Input v. Output

The problem with doing part-time doctoral work (which I am at the moment, hopefully I'll be moving to full-time in the autumn) is that it's quite hard to gauge whether you're working hard enough. With full-time study, like my research MA, it seemed easier to calibrate - every day for the core hours. Since I started last October, I've never quite decided if it's better to work for a while every day, or condense the effort into larger blocks. The problem with the former approach is that one is just getting into the swing of things when it's time to do something else. the drawback with the latter is that it's difficult to know when to stop. Consequently my research efforts tend to veer from all-out 9-5 (until I get tired, p*ssed off or confused) to days and days of consecutive idleness. Still, even that works out as part-time in its own way! I guess many dedicated doctoral students will furrow their brow and wonder why I don't want to devote every waking moment to it (and there are a lot of pretty humourless beard-strokers out there), but I believe it's all about pacing oneself, appropriate effort, a sense of proportion and having a life. Academia does take itself very seriously, but there again so does building services, or sanitation, or quantity surveying. The inward-turning eye cannot appreciate the magnitude (or otherwise) of the subjects in its field of vision. The objective eye finds the mote therein risibly small. Thus it is necessary to reassess one's output continually, rather than concentrate on the input effort. As my supervisor thinks that I have produced 'eminently' enough work for a student of part-time status, I must be getting it approximately right! Now that I know some potential funding is on the horizon, I have to say that I am now looking forward to going back to full-time study. I'm much better working under a bit of pressure: Less time for procrastination, which as we all know, is the thief of time.