'Colin's Take on Evolving Question'

To put it simply... Colin did not like the idea of changing my question at all. His view is that my question is strong as 'To what extent can the scientific methods of predicting the movement and behaviour of extinct animals inform 3D fantasy creature development?' and that in changing it I am just broadening the question when I want it to be short and snappy.

He said it isn't important to have everything I'm doing written in the question as this will all be explained later in the abstract, his only concern is that I have too many objectives and need to combine them into 4.

1. Palaeontology/science Techniques Research.

2. Rigging Techniques Research.

3.Applying Techniques to Rigging of Creatures (including writing process manual, rigging and animation.)

4. Evaluation and Revise.

I mentioned that I feel Jim will have a problem with this as he has previously advised me to split the rigging and animation into two objectives...Colin then told me that Jim doesn't know much about animation and that it's not too important to go into that much detail. Also that it's fine to have two sets of objectives anyway, one for the Proposal and one for the Learning Contract as each lecturer with only come into contact with one of these...

Personally I feel I do need to cut down on the number of Objectives but am not sure which way to go about it, originally I was trying to think of a way to combine the 1st two so that all research activities are under one Objective. I also feel I don't really want to confuse myself with two sets of Objectives, but I guess it will be ok to just not go into as much detail with activities in the Proposal.

My main problem at the moment is that I don't know how to word an Objective that will group together all the Research, and looking at my Objectives and Activities at the moment nunber1. isn't all that clear or worded correctly to me.

This week I am also meeting Gregor, Lynn, Gordon, Jim and Robin so I shall get some more advice!