentor, and that pub is a Threshold for sure.”

It also, very helpfully, gives me and my supervisor a common vocabulary with which to discuss storytelling in general, and specifically my characters and the structure of my work.

For a theory, it is immensely accessible and well written, using clear and almost universally known film examples. If you write, you will begin to think in more detail about your own structure, and it may well help you to see where you are going wrong — where you should be challenging the heroine instead having another love scene or argument with a Guardian.

A recommendation worth its weight in gold for me, I hope it intrigues you enough to check it out of the library. I did, and instantly jumped on Amazon to get my own copy so I could cover it in sticky notes.

Vogler, C., 2007. Writerʼs Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers, Michael Wiese Production. Available at: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Writers-Journey-Mythic-Structure/dp/193290736X