This paper just about broke me last week.
The way I set this project up turned out to be a massive amount of work when it came time to match raw data to the measurement tool then input that into excel. I was having a panic attack at crunch time and had to be convcinced by a classmate (math major) to randomly select 6 of the 36 contributors as a smaller subset for the analysis. My professor thought that was sage advice as long as my sample analyzed 30 patches. The 6 random selections turned out to have 99 patches total, so that worked in my favor.
Other thoughts?
In the end, it did prove challenging but in a way that should have been expected (ok it was) because my professor informed me no other study with this focus exists.
My only real disappointment is it seemed a really cool idea in the beginning, but the final product is a very complex scientific document.
If any of you are interested in seeing it, it's too large to post here (32 pages), I would happily send it to your email as an attachment if you send me a PM with your email address.
I didn't have time to do a post-mortem with my instructor after submitting the paper and before the close of the semester but I emailed him to ask if he would review it with me in the fall to let me know what he thinks could have been done differently.
OH.... my grade for the class? A
I owe every one of you a great debt of gratitude!!!!