Showing posts with label thesis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label thesis. Show all posts

Sunday, 7 August 2011

Winding up

There are several finishing points for a PhD:
Tomorrow I take the copies to the Research School, and I'll contact some of the gatekeepers to my case studies to offer them copies too. On Tuesday, I'm told that the university has congregation at which they agree the award of degrees, and thus the degree of PhD will be awarded to me in absentia. Then the Research School will invite me to attend one of the degree ceremonies, which being the OU could be in the UK (Portsmouth, Milton Keynes, London Barbican for example) or in Dublin or Versailles. How nice.

But the winding up is a long process. It's taken six months since submission, six months of juggling other things in my life, including new paths - winding up one and looking for a new path.

A new path might be a post in the OU - I'd like that - perhaps I'll find an opportunity to develop research from my PhD, something to do with government IT perhaps stemming from last week's Parliamentary committee report. Now that would be exciting - a new start after a long finish.

Monday, 1 August 2011

Bound copies

That's it then. I've just emailed my pdf format thesis to the printer for printing and binding so that I can deliver the copies to the Research School next Monday morning, just in time to meet the date for the next conferring of degrees next week. If all goes to plan, I get the title in just about a week's time.

End of an era. Bye bye to my thesis.

Friday, 29 July 2011

Met academic requirements

I have an official letter:
"I am pleased to inform you that the University's Research Degrees Committee has confirmed that your thesis meets the criteria for the award of a research degree. You have therefore met the academic requirements for the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of The Open University, with effect from 27 July 2011."
Yah! Go me! I have to get bound copies of the thesis to the Research School in just over a week if I want the degree awarded in August, otherwise I have to wait till the end of September.

Saturday, 30 April 2011

Revising and writing papers

Phew! I just uploaded a conference paper "Cycles of Engagement", due in today!

Revising my work for the viva started with
  1. reviewing generic viva questions,
  2. then the more specific ones that came up in the mock viva.
  3. A third approach is to write a paper for a conference, and that's been the focus of my work over the last couple of weeks.
Of course, this conference paper for the Management Consulting Division biennial conference has got my supervisors' names on it, and deservedly so. After speaking with someone from the MCD at the Academy of Management conference last August, I was encouraged to present at the PhD consortium, but once I approached the MCD they suggested I presented a paper at the full conference. I wrote a proposal, and they accepted it, to my surprise and delight. But I shouldn't be so surprised, because now at the end of my PhD, I know what I have to say, so perhaps I wrote a sensible and interesting proposal.

After the mock viva, my supervisors offered to help me to write this paper, and I'm glad they did, because, in the last few weeks, I've learned a lot from the way they write. One supervisor addressed the challenge of how to put all the richness and detail that makes a PhD study what it is - into just 8000 words, restructuring the original paper I wrote; the other has greatly improved the flow of the argument. Whenever am I going to learn to write like this!

Why write a paper before your viva? Because it:
  • helps you to identify the key points of your thesis,
  • makes you reread parts of your thesis,
  • helps you spot typos and mistakes before the examiner points them out to you
If the conference were before my viva, I'd also have practised speaking the points I'm learning by heart for the viva. But the viva is in May (probably) and the conference is in June. Look here for the paper if you want to read it because it's a good summary of my work.

I'll welcome constructive feedback, so do contact me through this web form.

Saturday, 5 March 2011

Implications for practitioners

Busy day:
  1. Computing tutorial given in morning
  2. Go to campus to office to collect final print of thesis to read again on Sunday
  3. Go out to black tie evening event
I get home between items 2 and 3 to have a phone call from a practitioner who's read my thesis, and has feedback for me. Wey hey! Am I pleased.

He tells me that I should use the six components of engagement to develop a checklist for specific actions on each component, so I get a set of ideas and develop practical guidelines in a handbook for practitioners. How cool is that? It sounds like a potential publication because he believes what I've written.

Now I just have to edit my thesis a bit in time for Monday.

Friday, 11 February 2011

Conclusion

In conclusion, this thesis provides useful insight that enhances understanding of engagement.

Tuesday, 30 November 2010

Full draft done

I have sent my supervisors all the chapters, with humble apologies for lack of articulateness on the conclusions, but reporting that I'd got someone else to read at least some of it to check for the cryptic clippedness that supervisor#1 dislikes in my style. My style has so changed, and I didn't realise until one reader said he'd had problems where I'd used 'combinations' as a noun. I had to go back to the theory I was using to check those authors also used the word as a noun, not as combining or combined. It is now so clear to me, but I've read that particular paper many times.

Supervisor #1 has come back all cheerful and praising that I've got it done to the time we'd agreed (took me three 60 hour weeks) and says not to worry about the conclusion as it usually takes a few iterations. Now I have to wait three weeks for their feedback.

Am I on the last 385 yards of this marathon?

Wednesday, 6 October 2010

Shell shocked

I always come out of supervisions feeling slightly shell shocked and unable to do anything for 24 hours. It is slight consolation that supervisor had the same feelings when she was doing her PhD.
However, my Facebook friends console me.

Informatics Friend: Once you recover, do you find the content was useful and usable?

Me: I do something different as a consequence, so the content is used. But these discussions are so mind challenging that it takes time to use the content.

IF: Being stimulated is good :-)

Psychologist Friend: Know what you mean.

Me: In summer I wrote 5 case studies, and sups said don't structure the thesis with these 5 chapters, rewrite them as four chapters, analysing across cases by addressing four developing ideas. I gave them those 4 chapters last week, but they don't like it done cross-case like that and they want a different structure - more like the first effort.

IF: Which I hope you've got saved somewhere.

Successful OUBS Phd Friend: That is so annoying. Don't they realise you haven't got endless time to indulge their whims!

Me: And the final comment was, "you don't seem to be making much progress". So I don't think I'll be able to submit before Christmas

IF: Which do you think is the better structure? Would there be any value in just outlining it and trying to get some quick reactions rather than going through the pain of writing several chapters to have them 'not liked' again?

I know all this is ahead of me, but I guess there is something in this around who actually owns your thesis and the structure of it - and whether you are happy with changing/conflicting advice.

Good luck!

Me: Outlining is what we discussed, now I have to implement it. I can see where they're coming from, but until I'd written it this way, they, none of us could have seen that it wasn't going to work. Now, it's clear that it doesn't read well that way, so I have to write it another way, and just slightly different from what I did in summer. The slight difference also means that it will integrate more with the methodology, and lead to the conclusion. I see them every four or five weeks, which gives me 3-4 weeks to get stuff to them, then they're very good at reading and commenting. Their changing/conflicting advice is because they're moving on in their understanding of my research as I write it - and I do write and give them stuff, which is why I'm upset by the comment about my progress as if I weren't working.

IF: If they could have said something like - it must feel as if you are not making much progress, but actually it is because of all the work you have done that the way ahead is becoming clearer...

I guess they were wanting to encourage and empathise but it came out all wrong - lessons in this for all of us who try to mentor, tutor or teach!

Are you able to edit your previous work rather than having a major re-write - and are there other chapters you can work on in parallel to draw out that integration?


Me: Oh yes, IF- that's the way it could have been said. It's a major edit rather than a major rewrite because I've written it all before, and filed discards in a discard folder. What will take time is editing the drawings that I use to show the thread through the thesis. So it's like
  • in spring I had skeins of wool and didn't know what I was going to knit,
  • by summer I'd started on a pullover,
  • but in autumn, now I realise it should be a cardigan, and the sleeves are too short, so I have the right colours and know what who has to fit, but need to unpick, redesign and knit more.
PF: Yes, you need to look at the positives and try not to worry about the negative. You have made progress - you've started knitting and now you have a better idea of the final garment

Wednesday, 8 September 2010

Thesis structure

Thesis contents
1. PROBLEM
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
3. METHODOLOGY
4. Case studies description 4,500 words
5. Case studies discussion 15,000 words
6. Case studies emerging behaviour 9,000 words
7. Findings 10,000 words
8. CONCLUSION

And it will be done! I'm polishing chapter 7 (or rewriting it entirely), and have still to write the chapters in block capitals.

Thursday, 11 February 2010

Planning thesis

Fellow OUBS post graduate (FOPG) and I were comparing notes. We're both doing qualitative research in the public sector and we're both planning our thesis chapters.
  • FOPG's written an outline of an A4 page for each chapter, in which she outlines the content; I've written around half a page for each chapter.
  • FOPG's including her case study material in the methodology chapter, but I'm planning on a separate chapter for my case studies. Therein lies an interesting difference, because she's got twenty small case studies whilst I've got five in-depth case studies.
  • FOPG has only one interview usually for each case study, and her biggest case has three interviews whereas my cases have at least three interviewees.
  • FOPG's analysis chapter will be separate from her case descriptions; my analysis will be part of the case studies chapter.
  • FOPG's using grounded theory; I'm building theory around the existing literature on engagement, having drawn up a theoretical framework that I'm using to code against. The consequence is that she has to iterate over her work to identify themes, whereas I'm working against pre-identified themes, though open to new themes. So her methodology chapter is more important to her arguments whereas mine is probably less important than the literature review that justifies my framework.
  • FOPG hasn't yet blocked in word counts; I've suggested word counts for each chapter.
  • FOPG recognises that the maximum length is 100,000 words whereas I'm planning at around 70,000 believing that appendices, references and verbosity will add another ten or fifteen thousand.
  • FOPG's aiming to submit a draft 25th June; I'm aiming for 1st July. So we're not far apart.
My plans have been influenced by Patrick Dunleavy's book and Rowena Murray's.

Can we do it? FOPG's discussing her plans with her supervisors this week; I'm discussing plans with my supervisors at the beginning of March. In the meantime, we're writing.

Watch this blog.


Dunleavy P. 2003. Authoring a phd : How to plan, draft, write and finish a doctoral thesis or dissertation. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke ; New York.
MURRAY, R. (2002) How to write a thesis, Buckingham ; Philadelphia, Open University Press

Tuesday, 26 January 2010

Reading PhD theses

Supervisor tells me to read PhDs to get examples of how to write mine. Unfortunately, it's not so easy to get PhDs to read. If you go to the Open University library, you have to ask for a particular thesis, which means you have to give the library the title and the author, and then the librarian goes and fetches it for you. You can't just browse theses. So it's a bit difficult to find useful theses when what you want is to see the content, the structure, the layout, and perhaps what the author has addressed when writing the methodology chapter. These aren't things you can search for on an electronic database, so there's no point in going on the OU catalogue system to look for a helpfully structured thesis because the catalogue can only search for content and topic of theses.

The OU has this wonderful repository of research, Open Research Online, but that doesn't reveal theses. You'd think that the Open University would have got round to putting its PhD theses on line, like Cranfield does.

Tuesday, 12 January 2010

Planning gestation

I've got nine months left of funding to produce this baby.

Monday, 4 January 2010

Freezing!

Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
facebooked a post grad colleague today. I'm shivering at home in the study in the sitting room corner, where the temperature started at 13 degrees this morning, and took to lunchtime to reach 19. But it's as well I didn't go into the office. According to those who did go in, the heating wasn't on, and it was freezing there. You can't work cold over a computer.

And some bright lecturer teased my coldness facebooking me:
"phew, lucky that the speed of your fingers typing your thesis is scorching the keyboard and warming the room up then... :-)"
I wish!

Thursday, 22 October 2009

Draft thesis

Following Rowena Murray's advice again, I attempted short answers to each of these eight questions on my thesis. They summarise the thesis as it is in October 2009

Who are the intended readers?
• Supervisors
• Examiners
• Participants
• Public sector employees and mangers
• Consultants

What did you do?
  • interviewed public servants and sometimes their consultants and contractors on IT projects.
  • read any available project documentation and relevant documentation on the organisation.

Why did you do it?
because public servants provide important services that we need done and I want to know how they use external consultants to get a good job done, how they work with those consultants to add value to an IT project. IT Projects are particularly interesting because of the extension of e-government and the extent and complexity of IT projects.

What happened?
I found out about some IT cases in a variety of organisations including a council, an island, and central government. I spoke to 20 people, recording 17 interviews. Some interviews were ad hoc with individuals, but most interviews related to a particular project.

The consultants actively sought to engage with relevant clients. If there was a problem with a client, then consultants engaged either with each other or with other clients to find a way round problems to achieve the project aim, with or without the problem client.

What do the results mean in theory?
Engagement has been for this research perceived as a dyadic relationship that when it occurs can add value to an IT project by furthering its aims more effectively.

Engagement when it lacks can be evaded by bridging the circle, using other relationships to get a job done. But that means that engagement depends on pre-existing social capital.

Easier engagement makes for easier transfer of knowledge.

What do the results mean in practice?
To a project bring people that have some pre-existing structural relationship with others, so that they can build new relationships on that and it makes for easier engagement.

A variety of people come with a variety of skills and some need social skills in order to engage and transfer knowledge so ensure each group of skills includes someone who is willing and able to share knowledge.

What’s the key benefit for readers?

• Fun to read
• Shared knowledge help them plan and manager their IT projects
• Err - I'm still thinking

What’s unresolved?
• The expense of maintaining social capital.
• How it gets started in the first place
• What else is unresolved is how engagement influences systems development. More evidence is needed – but mighty interesting.

Saturday, 22 August 2009

Acknowledgement

Discovered on reading her recent PhD thesis
Initiations, interactions, cognoscenti: social and cultural capital in the music festival experience
that our fellow PG includes us in her acknowledgements:
"Thanks especially to my fellow coffee-drinking PhD students who kept me going: Ann, Ting, Tom, Liz, Dannie, Ross and Dan"
How nice!

Who would you acknowledge?

Friday, 22 May 2009

PhD theses I've read

Pugh says in order to find how to write a thesis, a student should aim to read two or three theses a year. So far I've read:
  • Diana White on a systems view of project management for how she used systems theory, and because her supervisor told me it was a good thesis.
  • Kirstie Ball on surveillance for her structure because she wrote on several case studies as I do (or hope to have)
  • Lupson on accountability because his PhD was filling a gap in the literature on accountability in the public sector
  • Someone on consultants, which was a pain to read because I could only get a microfiche copy
  • Marsh on the Feminine in Consulting because she wrote on consultants. But in fact it's not her PhD I've read, only the contents, because I'd have to go to Lancaster to see the original in the library; it's not available electronically. pooh! But she's written a book from her thesis and it's very readable. so I got the OU library to get a copy and that's what I'm reading.

Thursday, 21 May 2009

Writing your thesis

Writing your thesis was the title of a PG seminar today. The format was simple: four post grads sat at the top table and explained how they'd got this far.
  1. One PG had just submitted and not yet had her viva. She advised keeping notes whenever you were formulating ideas. Discuss your ideas, do posters, join research groups, talk with fellow students. Network with fellow researchers, such as the OU network here. Her end problems had been with Word not coping with long documents that held Endnote references, but crashed or printed in hieroglyphics. It might be worth adapting the project plan to allow 60 hours a month for writing in the last six months, and allow a month for supervisors to read each draft.
  2. Another had got through her viva with minor corrections a few months ago. She waved her handwritten research journal at us. She had tabs and markers all over it, said that she would go back to it for ideas, and to see how how her ideas had developed.
  3. A third had finished, had her viva some years ago, but had been given major corrections. She had had to remove all phrases, 'It could be argued...', as well as restructure whole chapters. She was allowed a year, and had to email the chapters to the external as she made the changes, so had to keep a record of what version she was using. She also had an emotional reaction to the criticism, hated the examiner, but she said that in the end she had a better piece of writing.
  4. The fourth speaker - I don't know when she'd done hers, but her theme was for students whose first language was not English. She recommended a book for students to get: 'Supervising post grads from non-English speaking backgrounds'.
Question: What's the examiner looking for?
Answer: See the OU research students handbook. This link goes to it if you can log into the OU intranet. For a PhD, it says:
"A thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy must be a significant contribution to knowledge, worthy of publication and giving evidence of your ability to undertake further research without supervision."
Finally, an academic spoke - said he was there to defend the supervisors. He'd done his PhD so long ago, that he'd handwritten it, given it to his mother to type, and there was no software to struggle with, or to use for references.

Then there were questions.
Question: something about the literature
Answer: Keep up with the literature and draw in from widely different journals and areas.

Question: Is learning to use Endnote worth the effort?
Answer: Yes, because a) you'll have all your references in one place, b) you need only press a button to change the format, e.g. all the titles to italic, c) you don't want to be proof reading references. (I had a problem of that with minor corrections to my references in my MRes.)

Question: How do I get to start writing a chapter or a paper?
Answer: This was an interesting answer because successful PG #2 leaped up to the flip chart and sketched a circle on it. You start with the question(s) you're trying to address, make your claims, bring in the evidence you have available then evaluate. But this is an iterative, not a sequential process. You can then bring in the concepts from the literature that inform your claims, and use qualitative or quantitative evidence that you've collected as part of your research. She advised evaluating using Dunleavy's advice. I've mentioned him before, here and here but I don't know what he has to say on evaluation.

This was a seminar that provided much food for thought, so was worth going to.


Dunleavy P. 2003. Authoring a phd : How to plan, draft, write and finish a doctoral thesis or dissertation. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke ; New York.

Tuesday, 24 February 2009

Colleague submits

Linda has fetched her several copies from the printer's and delivered them to the research office today. The examiner is selected and she expects her viva in a month or so.

Wednesday, 24 December 2008

Synopsis

A rolling synopsis of your thesis is something you should write in your first year, advised Dunleavy. My brother swapping Christmas presents gave me the book as a 'mitbringsel' [1] last week, and it is indeed a good read. However, it is also scary. For instance in chapter three, Dunleavy says you should write a rolling thesis synopsis of three or four pages, and that you do this in your first year onwards. That's what's scary because I hadn't even thought of that and my supervisors hadn't mentioned it and I haven't done it - hadn't. I have now. I had to think about it for some days, but supervisor #2's advice to write up my case studies with my research questions in mind gives me a structure:
  • Chapter 1 about consultancy and the public sector
  • Chapter 2 the conceptualisation of engagement in the literature
  • Chapters 3-7 address each of my research question in turn
  • Chapter 8 conclusions
Now I just need to put together the 80,000 words to answer my research questions, and collect the data and analyse it.

[1] A mitbringsel is a small present for no particular reason but that you bring with you when you visit someone.