Digital Dialogues

It's a PhD, not a Nobel Prize...

I attended a Graduate School workshop the other day on the PhD Examination process... really valuable session for those of us approaching the final stretch of the thesis journey..

In another session, I was invited to talk to new PhD & EdD students about some of the key issues in the doctoral process. Someone asked me who I was writing my thesis for... I was initially quite taken aback by the question. To me, it was obvious - the examiners! However, a couple of the other doctoral candidates had quite different perspectives on this... answers ranged from writing for themselves, to writing for a community within their discipline and so on...
But, if we look at the thesis itself - in Australia - that document is the final, examinable piece of written work from however many years of research it has taken you to arrive at - that's what 3 annonymous examiners will read, independently of each other, and base their reports and subsequent recommendations on...  So - why wouldn't I be writing my thesis for my target audience? My examiners?

Now - back at the exmaination workshop - Dave Boud, Dean of the Graduate School - referred to a paper: " 'It's a PhD, not a Nobel Prize': how experienced examiners assess research theses" Mullins & Kiley (2002)  (full reference below) !
This is a must read for any Australian PhD candidates preparing to sumbit their thesis!
The paper reports on a study of experienced examiners (having examined at least 5 theses over the last 5 years)  and their processes for making judgements... !
Here are a couple of findings I found valuable:

•  experienced examiners expect the thesis to pass
• experienced examiners spend 3 - 4 days fulltime examining a thesis - often over a period of  2- 3 weeks
• first impressions count! Most examiners come to a decision aoub the quality of a thesis by chapter 2
• most examiners read the abstract first, then the introduction, followed by the conclusion to guage the scope of the work - then look at the references
• questions the examiners have in mind as they read:
  How would they have tackled the problem?
  What questions would they like answers to?
  Do the conclusions follow on from the introduction?
  Is the bibliography up-to-date and substantial enough?
  Are the results worthwhile?
  How much work has actually been done?
  What is the intellectual depth and rigour of the thesis?
  Is this acutally research - is there an argument? (p.377)
• characteristics of a poor thesis as described by the examiners:
  lack of coherence
  lack of understanding of the theory
  lack of confidence
  researching the wrong problem
  mixed or confused methodological perspectives
  work that is not original
• the development of a well structured argument was one of the most highly valued aspects of a good thesis

In the discussion of the results Mullins & Kiley summarise the final judgement of a thesis as being determined by:

• the student's confidence and independence
• a creative view of the topic
• the structure of the argument
• the coherence of theorectical and methodoligical perspectives, and
• evidence of critical self-assesment by the student.

And the final comment sums it up really...
" A PhD is three years of solid work, not a Nobel Prize..." (p.386)

So - bummer - for all us who thought there might be a Nobel Prize at the end of the journey...

Reference: Mullins, G. & Kiley, M. (2002), It's a PhD, not a Nobel Prize: how experienced examiners asses research theses, Studies in Higher Education, 27, 4, pp.369-386

Powered by Qumana

DocWorks in elgg Spaces

The world has changed (in case it hasn't been brought to your attention lately!)!!
At UTS, in the Faculty of Education, all new Doctoral students will be using elgg Spaces as a Research Journal!!

This is huge - when only 3  - or was it 4 years ago? - my work with weblogs in education was.. well, viewed with suspicion or skepticism!!
Now we are embracing them as part of the Doctoral process and the contents will be submissible as part of a portfolio of evidence! Wow!

I did a workshop with the students on Saturday - and once everyone has logged in (a few technical hitches) - they're all preparing enthusiastically for the writing tasks ahead of them!

It's exciting - and thanks to Alison Lee for acknowledging the value and added dimension weblogs can provide the students throughout their doctoral process!

I'll write more on this as they progress...

OII Summer Doctoral Programme

Doctoral Programme 2006
Oxford (UK) - 15-29 July
ooh - now this looks like something my PhD could benefit from....

"...the Programme will bring together students from around the world to study with leading academics in the field of Internet Studies and to share and discuss their research. The Programme is designed both to stretch the thinking of all students on a range of issues central to the work of the Institute through seminars and lectures and to provide valuable advice and support for students' own research. Its aim is to enhance the quality and significance of students' thesis research and to establish a peer network of excellent young researchers."

oh oh, "young researchers"...now I wonder if they're talking about the age of the person, or the stage in their research career?
At UK1200 it's not particularly affordable for PhD students...plus an airfare from Australia .... however, as I generally spend July in Europe, perhaps it's worth considering....the value of studying cross discipline, globally and at Oxford is really rather appealing!

Applications close 20th Feb, 2006

The Doctoral Assessment Process

About half way through your PhD candidature at UTS, you are required to have your progress assessed.....

"This is to ensure that candidates are equipped with the knowledge and research skills to carry out their proposed research program, and have made sufficient progress to make it likely that they will finish in the prescribed time."

In other words - just to check how you're getting along.....
The process involves a presentation of a 1 hour seminar - which is not formally assessed - but attended by 3 supervisors - selected by your principal supervisor.

The seminar is about presenting your ideas and engaging in dialogue, and getting feedback that can further inform the research process. I've attended a number of these - as support to fellow PhD candidates and out of interest for my own presentation. Generally there has been very valuable and open discussions occuring - so really, there's nothing to be worried about.....yeah right!!!!

Now - the 2nd part - the written assessment:
A 10,000 word paper for the assessment panel that includes:

"...clear research questions, a comprehensive and critical literature review, a rationale for the research, an outline of and rationale for the research methodlogy, a discussion of ehtical considerations, a clear indication of a research schedule, and a consideration of possible problems...initial studies [findings] may also be reported."

So - the date is set - Friday 25 November.....and somehow before that time I need to mark 150 odd end of semester papers, present at the Learning Technologies 2005 conference (this week), chair the National Training day symposium, get to Melbourne for my mother's 80th birthday....and a few other things ....phew!

Tonight I'm presenting to the Community of Scholars on the preparation process for the Doctoral Assesment - hmmmm - should be interesting .... better plan that now....

Theory versus Practice

I discovered this excerpt from Sir Athur Conan Doyle's "The Yellow Face" the other day:

Holmes: What do you think of my theory?

Watson: It’s all surmise.

Holmes: But at least it covers all the facts. When new facts come to our knowledge which cannot be covered by it, it will be time enough to reconsider it.

Exactly, my dear Holmes, exactly! How pertinent to my current PhD situation this is!!!!

Dialogues?

After day 1 of BlogTalk 2.0 I'm finding more questions are I need to investigate:
The dialogue vs monologue is still a primary question - what are my students doing with their blogs - I still think they are starting as monolgues but progress to dialogue...Torill Mortensen discussed the difference and confusion of modalities that occur when we examine the blog as a written dialugue but read it as an oral dialogue.
An emergence of the communication modes...perhaps?

Is it Socratic dialogue - or do I influence that in the structured questions I use as we move through the stages of the blogging model?

Self-disclosure and the issue of fiction vs authenticity was raised - by Mark Bernstein. Is this an issue from the learning context - does the authenticity of the writing matter if the dialogue is indicated deeper levels of learning and meta-cognition?

The issue of honesty and truthfulness was raised a number of times. Elmine Wijnia presented her Masters thesis findings in the examination of blogs as a form of communication. Elmine used Habermas (J. Habermas (1985), Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society (T. McCarthy trans.), Beacon Press) and Van Djik (J.A.G.M. Van Dijk (1999), The Network Society: An Introduction to the Social Aspect of new media, Sage Publications Ltd) as models for her research. Again - honesty and truthfulness (authenticity vs fiction) was discussed. But does it really matter? I'm not sure it will from a learning journal perpsective...I will certainly review my model further from this framework..

That's all for now - lots more to write up and lots more questions to consider!

PhD blogging....or not...

I have been struggling with the shape and form for my PhD blogging - how will it inform my research? What value will it have - to my writing, to others? And on and on and on.....
As I started to read through the blogs of others attending BlogTalk 2.0, I was delighted to discover Lilia Efimova's blog and explore her PhD musings - thank-you Lilia, I think you have enlightened me and provided inspiration as to how I will develop my own blog.

Lilia's metaphor of the jigsaw puzzle is a picture most PhD students will relate to. For me, I've always viewed my PhD journey as a labyrinth or maze - lots of pathways, a few deadends but a clear end result...
Lilia outlines 4 steps to completing her jigsaw:

First I look at border pieces and try to make a frame out of them. Next I find pieces that stick together and make small "clouds" of them, trying to connect them to the frame if it is possible. Then big picture starts to emerge, "clouds" get connected with each other and with the frame. After that there are just a few empty spots and I fill them in with pieces that left.

I think I'm hanging around in the 2nd and 3rd stage - but I must say I consider Lilia's clouds more as "puddles" - every drop enlarges the puddle - eventually it could even turn into a pond, or perhaps a lake!!

Thanks for the inspiration Lilia!