Lethargy sets in

The part time job I've had since April finishes next week. My post-grad registration finishes next month. I've nothing to do and nothing to say, and I'm nearing the end of a dismal day and there seems to be nothing beyond. I wish something would fall into the pond.

See http://www.poetry-online.org/noyes_daddy_fell_into_the_pond.htm

Life after PhD

Cloudworks is showing a conference or a seminar this morning that features ex-PhD students and what they're doing, how they moved on, and what in their PhD helped them to get work afterwards.

See voices of experience.

DTW Rigour and reviewing

How are you going to demonstrate rigour in your research?
In the doctoral training workshop, our small group suggested (after a discussion about the meaning and spelling of 'rigorous'):

• an obedience to rules
• following instructions rigoursly
• consistency
• validity
• reliability

The class suggestions were:
Before data collection: Address own bias, Be consistent with the research question, Be objective, Justify the methodology, Have awareness of the literature in the field

After data collection Triangulate, Be repeatable, Repeat experiments to make sure Use methods consistently, Compare with other’s work, Analyse from a different perspective, Know limitations, Find other explanations

Always Following the training rules, Be convincing, Demonstrate external validation

The answer taken from Research Skills for Policy and Development [1]:

1. To show that you have enough evidence to justify your conclusions
2. That evidence has been obtained properly and that contrary evidence has been sought, but either not found or found to be relatively unconvincing.

See slides that they'll post on the web site later.

Ways of doing research

Maybe have a section in the PhD dissertation about the way of researching, e.g.:

• observing,
• two-way interactions e.g. semi-structured interviews
• participation.

See rules for rigourous research in Glassich, Huber & Maeroff, 1997 [2]

Some questions that a reviewer might be required to ask of a paper:

1. whether there's evidence to support the claims
2. whether the claims are relevant and topical
3. accuracy of the numbers or quotations
4. ethics of publication
5. credible references
6. relevance of the topic (journal/field/fashion)
7. originality might be desirable but not required
8. limitations
9. clarity of ideas
10. findings justified
11. structure
12. abstract

---

[1] Research Skills for Policy and Development: How to Find Out Fast (Published in association with The Open University) by Alan Thomas and Giles Mohan (Paperback - 16 May 2007) at http://amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_w_h_?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Research+Skills+for+Policy+and+Development
[2] Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate (Special Report) by Charles E. Glassick, Mary Taylor Huber, and Gene I. Maeroff (Paperback - 15 Aug 1997)

Phd skills audit

A couple of the directors of research studies (Geoff & Marion) delivered us a session on skills that we should have by the end of the three years of PhD studies. The list of skills gives seven (A to G) headings to these on the Joint Research Councils' web site. The one that matters to me is:

Research Skills and Techniques

This includes research problems, thinking, methods, reviewing, documenting and reporting, which are not skills that I have much experience of, whereas the other areas I have practised to some extent.

There is also a page for the supervisors on assessment where students can check what they'll be assessed on (in theory). However, after supervision yesterday, I have the impression that my supervisors are not aware of this web site nor or their formal role in skills audit. Supervisor #1 and I discussed some of the headings from a print out of the list of seven headings, and I think we'll have a fairly informal approach. That suits me fine.