Around this time last month, I officially and FINALLY completed my PhD. My dissertation was accepted without any revisions needed (something I'm told is rather rare). So I'm now officially Doctor Glen Farrelly - Doctor of Information.
I'm in the process now of searching for a job. I'm interested in positions in both academia and
industry. I'd love to work in areas related to digital media design,
user experience, and understanding user behaviour. Check out my
LinkedIn profile and please let me know of any good jobs!
Completing my doctorate was a long, laborious, and labyrinthine process. To borrow further from Greek mythology - it was a herculean task and at times even sisyphean that would make for a fine Greek comedy and tragedy simultaneously.
In the weeks leading up to my dissertation oral defense and before that with the months of work in researching, writing, and revising of the dissertation, I was engulfed and exhausted. So I have long neglected this blog. Yet, this blog was an important part of my PhD.
As I have blogged about before, this blog and the arrival of Web 2.0 sites such as Delicious, Facebook, and Twitter got me thinking more deeply about the power and possibilities of this new medium. Through blogging I began to research digital media topics and write about them. This and some other events lead me to want to pursue studying these topics at a higher level, so I decided to do a master's degree at Royal Roads.
The blog posts here and as later syndicated by Backbone Magazine helped provide a portfolio of my work as well as opportunity to refine and extend my writing. This helped me get into grad school. Then while at grad school, this blog provided an outlet for my ongoing research as well as a means to help recruit participants for my various studies (interviews on website accessibility adoption, a survey on mobile application usage, user ethnography on Foursquare, and finally my dissertation on locative media).
I've referred to my blog as a "research blog" and several people thought my academic blogging was quite innovative while others thought it was pointless (as only publications in A journals matter to them). I've been surprised by how few scholars have a research blog still today (well, maybe not that surprised considering how busy most academics are).
During my herculean/sisyphean labours my blog was here for me and it played a vital role in that process.
Going forward, however, I'm not sure the role that blogging will play for me. Over the years, I've lost a lot of motivation for creating user generated content - or as one scholar refers to it loser generated content. It's a huge time commitment without any compensation.
Regardless, I'm grateful for the outlet and opportunity that this blog has offerred me. Stay tuned.
Showing posts with label academia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label academia. Show all posts
Friday, March 17, 2017
Monday, November 14, 2016
Tips To Improve Written Work for Grad Students
Having worked in post-secondary education for over seven years now, I've become intimately acquainted and vastly disappointed with university students quality of written work. I'm not complaining here about such niceties of writing as avoiding passive voice or not splitting infinitives. Rather, I'm stunned by how many grad students don't achieve the absolute basics, such as putting their name on their work or stapling their paper together.
During one's undergrad courses, students can get by and even excel with bad writing. Yet, writing papers is the bedrock of all graduate degrees in the social sciences, humanities, and even the sciences. Regardless of who is to blame for one's poor written communication skills, at the graduate level it is essential that students take the initiative and master the basics.
Good written communication skills are not only essential to get through grad school, but are also essential for many careers, particularly the kinds that grad students desire. If students think writing papers will end after grad school, they will be stunned by the lifetime of writing reports, minutes, specs, or project documentation that will be in store for them in many careers. So it's worth the time and effort to learn how to do it!
So using my experienced gained from years of grading graduate students' papers, I've collected some tips on how to improve their written assignments. Below are various rules for written work.
All departments, faculties, or fields have a preferred academic style (e.g. APA, Chicago, MLA etc) that offers instructions on how to format papers, writing tips, and referencing rules. If a course syllabus or professor doesn't provide their preferred style ask them. Find the book, buy it, read it, highlight and bookmark it!
At times you will need to deviate from the official style (e.g., APA's rules about headers are absurd), but only do so with a good reason. Get permission from the professor when contemplating a major deviation from the official style.
#2 Follow the Rules for Your Class
Most professors have additional rules about formatting and items to include in assignments (e.g., a title page, end-notes, etc.). This is generally in the syllabus, but if it is not ask the professor for it.
For most academic writing, unless otherwise stated this means:
#3 Adhere To Assignment Requirements
Read through the assignment instructions provided at least five times. Highlight each passage that suggests you need to do something. Make a checklist out of these highlights and BE SURE to achieve them all. Professors (and in the working world, bosses) know what they are doing when they make assignments (they really do), so give them the benefit of the doubt and make your life easy by following their instructions. Also, don't feel that you can do something similar to the assignment, but not actually meet the assignment requirements. Similar is not okay. Follow the requirements.
If you really want to try something different, it's really easy to ask your professor for clarification or permission first.
Once you have achieved the requirements, going beyond them is almost always a good idea. But this does not mean you can ignore the assignment requirements. I've encountered a lot of brilliant students who thought they could do something else instead of the assignment - but they missed the goals of the assignment (and the importance of developing the skill of following instructions) and got lower grades than their mediocre classmates. If you think professors are inflexible about this, just wait until your boss asks you to do something and you do something else and tell him/her that it's just as good - you'll be lucky if your boss let's you explain your reasoning as you're being escorted out the door.
#4 Use Formal and Informal Styles Appropriately
Recognize that professional, academic, and personal writing are different. They have different purposes and thus different rules.
Granted, although there is a trend towards all three becoming increasingly informal. Still, it always helps to consider your audience and write for them. For example, take something as simple as contractions. If you are writing to impress your boss or professor, it is almost always a good idea to use a more formal tone and formal grammar rules. It's true that contractions are not a big deal any more, but it wasn't that long ago that they were verboten - so do not use them. Did you notice how I combined contractions and full forms in the same sentence above - that's even worse, isn't it?
#5 Read Elements of Style (or a similar book)
This book by Strunk and White was referred to me by a former professor and it remains the best book I've encountered to help one improve their writing. It is a quick and easy read and not a grammarian's impenetrable tome. It's useful to read cover to cover and then refer to it as needed when writing.
For example, most students I have encountered do not know the correct way to use a comma. It's not a big deal, but at the graduate level seemingly small grammar and punctuation rules start to really matter.
#6 Don't Describe, Analyze
In academic writing, you to demonstrate your intellectual abilities as applied to the course material. Unless otherwise instructed, avoid simply describing something and instead show your critical thinking. Strive for the highest level you can achieve with your writing. From lowest to highest:
Only use them, if you it is a term that repeats a lot in your paper and even then spell it out in full upon first usage and put the short form in parenthesis. For informal writing, you can use acronyms that aren't of crucial importance if the short-form is very well known, such as the CBC or IT Dept, or if it is a common term in your discipline. Even then, it never hurts to write out in full upon first usage.
Avoid long blocks of unbroken text
Remember the grade school rule of one paragraph per topic. Academics of old horrifically violated this rule in the hope that by obfuscating their work they would appear more intelligent. A passage of text that goes on unbroken for a page - or more! - is not intelligent, it's impenetrable. New topic; new paragraph. It's a simple as that.
Vary your sentence length
Those academics of old also erroneously believed that long sentences also reflected the vast complexity of their erudition. Long sentences don't make you seem smarter; they most likely are just run-on sentences that are just grammatically incorrect at best and horrifically impenetrable at worst.
Include a title page
Even if your professor doesn't specifically ask for it in the syllabus or assignment details. Even if a professor says you don't need one, still include one - this applies for academic and professionally writing. For one, appearance is always important and a title page goes a long way towards making your paper look suitably serious. Second, when grading comments are to be provided on your paper, having a title page protects your privacy by shielding other students from seeing your comments and possibly grade.
Use a floating header
Have a header in the top right corner of every page with your name or shortened title. This standard practices in academic writing, and it helps if your pages become separated. I should also add to make sure your name is on your paper as I estimate about five percent of grad students neglect to do what even kindergartners know.
Staple your papers together
You'd be surprised by how many students hand in assignments not bound in any way. Paper clips, folding the corners of pages or use other ineffective binding contraption are not acceptable. Also, use a stapler that actually works properly (they are cheap or easy to borrow). For big reports, this means you need to use a heavy-duty staplers or cerlox binding. Both professors and bosses have A LOT of papers to go through and reports that become separated or are difficult to flip through are more than a little annoyance.
Word limit- make sure to get near it
A former professor gave me a useful target for what is reasonable parameters for too few or too many words - it is okay to be within 10% of the word limit either way. I think this is a great guideline and use it for my writing and grading. You are probably safe if you follow this. Either way, the ultimate goal is to be close to the word limit as possible.
Avoid the universal masculine
It is no longer socially acceptable to use masculine words, such as he, his, or man, to entail all men and women. This has been true since at least the 1980s, so doing so today is really backward and sexist. I actually find more women students are apt to use the universal masculine, perhaps erroneously believing they have license to do so. It is a linguistic form that discriminates against women - there is no reason to use it anymore.
Have an introduction and conclusion
All writing forms, need some sort of introduction and conclusion. These are needed as it is very jarring to just start a document in the middle of a topic or just arbitrarily and abruptly stop. No introduction, is like joining a conversation with friends and you have no idea what they are talking about; it sounds interesting but they just keep going on and ignoring you. No conclusion is similar, your friends just walk away and you never did figure out what was going on properly and where things were left off - how puzzling and rude.
You always have space for these as they can be really short if need demands it. In all reality, the body of your text will have lots of parts that can be condensed, unnecessary words that can be cut, and repetition eliminated - so there is no excuse to not have an intro and conclusion.
This is basic goal of introductions and conclusions do. They serve a much larger purposes that go A LONG way to making your paper more powerful and convincing and helping you get the outcome and grade you want.
Cut the crap and get to the point!
Stay on topic. Don't add filler (in this case, less is more). If you don't need to say it, then don't. I read fiction for flowery descriptions and passages waxing philosophical about tangential matters. Academic and professional writing is a type of persuasive writing that has a goal to clearly state a message and back it up.
Some would disagree with me and I've read some amazing academic papers that blend persuasive writing with narrative and emotional passages more generally seen in fiction. This is likely the hardest type of writing in the world to successfully pull off though.
Don't think that you are fooling anyone with including filler. Yes, it's better than being desperately short on your word count, but your fluff will be spotted.
To improve presentation quality:
Plagiarism is taken extremely seriously in academia. It is not just academically dishonest, it is illegal (as you have infringed on the intellectual property of others). I've also noticed that more students are paying services to write papers for them.
In our Google and TurnItIn.com world now it is easy to catch. The consequences are dire for students caught doing this - generally a failing grade and possibly expulsion from the university.
I've seen cases where all a student had to do was put their plagiarized passages in quotation marks and cite the reference to go from failing the class to getting a B. So why not try quotation marks instead?!
Learn the rules of your plagiarism, every university has them posted prominently on their website and EVERYONE who works at a university will happily point you in the right direction if you are unsure.
If you feel you are in over your head with a course, have too many competing pressures - talk to the
professor. You'd be surprised how many are willing to cut students some slack or accommodate them somehow. No pressure is worth failing a class, having the academic violation go on your record, and possibly being expelled.
***
It's in one's best interest to follow these tips as grades will rise. It will also help one develop more effective writing skills that will set them apart from most of their fellow future graduates.
During one's undergrad courses, students can get by and even excel with bad writing. Yet, writing papers is the bedrock of all graduate degrees in the social sciences, humanities, and even the sciences. Regardless of who is to blame for one's poor written communication skills, at the graduate level it is essential that students take the initiative and master the basics.
Good written communication skills are not only essential to get through grad school, but are also essential for many careers, particularly the kinds that grad students desire. If students think writing papers will end after grad school, they will be stunned by the lifetime of writing reports, minutes, specs, or project documentation that will be in store for them in many careers. So it's worth the time and effort to learn how to do it!
So using my experienced gained from years of grading graduate students' papers, I've collected some tips on how to improve their written assignments. Below are various rules for written work.
Top 6 Overall Rules (and Ways to Get Better Grades)
#1 Use the Academic Style Book for Your DepartmentAll departments, faculties, or fields have a preferred academic style (e.g. APA, Chicago, MLA etc) that offers instructions on how to format papers, writing tips, and referencing rules. If a course syllabus or professor doesn't provide their preferred style ask them. Find the book, buy it, read it, highlight and bookmark it!
At times you will need to deviate from the official style (e.g., APA's rules about headers are absurd), but only do so with a good reason. Get permission from the professor when contemplating a major deviation from the official style.
#2 Follow the Rules for Your Class
Most professors have additional rules about formatting and items to include in assignments (e.g., a title page, end-notes, etc.). This is generally in the syllabus, but if it is not ask the professor for it.
For most academic writing, unless otherwise stated this means:
- 12 point font size (going down to 10 for tables or diagrams, but no smaller)
- Arial or Times New Roman font
- 1.5 inch margins
- Double-spaced (or at the very least 1.5 spaced)
- White paper
- Letter sized paper
- Good quality paper stock - avoid paper that is so thin it is almost onion skin
- Proper print quality - smeared ink or feint printing is not okay
#3 Adhere To Assignment Requirements
Read through the assignment instructions provided at least five times. Highlight each passage that suggests you need to do something. Make a checklist out of these highlights and BE SURE to achieve them all. Professors (and in the working world, bosses) know what they are doing when they make assignments (they really do), so give them the benefit of the doubt and make your life easy by following their instructions. Also, don't feel that you can do something similar to the assignment, but not actually meet the assignment requirements. Similar is not okay. Follow the requirements.
If you really want to try something different, it's really easy to ask your professor for clarification or permission first.
Once you have achieved the requirements, going beyond them is almost always a good idea. But this does not mean you can ignore the assignment requirements. I've encountered a lot of brilliant students who thought they could do something else instead of the assignment - but they missed the goals of the assignment (and the importance of developing the skill of following instructions) and got lower grades than their mediocre classmates. If you think professors are inflexible about this, just wait until your boss asks you to do something and you do something else and tell him/her that it's just as good - you'll be lucky if your boss let's you explain your reasoning as you're being escorted out the door.
#4 Use Formal and Informal Styles Appropriately
Recognize that professional, academic, and personal writing are different. They have different purposes and thus different rules.
Granted, although there is a trend towards all three becoming increasingly informal. Still, it always helps to consider your audience and write for them. For example, take something as simple as contractions. If you are writing to impress your boss or professor, it is almost always a good idea to use a more formal tone and formal grammar rules. It's true that contractions are not a big deal any more, but it wasn't that long ago that they were verboten - so do not use them. Did you notice how I combined contractions and full forms in the same sentence above - that's even worse, isn't it?
#5 Read Elements of Style (or a similar book)
This book by Strunk and White was referred to me by a former professor and it remains the best book I've encountered to help one improve their writing. It is a quick and easy read and not a grammarian's impenetrable tome. It's useful to read cover to cover and then refer to it as needed when writing.
For example, most students I have encountered do not know the correct way to use a comma. It's not a big deal, but at the graduate level seemingly small grammar and punctuation rules start to really matter.
#6 Don't Describe, Analyze
In academic writing, you to demonstrate your intellectual abilities as applied to the course material. Unless otherwise instructed, avoid simply describing something and instead show your critical thinking. Strive for the highest level you can achieve with your writing. From lowest to highest:
- naming/listing
- describing
- explaining
- critiquing
- predicting (if appropriate)
Specific Tips for Written Work
Avoid acronyms and short-formsOnly use them, if you it is a term that repeats a lot in your paper and even then spell it out in full upon first usage and put the short form in parenthesis. For informal writing, you can use acronyms that aren't of crucial importance if the short-form is very well known, such as the CBC or IT Dept, or if it is a common term in your discipline. Even then, it never hurts to write out in full upon first usage.
Avoid long blocks of unbroken text
Remember the grade school rule of one paragraph per topic. Academics of old horrifically violated this rule in the hope that by obfuscating their work they would appear more intelligent. A passage of text that goes on unbroken for a page - or more! - is not intelligent, it's impenetrable. New topic; new paragraph. It's a simple as that.
Vary your sentence length
Those academics of old also erroneously believed that long sentences also reflected the vast complexity of their erudition. Long sentences don't make you seem smarter; they most likely are just run-on sentences that are just grammatically incorrect at best and horrifically impenetrable at worst.
Include a title page
Even if your professor doesn't specifically ask for it in the syllabus or assignment details. Even if a professor says you don't need one, still include one - this applies for academic and professionally writing. For one, appearance is always important and a title page goes a long way towards making your paper look suitably serious. Second, when grading comments are to be provided on your paper, having a title page protects your privacy by shielding other students from seeing your comments and possibly grade.
Use a floating header
Have a header in the top right corner of every page with your name or shortened title. This standard practices in academic writing, and it helps if your pages become separated. I should also add to make sure your name is on your paper as I estimate about five percent of grad students neglect to do what even kindergartners know.
Staple your papers together
You'd be surprised by how many students hand in assignments not bound in any way. Paper clips, folding the corners of pages or use other ineffective binding contraption are not acceptable. Also, use a stapler that actually works properly (they are cheap or easy to borrow). For big reports, this means you need to use a heavy-duty staplers or cerlox binding. Both professors and bosses have A LOT of papers to go through and reports that become separated or are difficult to flip through are more than a little annoyance.
Word limit- make sure to get near it
A former professor gave me a useful target for what is reasonable parameters for too few or too many words - it is okay to be within 10% of the word limit either way. I think this is a great guideline and use it for my writing and grading. You are probably safe if you follow this. Either way, the ultimate goal is to be close to the word limit as possible.
Avoid the universal masculine
It is no longer socially acceptable to use masculine words, such as he, his, or man, to entail all men and women. This has been true since at least the 1980s, so doing so today is really backward and sexist. I actually find more women students are apt to use the universal masculine, perhaps erroneously believing they have license to do so. It is a linguistic form that discriminates against women - there is no reason to use it anymore.
Have an introduction and conclusion
All writing forms, need some sort of introduction and conclusion. These are needed as it is very jarring to just start a document in the middle of a topic or just arbitrarily and abruptly stop. No introduction, is like joining a conversation with friends and you have no idea what they are talking about; it sounds interesting but they just keep going on and ignoring you. No conclusion is similar, your friends just walk away and you never did figure out what was going on properly and where things were left off - how puzzling and rude.
You always have space for these as they can be really short if need demands it. In all reality, the body of your text will have lots of parts that can be condensed, unnecessary words that can be cut, and repetition eliminated - so there is no excuse to not have an intro and conclusion.
This is basic goal of introductions and conclusions do. They serve a much larger purposes that go A LONG way to making your paper more powerful and convincing and helping you get the outcome and grade you want.
Cut the crap and get to the point!
Stay on topic. Don't add filler (in this case, less is more). If you don't need to say it, then don't. I read fiction for flowery descriptions and passages waxing philosophical about tangential matters. Academic and professional writing is a type of persuasive writing that has a goal to clearly state a message and back it up.
Some would disagree with me and I've read some amazing academic papers that blend persuasive writing with narrative and emotional passages more generally seen in fiction. This is likely the hardest type of writing in the world to successfully pull off though.
Don't think that you are fooling anyone with including filler. Yes, it's better than being desperately short on your word count, but your fluff will be spotted.
Presentation quality matters
Appearance matters whether we like it or not. A polished and professional appearance of a documents makes it not only easier and more pleasant to read, but it also lends more credibility to the work. Conversely, if you don't take an assignment seriously enough to take a few seconds to avoid a messy looking paper then it makes the whole work seem lazy and sloppy.To improve presentation quality:
- Include effective headers - try to condense the header into the key terms and essential words only.
- Bold all titles and headers. Underlining is generally an obsolete style (due to hypertext).
- Headers should never be orphaned on the bottom of the page. They should always be with the text they are referring to so force them onto the next page if needed
- Use images wisely - these can really improve the power and appearance of a paper, but make sure that they can be viewed optimally.
- Use white space judiciously - not too little and not too much though.
- Razzle Dazzle Them - Consider adding an image or design to your title page. Use colour in your diagrams and tables and print in colour. Use really nice paper stock.
FINALLY THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE...
CITE YOUR REFERENCES!!!!Plagiarism is taken extremely seriously in academia. It is not just academically dishonest, it is illegal (as you have infringed on the intellectual property of others). I've also noticed that more students are paying services to write papers for them.
In our Google and TurnItIn.com world now it is easy to catch. The consequences are dire for students caught doing this - generally a failing grade and possibly expulsion from the university.
I've seen cases where all a student had to do was put their plagiarized passages in quotation marks and cite the reference to go from failing the class to getting a B. So why not try quotation marks instead?!
Learn the rules of your plagiarism, every university has them posted prominently on their website and EVERYONE who works at a university will happily point you in the right direction if you are unsure.
If you feel you are in over your head with a course, have too many competing pressures - talk to the
professor. You'd be surprised how many are willing to cut students some slack or accommodate them somehow. No pressure is worth failing a class, having the academic violation go on your record, and possibly being expelled.
***
It's in one's best interest to follow these tips as grades will rise. It will also help one develop more effective writing skills that will set them apart from most of their fellow future graduates.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Tips for Conference Posters
This week I attended iConference 2012 and they had an impressive and extensive display of academic posters. Of all the conferences I've been to, I found this conference had the most effective posters. As the conference was for information schools (iSchools), it is not surprising that presenters would know how to effectively display information visually and succinctly.
While viewing the posters, I made mental notes of what was effective and what was not:
Poster Design
Take-aways for attendees are a great way to ensure that people will actually follow-up with you or read the work in more detail. As posters are available for display outside of the official presentation hours, it is a great idea to have them pinned near or on your poster (bring extra pins for these). Take-aways can include:
I'm hoping to present a poster in the next year, so I'd love to hear other people's tips here!
While viewing the posters, I made mental notes of what was effective and what was not:
Poster Design
- Posters displayed as mini research papers (e.g. with sections for abstract, intro, lit review, method, findings, conclusions, references) were overwhelming too read and dull - I think this format is best for the proceedings publication but the poster itself should consider the demands of the visual medium
- Standard graphic design principles apply (e.g. font, colour, spacing, whitespace, etc.)
- Consider the unique design needs for posters - e.g. large font size, easy to read, unique, etc.
- Colour is essential to make the poster appealing and attract attention - not too many though more than one colour is needed but probably not more than 3-4 (including shades)
- Limit content to 2-3 points
- Key message should be in a call-out and placed prominently - it's better when it's short and not a full abstract
- Images should not be eye candy, but reflect the content of the study
- Include your contact information - i.e. email address and website (I was surprised by how many people did not include this)
- References - lots of posters didn't have these and the ones that did it took up a lot of space that wasn't useful for attendees. If they can be omitted or referred to a website for them, I think the space can be much better used
- Moratorium needed on word clouds - I estimate that a third of posters included them. They seem trite now and aren't an effective way (e.g. legibility issues) to present main themes
Take-aways for attendees are a great way to ensure that people will actually follow-up with you or read the work in more detail. As posters are available for display outside of the official presentation hours, it is a great idea to have them pinned near or on your poster (bring extra pins for these). Take-aways can include:
- Print-out of the poster (full colour is better)
- Business cards
- Postcards of the project
- One of the main points of posters is to provide a means to connect with others interested in your work, so it's important to actually be present during the designated poster presentations (surprisingly at an iConference's poster session some presenters were not there for the entire two hours)
- Show up early, I went half an hour before the designated time and there were a fair number of people who were also there early - this is a great time to stand out and talk to people before the hoard arrives
- Consider adding interactivity or multimedia to your poster as a way to standout and offer supporting content - this is particularly effective outside of the official session presentation as people have more time (and quiet) to spend on the posters. Two techniques I found effective at iConference, were push-button audio clips of interview excerpts and tablets running a demo of the project software.
I'm hoping to present a poster in the next year, so I'd love to hear other people's tips here!
Friday, February 10, 2012
I, Conference iConference
Today was the last day of iConference 2012. The conference, geared to topics of interest to iSchools (i.e. Information studies), was hosted by my school, University of Toronto, Faculty of Information. When I wasn't volunteering, I was able to attend several sessions. This post captures my ramblings as I make sense of my first foray into iConferences and immersion in the iSchool movement.
Conference vibe
Having not been to any other iConferences, I'm not sure what is typical of their nature or this particular instance. As a smallish conference for a defined body, it had a collegial feel. This was a welcome relief from more vast and impersonal conferences. The organizers did a great job encouraging the collegial feel from such touches as name tags that presented one's name as most important and a welcome reception complete with ice-breaker games and signature cocktails.
Venue
Recaps of conferences often fail to account for the venue. In my mind and body, venue is as important as the content. I'm hoping that in my small way I can convince (or shame) conference organizers and venues to care about this. The conference facilities at Toronto's downtown Marriott was overall quite good. The conference rooms were comfortable and they had a nice central area, dubbed the Living Room, with comfy seats, food, ample (free) coffee, and art installations. It was a great spot to hang out - surprisingly, most venues I've been to lack such space. I also like how the Marriott is centrally-located (even if I hard time finding the passage from the Eaton Centre and spent awkward amount of time walking around Sears' lingerie section until I found it). Even for in-town attendees, let alone for foreign visitors, it is important to be near amenities instead of at a desolate, entrapping conference centre. My only complaints were that the rooms were a little airless (typical) and even though there was free wi-fi, there were difficulties connecting to it and cell networks.
Sessions
Between my volunteering duties and childcare limits, I missed a lot of sessions that I would have liked to have attended. And some sessions were not up my alley. But I greatly appreciated that the conference had a variety of session types - paper sessions, workshops, panels, posters, jams, world cafe and fishbowl discussions. I wish more conferences would mix things up like this.
I would also like to emphatically state at this time how hugely inappropriate it is for people to "present" by reading (often in a monotone) their paper in its entirety. Reading aloud at a conference is as out of place as going to a restaurant to sleep on a table. It is disdainful of the audience and pointless (other than to add it to one's c.v.) and I am peeved at how tolerated (encouraged?) it is in academia.
Rather than recount every session, I'll briefly highlight the main concepts and take-aways:
Positive design - Mary Beth Rosson raised this as a fruitful approach to design that builds upon what a medium enables rather than dwelling on overcoming its constraints. For example, online conversation may not have all the visual clues of face-to-face, but it is easily archivable and searchable. So it helps to consider under what circumstances these benefits are desired and plan around that.
User-defined success - an interesting way to think about the "success" of behaviour observed online or elsewhere is to use the metrics reflective of people's goals. I've seen program evaluation that has this component, but I don't believe this concept is as widespread as it should be in academia or industry. For more on this, read the paper presented by Christopher Mascaro Not Just a Wink and Smile: An Analysis of User-Defined Success in Online Dating (co-authors Rachel Magee & Sean Goggins)
Visual research - there was an interesting panel that examined different methods to solicit research on a concept (see Jenna Hartel's What is Information). I believe that methods that rely on people to textually account for their thoughts and behaviour are limited, as are reductionist surveys and experiments. It's interesting to consider other ways of soliciting participants' ideas - in this case Hartel used drawings, but I think photography, collage, clay, performance, or cultural probes would generate invaluable insight.
Commenting on news websites - Mary Cavanagh studied user comments on news sites.
Among her findings, she found comments used by people for: informing, contesting, criticising, elaborating, questioning, asserting, ampliyfing, mocking, learning, and re-framing. I asked her whether she observed a "community" among these sites' users and although she noted elements of "we-ness", inter-poster conversation and familiarity, she's reluctant to consider it cohesive and reoccurring enough to be a community.
Information browsing versus information seeking - as Jenna Hartel and panellists pointed out, there tends to be a focus on information seeking as rational and expedient, neglecting the role of pleasure and play. The term information browsing helps to capture the elements of affect, embodiment, and serendipity in information use.
Map-based search
Microsoft Research was a sponsor of iConference 2012, so they were there promoting their new products. I was really impressed with their Academic Map search tool. By selecting an academic area and a location on the map, one can easily see clusters of research and click on an individual researcher. They are currently limited to 14 very broad areas (e.g. "Social Sciences") but in talking to the rep. there are plans to refine these categories, which would make it much more useful.
Benefits of locative media
Topics directly related to my research interests were unfortunately limited to one poster, Does the Use of Place Affect Learner Engagement? The Case of GeoStoryteller on the Streets of New York, but it was excellent. The project used locative media, with an optional augmented reality component, to deliver information about the history of Germans in NYC. What I found particularly encouraging is that the researchers, Anthony Cocciolo and Debbie Rabina, found that such applications effectively used place and technology to improve learning engagement. As they note: "This engagement is the result of discovering new information about familiar surroundings using standard mobile user interfaces (lists, maps, videos), and not from more novel user interfaces (augmented reality)".
I would have liked to have seen sessions along this line at iConference, but it offers a panoramic snapshot of work going on in iSchools. It will be interesting to see if mobile user experience, geoinformatics, location-based services or locative media feature more prominently at the next iConference in Fort Worth, Texas.
Conference vibe
Having not been to any other iConferences, I'm not sure what is typical of their nature or this particular instance. As a smallish conference for a defined body, it had a collegial feel. This was a welcome relief from more vast and impersonal conferences. The organizers did a great job encouraging the collegial feel from such touches as name tags that presented one's name as most important and a welcome reception complete with ice-breaker games and signature cocktails.
Venue
Recaps of conferences often fail to account for the venue. In my mind and body, venue is as important as the content. I'm hoping that in my small way I can convince (or shame) conference organizers and venues to care about this. The conference facilities at Toronto's downtown Marriott was overall quite good. The conference rooms were comfortable and they had a nice central area, dubbed the Living Room, with comfy seats, food, ample (free) coffee, and art installations. It was a great spot to hang out - surprisingly, most venues I've been to lack such space. I also like how the Marriott is centrally-located (even if I hard time finding the passage from the Eaton Centre and spent awkward amount of time walking around Sears' lingerie section until I found it). Even for in-town attendees, let alone for foreign visitors, it is important to be near amenities instead of at a desolate, entrapping conference centre. My only complaints were that the rooms were a little airless (typical) and even though there was free wi-fi, there were difficulties connecting to it and cell networks.
Sessions
Between my volunteering duties and childcare limits, I missed a lot of sessions that I would have liked to have attended. And some sessions were not up my alley. But I greatly appreciated that the conference had a variety of session types - paper sessions, workshops, panels, posters, jams, world cafe and fishbowl discussions. I wish more conferences would mix things up like this.
I would also like to emphatically state at this time how hugely inappropriate it is for people to "present" by reading (often in a monotone) their paper in its entirety. Reading aloud at a conference is as out of place as going to a restaurant to sleep on a table. It is disdainful of the audience and pointless (other than to add it to one's c.v.) and I am peeved at how tolerated (encouraged?) it is in academia.
Rather than recount every session, I'll briefly highlight the main concepts and take-aways:
Positive design - Mary Beth Rosson raised this as a fruitful approach to design that builds upon what a medium enables rather than dwelling on overcoming its constraints. For example, online conversation may not have all the visual clues of face-to-face, but it is easily archivable and searchable. So it helps to consider under what circumstances these benefits are desired and plan around that.
User-defined success - an interesting way to think about the "success" of behaviour observed online or elsewhere is to use the metrics reflective of people's goals. I've seen program evaluation that has this component, but I don't believe this concept is as widespread as it should be in academia or industry. For more on this, read the paper presented by Christopher Mascaro Not Just a Wink and Smile: An Analysis of User-Defined Success in Online Dating (co-authors Rachel Magee & Sean Goggins)
Visual research - there was an interesting panel that examined different methods to solicit research on a concept (see Jenna Hartel's What is Information). I believe that methods that rely on people to textually account for their thoughts and behaviour are limited, as are reductionist surveys and experiments. It's interesting to consider other ways of soliciting participants' ideas - in this case Hartel used drawings, but I think photography, collage, clay, performance, or cultural probes would generate invaluable insight.
Commenting on news websites - Mary Cavanagh studied user comments on news sites.
Among her findings, she found comments used by people for: informing, contesting, criticising, elaborating, questioning, asserting, ampliyfing, mocking, learning, and re-framing. I asked her whether she observed a "community" among these sites' users and although she noted elements of "we-ness", inter-poster conversation and familiarity, she's reluctant to consider it cohesive and reoccurring enough to be a community.
Information browsing versus information seeking - as Jenna Hartel and panellists pointed out, there tends to be a focus on information seeking as rational and expedient, neglecting the role of pleasure and play. The term information browsing helps to capture the elements of affect, embodiment, and serendipity in information use.
Map-based search
Microsoft Research was a sponsor of iConference 2012, so they were there promoting their new products. I was really impressed with their Academic Map search tool. By selecting an academic area and a location on the map, one can easily see clusters of research and click on an individual researcher. They are currently limited to 14 very broad areas (e.g. "Social Sciences") but in talking to the rep. there are plans to refine these categories, which would make it much more useful.
Benefits of locative media
Topics directly related to my research interests were unfortunately limited to one poster, Does the Use of Place Affect Learner Engagement? The Case of GeoStoryteller on the Streets of New York, but it was excellent. The project used locative media, with an optional augmented reality component, to deliver information about the history of Germans in NYC. What I found particularly encouraging is that the researchers, Anthony Cocciolo and Debbie Rabina, found that such applications effectively used place and technology to improve learning engagement. As they note: "This engagement is the result of discovering new information about familiar surroundings using standard mobile user interfaces (lists, maps, videos), and not from more novel user interfaces (augmented reality)".
I would have liked to have seen sessions along this line at iConference, but it offers a panoramic snapshot of work going on in iSchools. It will be interesting to see if mobile user experience, geoinformatics, location-based services or locative media feature more prominently at the next iConference in Fort Worth, Texas.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Research Proposals Methodology Checklist
Earlier this month, I finished work as a teaching assistants for my department's research methods class. I've TAed this for the past 2 years and I love it. There are so many (almost countless) research methods and planning a research project is probably the most fun part of the whole thing.
It's also great to read about what the masters students plan to study and the various dimensions of research possible in the field of Information. I've graded a large number of research proposals now and have been impressed by students' approaches and their research interests. However, even in the best proposals they are often missing key elements.
I put together a checklist of items to include in a research proposal for a guest lecture I did for the class. Some students found it useful, so I thought I'd share it here. Surprisingly, I haven't found a concise checklist like this in research methods texts.
I'm covering the major items that apply to common methods, such as interviews, observation, focus groups, discourse analysis, and surveys.
Sampling
Method considerations
Session preparation
Data collection
Data analysis
Data presentation & dissemination
Obviously an entire book, or several, could be written on this topic. This is meant to touch upon the major and common areas. But please let me know if I missed something crucial.
It's also great to read about what the masters students plan to study and the various dimensions of research possible in the field of Information. I've graded a large number of research proposals now and have been impressed by students' approaches and their research interests. However, even in the best proposals they are often missing key elements.
I put together a checklist of items to include in a research proposal for a guest lecture I did for the class. Some students found it useful, so I thought I'd share it here. Surprisingly, I haven't found a concise checklist like this in research methods texts.
I'm covering the major items that apply to common methods, such as interviews, observation, focus groups, discourse analysis, and surveys.
Sampling
- Population - describe the characteristics of the group you will be studying, mention any pertinent demographic (e.g. age, gender, location, occupation) and pyschographics (habits, attitudes, hobbies, opinions) - if studying texts or artifacts, describe the unifying characteristics
- Sampling strategy - e.g. census, random, stratified random, or nonprobability sampling such as convenience, purposive diversity/dissimilar, snowballing, key informant, etc.
- Sample size - number and if this number is appropriate (or the stoping point, e.g. saturation)
- Access - how you will get access to this group and permission to study them
- Recruitment techniques to be used - e.g. posters, web posts, emails, etc.
- Incentives - if using why is it necessary, how much, and how to be distributed
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria - conditions to be met to qualify or exempt people or texts from study
Method considerations
- Format - online, print, email, instant messaging - which one(s) and why
- Interview guide or questionnaire - how will questions be determined (if appropriate)
- Questioning style (e.g. structured, semi-structured, conversational for interviews) and question format (i.e. open or closed ended)
- Probing or follow-ups if used and when (e.g. during or after)
- Discussion aids - will think-aloud protocol be used, artificts (e.g. diaries, photos) or cultural probes
- Rapport - how to establish trust, confidence, and ease amongst participants
Session preparation
- Meeting location details - discuss any pertinent details such as the type of place to be held and why (e.g. convenient for participant, comfortable setting), logistics, arrangement of furniture, noise levels, position of camera, presence of others, etc.
- If communicating or observing online discuss the technology to be used and any applicable norms or constraints
Data collection
- Recording of session - audio or video taping, photodocumenting, log files
- Note-taking - during or after session?
- Third-party observers or facilitators - whether or not used, relationships to researcher, training provided, and any issues that may result
- Role of researcher - researcher biases, how will the researcher be involved in and shape data collection and any steps to mitigate or place the researcher (e.g. passive observer or participant observer)
Data analysis
- Transcription - style to be used (e.g. naturalistic, selective) and whom will do it
- Approach to data analysis (e.g. grounded theory, statistical tests, etc.)
- Software - name and describe how used
- Coding technique used and how codes determined
- Reliability measures - particularly if more than one person is coding results
Data presentation & dissemination
- Anticipated findings
- Presentation formats - e.g. case study, charts, narrative, performance, etc.
- Outcomes - e.g.recommendations, program evaluation, etc.
- Dissemination - planned conference presentations, sharing among an applicable association, publication plans, etc.
- How might the findings be shared other than a traditional paper (if applicable)?
- Sharing results with participants - e.g. send them the final paper and - will they get permission to edit?, post summary on blog,or participant community (e.g. trade association)
- Considerations when studying a given group
- Informed consent - how it will be obtained and special situations (e.g. minors or other who may not be able to provide it)
- Deception - if used, explain why necessary
- Harm - plans to avoid any emotional or physical harm to participans, e.g. if sensitive topics raised how will this be handled, referals to specialists, etc.
- Debriefing plans (if applicable)
- Anonymity or confidentiality - steps taken in data collection,storage, and presentation to protect participants' privacy
Obviously an entire book, or several, could be written on this topic. This is meant to touch upon the major and common areas. But please let me know if I missed something crucial.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Assessment of Quality and Personal Suitability in Peer-Review Journals
This post relates the process I went through to find and assess relevant leading academic journals. There are a lot of peer-reviewed journals, but not all are created equal - some are more topically suitable but less esteemed - finding a balance is crucial. This post relates my specific process, but could be applied to others in any other academic field seeking to find journals suitable to their work.
Determining a suitable venue for academic publication is challenging for new scholars. One must consider both a journal’s suitability of content and approach as well as its potential influence. Although there are metrics to help determine the perceived esteem of a journal, gauging its overall value can be difficult. For example, journals rated highly by traditional metrics might be more inclined towards conservative methods and topics, which may ill suit emerging scholars pursuing innovative approaches and emerging topics. In addition, highly-rated journals often have lower acceptance rates decreasing the likelihood of publication. The delays of resubmitting to alternative journals may result work loosing its timeliness or being the first to publish on a given topic. This paper aims to explore the process I developed to ascertain suitable journals for publication of my chosen research area (i.e. the use of mobile social media in libraries or information repositories). I will also briefly address journal bibliometrics.
To initially select journals for inclusion, I compiled a list from personal sources. My personal selections were based upon my favoured sources for reading, recently cited journals, and those encountered during a recent literature review. Using this list, I then was able to determine the suitable categories of Australian Research Council (ARC) ranked journals, which were “Information Systems” (category #0806) and “Library and Information Studies” (#0807). Downloading the full ARC ranked outlets list enabled me to sort by category. I was quickly able to cull unsuitable journals based on their titles; others required an examination of the specific journal to determine its topical suitability. This resulted in 62 possible journals to consider. I then examined the editorial aims and scope of the 62 journals by reviewing the issues from the past two to three years. This review allowed me to filter out results based on an inappropriate scope (e.g. engineering) and to then reduce viable journals to 31.
To determine the perceived esteem and influence of a journal, I compiled various established bibliometrics, specifically the ARC’s assigned score, the five year impact factor, SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), and Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP). Bibliometrics have individual strengths and weaknesses. The ARC score is based on the subjective assessment of Australian academics, and no specific formula appears to be made public. Critics of ARC rankings note that it overly favours coverage of Australian topics and unfairly allocates top grades based on a fixed, subjective percentage (i.e. the top five percent of journals in the given field) which penalizes journals in specialized or emerging fields. ARC rankings do allow a more holistic assessment of a journal, acknowledging the importance of more than just resulting citations. The impact factor measurements (both one and five year) rely solely on citations. Although this can result in a more objective metric, it has limitations. Impact factors do not account for differing citation behaviour and volume in different fields, nor do they consider the quality of the citing source or filter out author or journal self-citations. Furthermore, the Institute for Scientific Information index that impact factors are drawn from does not include open-source journals and does include citation sources that are not original research (e.g. review articles). The one year timeframe of the standard impact factor, I feel, does not adequately suit the citation behaviour of the information field. Consequently, I chose to use the five year impact factor. The SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator and Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) score, I believe, are more transparent and suitable metrics for evaluation, both of which are provided by Scopus. Scopus, to begin, has a much larger database than Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) and includes open-source journals. SJR considers the prestige of a citation source in its formula (similar to Google’s Page Rank) and has a larger citation window (three years) than the impact factor. SNIP assesses the citation patterns of a given field to determine a field-specific score. For example, medical fields tend to cite work more quickly and frequently compared to humanities research.
Having compiled these four metrics per journal, I then weighed each equally to attempt to smooth out biases. My assessment assigned a potential three marks per each journal’s ranking per metric, for a maximum potential score of 12. One point was assigned for the approximate lowest third of rankings and three points assigned for the top third ranking. A key limitation with this approach is that if a journal does not appear in either ISI or Scopus index or have an associated bibliometric, they are given the lowest possible score regardless of the reason for their absence. Nonetheless, this system is useful to give a list of top-ranking, topically-suitable journals.
To determine suitability of editorial content, I assigned a five-point score, with five being deemed the most relevance to my research area and one the least. This was based on a review of the past three years of the journals issues. I looked for articles exploring similar topics to my interests and with a similar epistemological viewpoint to mine.
To attempt to wed journals with deemed high esteem with relevance to my personal areas of interest, I performed a comparison between both lists. I wanted to choose journals with a high overall ranking (i.e. my composite score) and thus determined a score of ten or higher was an acceptable level (twelve journals attained this level). I also wanted to choose journals with a high level of relevance to my research area and thus chose a score of four or higher (ten journals met this level). Any journals that met these criteria were determined to be high-ranking and personally-relevant. The journals that qualified (with their associated composite and relevance scores) are, Internet Research (11, 5), Interacting with Computers (11, 4), Journal of Academic Librarianship (11, 4), and Information Technology and Libraries (10, 4).
From this list of four journals, I attempted to find the acceptance rates of publication. This information would be useful to determine the likelihood of being published in the journal. I was unable to find this information for the above journals (in general, it seems this information is a insider secret)
This overall process has been useful in identifying new publication sources and in gaining a richer understanding of the perceived esteem of various journals. I believe this process has also resulted in a list of the most suitable journals for me to consider when I am ready to publish my research.
Determining a suitable venue for academic publication is challenging for new scholars. One must consider both a journal’s suitability of content and approach as well as its potential influence. Although there are metrics to help determine the perceived esteem of a journal, gauging its overall value can be difficult. For example, journals rated highly by traditional metrics might be more inclined towards conservative methods and topics, which may ill suit emerging scholars pursuing innovative approaches and emerging topics. In addition, highly-rated journals often have lower acceptance rates decreasing the likelihood of publication. The delays of resubmitting to alternative journals may result work loosing its timeliness or being the first to publish on a given topic. This paper aims to explore the process I developed to ascertain suitable journals for publication of my chosen research area (i.e. the use of mobile social media in libraries or information repositories). I will also briefly address journal bibliometrics.
To initially select journals for inclusion, I compiled a list from personal sources. My personal selections were based upon my favoured sources for reading, recently cited journals, and those encountered during a recent literature review. Using this list, I then was able to determine the suitable categories of Australian Research Council (ARC) ranked journals, which were “Information Systems” (category #0806) and “Library and Information Studies” (#0807). Downloading the full ARC ranked outlets list enabled me to sort by category. I was quickly able to cull unsuitable journals based on their titles; others required an examination of the specific journal to determine its topical suitability. This resulted in 62 possible journals to consider. I then examined the editorial aims and scope of the 62 journals by reviewing the issues from the past two to three years. This review allowed me to filter out results based on an inappropriate scope (e.g. engineering) and to then reduce viable journals to 31.
To determine the perceived esteem and influence of a journal, I compiled various established bibliometrics, specifically the ARC’s assigned score, the five year impact factor, SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), and Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP). Bibliometrics have individual strengths and weaknesses. The ARC score is based on the subjective assessment of Australian academics, and no specific formula appears to be made public. Critics of ARC rankings note that it overly favours coverage of Australian topics and unfairly allocates top grades based on a fixed, subjective percentage (i.e. the top five percent of journals in the given field) which penalizes journals in specialized or emerging fields. ARC rankings do allow a more holistic assessment of a journal, acknowledging the importance of more than just resulting citations. The impact factor measurements (both one and five year) rely solely on citations. Although this can result in a more objective metric, it has limitations. Impact factors do not account for differing citation behaviour and volume in different fields, nor do they consider the quality of the citing source or filter out author or journal self-citations. Furthermore, the Institute for Scientific Information index that impact factors are drawn from does not include open-source journals and does include citation sources that are not original research (e.g. review articles). The one year timeframe of the standard impact factor, I feel, does not adequately suit the citation behaviour of the information field. Consequently, I chose to use the five year impact factor. The SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator and Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) score, I believe, are more transparent and suitable metrics for evaluation, both of which are provided by Scopus. Scopus, to begin, has a much larger database than Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) and includes open-source journals. SJR considers the prestige of a citation source in its formula (similar to Google’s Page Rank) and has a larger citation window (three years) than the impact factor. SNIP assesses the citation patterns of a given field to determine a field-specific score. For example, medical fields tend to cite work more quickly and frequently compared to humanities research.
Having compiled these four metrics per journal, I then weighed each equally to attempt to smooth out biases. My assessment assigned a potential three marks per each journal’s ranking per metric, for a maximum potential score of 12. One point was assigned for the approximate lowest third of rankings and three points assigned for the top third ranking. A key limitation with this approach is that if a journal does not appear in either ISI or Scopus index or have an associated bibliometric, they are given the lowest possible score regardless of the reason for their absence. Nonetheless, this system is useful to give a list of top-ranking, topically-suitable journals.
To determine suitability of editorial content, I assigned a five-point score, with five being deemed the most relevance to my research area and one the least. This was based on a review of the past three years of the journals issues. I looked for articles exploring similar topics to my interests and with a similar epistemological viewpoint to mine.
To attempt to wed journals with deemed high esteem with relevance to my personal areas of interest, I performed a comparison between both lists. I wanted to choose journals with a high overall ranking (i.e. my composite score) and thus determined a score of ten or higher was an acceptable level (twelve journals attained this level). I also wanted to choose journals with a high level of relevance to my research area and thus chose a score of four or higher (ten journals met this level). Any journals that met these criteria were determined to be high-ranking and personally-relevant. The journals that qualified (with their associated composite and relevance scores) are, Internet Research (11, 5), Interacting with Computers (11, 4), Journal of Academic Librarianship (11, 4), and Information Technology and Libraries (10, 4).
From this list of four journals, I attempted to find the acceptance rates of publication. This information would be useful to determine the likelihood of being published in the journal. I was unable to find this information for the above journals (in general, it seems this information is a insider secret)
This overall process has been useful in identifying new publication sources and in gaining a richer understanding of the perceived esteem of various journals. I believe this process has also resulted in a list of the most suitable journals for me to consider when I am ready to publish my research.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
The Many Considerations for Considering Doing a PhD
I was asked to speak to my masters alma mater on doing a PhD. There are many factors to consider both academic and lifestyle. Assuming you have already decided that a PhD is right for you, you are willing to make the sacrifices, and can't be convinced not to do a PhD, then here are the key considerations.
Choosing a Program
Try to have an open mind when exploring and evaluating PhD programs. It's important that you feel that you will fit into the program (trust your hunches) but no program will be perfect. Here is the process I went through, in order:
1) Consider disciplines
Communication majors might want to consider related fields like information, journalism, English, etc. Also consider various different names for essential similar programs, so communication can also be very similar to Media Studies and Cultural Studies. Also think about ones programs covering topics you like but from different approaches, for example sociology, anthropology, engineering (if you go too far afield, however, you may need extra time to learn the basics of the field).
2) Consider programs
Once you have a sense of the academic discipline, check out specific programs. The best way to start is by reading their websites. Websites have the official material for prospective students, but check out their recent course list (if there is nothing offered that interests you in the last couple years, that's a good warning). Also ask your social network for their thoughts or experience. Once you have a handful of programs that interest you, contact the admissions officer to ask them your specific questions. Another good way to get a sense of a program is to look at all their recent graduates (say for the past five years) dissertations (via ProQuest). If the program is not graduating any students doing anything remotely up your alley, that's another warning sign.
3) Consider the university
As there are a glut of PhD grads every year and only a handful of tenure-track position, the reputation of your university does matter. There are various lists of top universities, but also consider the standing of the program as well. Also consider the location (commute time, aesthetics, etc.) and facilities (office space, library, labs) of the university as well.
4) Consider the faculty
PhD programs require students to work very closely with a handful of professors. So it is essential that you find permanent faculty (i.e. tenure-track) who will support you and your research interests. If you already know of a professor whose work you admire, arrange to talk to them and tell them your plans. Otherwise, go over faculty biographies (usually published on the website) and check their background and research interests. Read their recent publications.
You need to find at least one faculty member who could feasibly be your advisor, but I recommend having more than one person that you can see yourself working for. Professors frequently leave for various reasons (e.g. denied tenure, better job opportunity, sabbatical leaves, retirement, death). You will also need professors to serve on your committee so while not everyone has to have similar interests to you, there should be others that will not be diametrically opposed to your work.
To make sure there is a good fit with your potential advisor or committee members and to improve your chances of acceptance, arrange to meet with faculty.
Paying For Your PhD
A good thing to keep in mind is that you shouldn't have to pay to do your PhD. Most programs will offer some sort of funding (however minuscule it may be). If you can't find any program, anywhere willing to cover your tuition and a share of your living expenses, then that may be a sign to reconsider doing a PhD.
There are various sources of PhD funding, including:
How To Do Well
Consider your career goals and work towards from day one. Many people doing a PhD aspire to be a full professor. I heard that only 1/3 PhD graduates in Canada will work in academia - and this may mean adjunct faculty or non-teaching roles. If you do desire a tenure-track position, from the first year you should be building your record of:
PhD is a life sentence, so making the choices right for you are crucial.
Choosing a Program
Try to have an open mind when exploring and evaluating PhD programs. It's important that you feel that you will fit into the program (trust your hunches) but no program will be perfect. Here is the process I went through, in order:
1) Consider disciplines
Communication majors might want to consider related fields like information, journalism, English, etc. Also consider various different names for essential similar programs, so communication can also be very similar to Media Studies and Cultural Studies. Also think about ones programs covering topics you like but from different approaches, for example sociology, anthropology, engineering (if you go too far afield, however, you may need extra time to learn the basics of the field).
2) Consider programs
Once you have a sense of the academic discipline, check out specific programs. The best way to start is by reading their websites. Websites have the official material for prospective students, but check out their recent course list (if there is nothing offered that interests you in the last couple years, that's a good warning). Also ask your social network for their thoughts or experience. Once you have a handful of programs that interest you, contact the admissions officer to ask them your specific questions. Another good way to get a sense of a program is to look at all their recent graduates (say for the past five years) dissertations (via ProQuest). If the program is not graduating any students doing anything remotely up your alley, that's another warning sign.
3) Consider the university
As there are a glut of PhD grads every year and only a handful of tenure-track position, the reputation of your university does matter. There are various lists of top universities, but also consider the standing of the program as well. Also consider the location (commute time, aesthetics, etc.) and facilities (office space, library, labs) of the university as well.
4) Consider the faculty
PhD programs require students to work very closely with a handful of professors. So it is essential that you find permanent faculty (i.e. tenure-track) who will support you and your research interests. If you already know of a professor whose work you admire, arrange to talk to them and tell them your plans. Otherwise, go over faculty biographies (usually published on the website) and check their background and research interests. Read their recent publications.
You need to find at least one faculty member who could feasibly be your advisor, but I recommend having more than one person that you can see yourself working for. Professors frequently leave for various reasons (e.g. denied tenure, better job opportunity, sabbatical leaves, retirement, death). You will also need professors to serve on your committee so while not everyone has to have similar interests to you, there should be others that will not be diametrically opposed to your work.
To make sure there is a good fit with your potential advisor or committee members and to improve your chances of acceptance, arrange to meet with faculty.
Paying For Your PhD
A good thing to keep in mind is that you shouldn't have to pay to do your PhD. Most programs will offer some sort of funding (however minuscule it may be). If you can't find any program, anywhere willing to cover your tuition and a share of your living expenses, then that may be a sign to reconsider doing a PhD.
There are various sources of PhD funding, including:
- grants (offerred by the university, province, country, or a company)
- teaching assistantships
- research assistantships
How To Do Well
Consider your career goals and work towards from day one. Many people doing a PhD aspire to be a full professor. I heard that only 1/3 PhD graduates in Canada will work in academia - and this may mean adjunct faculty or non-teaching roles. If you do desire a tenure-track position, from the first year you should be building your record of:
- publishing in peer-reviewed journals
- awards
- presenting at conferences
- teaching portfolio
- service
PhD is a life sentence, so making the choices right for you are crucial.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Multipaper Dissertations - Considering an Alternative to Traditional Dissertations
I'm almost finished my first year of my PhD studies. I still haven't narrowed down my topic. I have concluded the format of my dissertation. I was considering the multipaper format that appears to be popular in computer science. I don't think it is the right option for me (or for my faculty).
In trying to decide if this alternative format would be appropriate and helpful, I found that there wasn't much written about this format. So here is background info I put together, which may help others in determining if this format is right for them.
What is a multipaper dissertation?
A traditional dissertation often relates the details of one large study (which may have various sub-components) and is normally comprised of an introduction, literature review, methodology, findings/results, discussion, and conclusion. An alternative is to publish a small number of papers in traditional journals and include them with a contextualization chapter or two to form a dissertation.
I encountered various names for this type of dissertation (some of which have shades of difference), such as multipaper, sandwich, alternative, stapled-papers, Scandinavian, paper-based, PhD by publication(s), thesis by publication, and PhD by published works. I prefer the term multipaper dissertation as it is suitably descriptive of its defining quality.
While not attempting to relate a definitive history of dissertations, a brief background is helpful to position the novel format. Our notion of the traditional doctoral degree and accompanying dissertation format was largely imported from Germany to Canada and the United States in the mid-nineteen century. This format has not changed significantly since that time. It appears the multipaper format was introduced into the United Kingdom and the United Statues in the 1960s and has grown slowly but progressively since then. I was unable to find any accounts of the format’s usage in Canada, but it is not uncommon to find it used in Scandinavia or Australia. In the UK and US, it is becoming increasingly used in the fields of chemistry, physics, biology, geology, computer science, finance, economics, marketing, and medicine
Components of a multipaper dissertation
Badley (2009) analyzed universities in the United Kingdom offering this format and the academic literature surrounding the topic; he found few commonalities and a lack of scholarship on the topic. Based on the literature I did find, there appears to be little consensus on a standard structure for a multipaper dissertation. According to Badley’s research, some UK universities do not require any documentation beyond the publications, while others may require a new document, a “critical appraisal”, be written to synthesize the collected works (p. 333, 2009).
Grant and Reed offer their take on what a multipaper dissertation should contain: an abstract, an introduction, an explanation or summary of the included papers, the published papers, a conclusion, and a literature review as an appendix (2006). Including the full contents of the published papers in the master document is not necessarily an obligatory component (although discussing them, no doubt, is). Multipaper dissertations do tend be shorter than the traditional format as it is felt that the published work alone is indicative of significant scholarship. Another variance is in the number of papers to include. Badley found no universities were explicit on the required number, but he offered that best practice indicates it should be not less than six and no more than ten.
Pros and cons of the multipaper format
The multipaper format paper has engendered criticism and disrepute arising largely from universities that allow students to submit any work published prior to enrollment. In the United Kingdom, the "PhD by publication" process was initially used to allow existing university faculty (for example, heads of laboratories, librarians, scientists) who had a distinguished record of publishing in academic journals to acquire a doctorate more easily. This practice remains despite criticisms of it being an insider perk. Further criticisms of this format arose upon some universities opening this option to any qualifying student (provoking derogatory remarks that anyone who pays tuition, qualifies).
Some universities also allow any pre-published or artistic work, including those neither peer-reviewed nor from an academic source. Starrs (2008) argues that evaluating the films of a director for a PhD in film studies makes sense, but allowing trade literature for any PhD program may not. Badley is further critical that accepting trade literature is more appropriate for professional doctorates than a PhD. It is this lack of traditional, advanced academic performance metrics that spurs criticisms that doctorates attained this way amount to degrees for purchase. Starrs equates degrees achieved in such as fashion as essentially honourary degrees, at times as dubious as the one the Long Island University awarded to Kermit the Frog. It is therefore important to distinguish between a dissertation comprised of peer-reviewed papers published in academic sources during one’s enrollment and a dissertation comprised of papers or work published before starting a PhD program.
The traditional dissertation format, however, would not have survived for such a long time if it did not offer strong advantages. The familiar format provides a standard template and shared experience for all doctoral students. This makes the doctoral process more consistent and understandable. It also provides training in delivering an in-depth piece of original research. This training is a singular opportunity in most academics’ careers that allows them to acquire the experience and evidence of mastering a topic and methods.
However, Duke and Beck believe traditional formats do not offer sufficient practice in writing the journal or trade articles that students will be expected to master upon graduation (1999). They posit that a traditional dissertation is a unique genre in both style and in readership. Dissertations are thus like a will; one only writes one once. Mastering this genre is consequently of minimal value. They also argue that the style and circumstances of a traditional dissertation are such that few are suitable for publishing or apt to be reworked into more than a couple publishable papers at best. Very few dissertations thus result in any publications. Duke and Beck therefore advocate for the multipaper format as it offers the opportunity for more real-life practice and increased readership.
The following additional benefits can be listed: it can accelerate a career by improving one’s curriculum vitae and connections with journal editors; it provokes comments from reviewers that can be invaluable and may come from scholars more knowledgeable on one’s specific domain than may otherwise be available; it encourages collaboration; it mitigates against poor results or arriving at a project failure too late in one’s dissertation process by focusing on smaller projects and getting progressive feedback through the publication process.
Multipaper dissertations have disadvantages: the process is slower due to publication timeframes, and if full publication is required this can amount to a substantial delay; one gets experience with several smaller projects but not the benefit of working on one big, in-depth project; peer review may be tougher and less open to discussion than one’s committee; and there may be a lack of experience at one’s university with this format that may provoke resistance or result in insufficient support.
To get around the time delays that academic publishing often entails, Duke and Beck suggest that a multipaper dissertation be allowed to include papers that are ready for consideration or in the process of consideration for publication (1999). Another way to combat publishing and feedback delays is to publish in conference proceedings. Further consideration should also be made to account for an individual student’s personality, circumstances, faculty, and topic that may – or may not – be conducive to such an approach.
Evaluation criteria
This nonstandard dissertation format introduces the problem of finding an evaluation criteria. Traditional quality metrics may not apply to such a format with profound differences in structure and goals.
The traditional format appears to have a general consensus on quality hallmarks. Garson is representative of the standard advice, stating that dissertations should start with framing an analytic question and offering a roadmap; have a robust, well-organized literature review; develop a model through operationalizing variables and a rigourous research design; present the case through clear writing and valid findings; and conclude by drawing inferences, making generalizations, and pointing ahead. More specialized advice for qualitative dissertations is offered by Piantanida and Garman (1999). They outline high-level qualities for optimal qualitative work, which are integrity (structural soundness), verité (rings true), rigour, utility, vitality, aesthetics, and ethics.
Unlike with the traditional format, there appears to be little guidance for multipaper formats; I was able to find only one source for any discussion of evaluation. Badley, in his overview of the status of the format in the UK does offer some quality benchmarks (2009). He believes such dissertations should strive for originality, rigour, significance, and coherence.
Badley acknowledges that these criteria are not necessarily unique, objective, or well-defined. He even questions whether a discussion of quality is necessary since the articles have already been peer-reviewed and accepted by journals. He notes that the multipaper format is evaluated more on process rather than the product.
Originality
Ascertaining a work’s originality within an entire subject is hard to assess for any work. With multipaper dissertations traditional ways to assess originality also applies, but a unique issue arises when the associated papers are jointly authored. This raises the question of individual contribution, which is rarely an issue for dissertations otherwise. In a traditional dissertation the work is assumed to be new work originating from the PhD student. With multipaper dissertations the master dissertation document would always be authored by an individual PhD student, but it is not uncommon for the associated publications to be comprised of jointly authored papers. This raises the question of how much work is done by the individual. Robins & Kanowski (2008) find this issue to be one of the main contentions with this format at many universities. They advise that universities should require a declaration from the PhD student regarding their level of contribution. They do not, however, advise how to determine sufficient individual effort. Universities accepting this format, it would seem, must be comfortable with collaborative rather than entirely individual effort.
Rigour
Again traditional evaluation criteria (e.g. appropriate sampling strategy, validity of findings, etc.) do also apply. Where the unique aspects of the multipaper format arises in regards to this criteria is in the length of reporting on methodology. Although methodology sections can be unsatisfactorily brief in traditional formats, in multipaper dissertations they are almost brief by definition. To further compound the problem are articles published in conferences proceedings as such articles are even shorter than conventional journals. This further reduces the opportunity to supply sufficient methodology details. Wilson encountered this situation when his university began accepting the format (2002). This posed a roadblock to committee members feeling they were able to adequately evaluate candidates' work. Wilson notes that this was rectified by requiring candidates to augment their dissertations with further methodology details.
Significance
As multipaper format dissertations are comprised of existing published works, evaluating significance can be done by examining the papers publishing records and feedback. This can be assessed based on impact factors, download totals, citation counts, prestige of publication source, reviews, and informal feedback. This data is useful to demonstrate that the work had importance and influence in the field – and also indicates that a dissertation was read by more than just a committee and a student’s spouse.
Coherence
Traditional dissertations can suffer from an inability to maintain a clear focus, but this problem is exacerbated when a dissertation is also comprised of multiple, possibly external, papers. To further compound the problem, the research could have been conducted through a series of separate projects conducted years apart. The goal of a dissertation is to demonstrate mastery of conducting research on a single topic, not to patch together a collection of assorted work that one has already conveniently published. A dissertation can explore various dimensions of a subject, but at some point trying to marry divergent works into one document becomes difficult. Cinderella’s wicked stepsister managed to get most of her foot in the glass slipper, but it clearly did not fit and it wasn’t pretty. Thus achieving coherence in a multipaper dissertation is an important, if difficult, undertaking.
PhD as process, not product
I heard a saying that the only good dissertation is a completed one. If dissertations are a journey then some see the destination as less important than how one got there. Badley notes that shares the journey analogy as it “should help candidates shift attention away from the traditional PhD emphasis on the research product – the thesis itself – towards the development of the autonomous scholar who is capable of undertaking further research journeys” (2009, p. 340).
Samples of multipaper format
The two dissertations below offer two different styles using this format. Harper uses the more conventional (of this unconventional format) approach of including his published papers in his dissertation with a framing introduction and conclusion. Roto, on the other hand, lists her published papers and then synthesizes from them to offer an entirely new paper in a conventional format.
Harper, F. (2009). The impact of social design on user contributions to online communities. University of Minnesota, Department of Computer Science and Engineering.
Roto, V. (2006). Web browsing on mobile phones – characteristics of user experience. Helsinki University of Technology, Department of Computer Science and Engineering.
Sources:
Badley, G. (2009). Publish and be doctor-rated: The PhD by published work. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(4), 331-342.
Duke, N. K., & Beck, S. W. (1999). Education should consider alternative formats for the dissertation. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 31-36.
Garson, G. D. (2001). Guide to writing empirical papers, theses, and dissertations. New York: M. Dekker.
Grant, D., & Reed, A. (2006, April 21). Multi-paper Dissertation. Retrieved April 23, 2010 from http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:hgjsmltiqo4j:saet.cs.depaul.edu/ multi- paper%2520dissertation%2520presentation%2520042106. ppt+multipaper+dissertation&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca
Piantanida, M., & Garman, D. N. (1999). The qualitative dissertation: A guide for students and faculty. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Robins, L., & Kanowski, P. (2008). PhD by publication: A student's perspective. Journal of Research Practice, 4(3).
Starrs, B. (2008). Publish and graduate?: Earning a PhD by published papers in Australia. M/C Journal, 11(4).
Wilson, K. (2002). Quality assurance issues for a PhD by published work: A case study. Quality Assurance in Education, 10(2), 71-78.
In trying to decide if this alternative format would be appropriate and helpful, I found that there wasn't much written about this format. So here is background info I put together, which may help others in determining if this format is right for them.
What is a multipaper dissertation?
A traditional dissertation often relates the details of one large study (which may have various sub-components) and is normally comprised of an introduction, literature review, methodology, findings/results, discussion, and conclusion. An alternative is to publish a small number of papers in traditional journals and include them with a contextualization chapter or two to form a dissertation.
I encountered various names for this type of dissertation (some of which have shades of difference), such as multipaper, sandwich, alternative, stapled-papers, Scandinavian, paper-based, PhD by publication(s), thesis by publication, and PhD by published works. I prefer the term multipaper dissertation as it is suitably descriptive of its defining quality.
While not attempting to relate a definitive history of dissertations, a brief background is helpful to position the novel format. Our notion of the traditional doctoral degree and accompanying dissertation format was largely imported from Germany to Canada and the United States in the mid-nineteen century. This format has not changed significantly since that time. It appears the multipaper format was introduced into the United Kingdom and the United Statues in the 1960s and has grown slowly but progressively since then. I was unable to find any accounts of the format’s usage in Canada, but it is not uncommon to find it used in Scandinavia or Australia. In the UK and US, it is becoming increasingly used in the fields of chemistry, physics, biology, geology, computer science, finance, economics, marketing, and medicine
Components of a multipaper dissertation
Badley (2009) analyzed universities in the United Kingdom offering this format and the academic literature surrounding the topic; he found few commonalities and a lack of scholarship on the topic. Based on the literature I did find, there appears to be little consensus on a standard structure for a multipaper dissertation. According to Badley’s research, some UK universities do not require any documentation beyond the publications, while others may require a new document, a “critical appraisal”, be written to synthesize the collected works (p. 333, 2009).
Grant and Reed offer their take on what a multipaper dissertation should contain: an abstract, an introduction, an explanation or summary of the included papers, the published papers, a conclusion, and a literature review as an appendix (2006). Including the full contents of the published papers in the master document is not necessarily an obligatory component (although discussing them, no doubt, is). Multipaper dissertations do tend be shorter than the traditional format as it is felt that the published work alone is indicative of significant scholarship. Another variance is in the number of papers to include. Badley found no universities were explicit on the required number, but he offered that best practice indicates it should be not less than six and no more than ten.
Pros and cons of the multipaper format
The multipaper format paper has engendered criticism and disrepute arising largely from universities that allow students to submit any work published prior to enrollment. In the United Kingdom, the "PhD by publication" process was initially used to allow existing university faculty (for example, heads of laboratories, librarians, scientists) who had a distinguished record of publishing in academic journals to acquire a doctorate more easily. This practice remains despite criticisms of it being an insider perk. Further criticisms of this format arose upon some universities opening this option to any qualifying student (provoking derogatory remarks that anyone who pays tuition, qualifies).
Some universities also allow any pre-published or artistic work, including those neither peer-reviewed nor from an academic source. Starrs (2008) argues that evaluating the films of a director for a PhD in film studies makes sense, but allowing trade literature for any PhD program may not. Badley is further critical that accepting trade literature is more appropriate for professional doctorates than a PhD. It is this lack of traditional, advanced academic performance metrics that spurs criticisms that doctorates attained this way amount to degrees for purchase. Starrs equates degrees achieved in such as fashion as essentially honourary degrees, at times as dubious as the one the Long Island University awarded to Kermit the Frog. It is therefore important to distinguish between a dissertation comprised of peer-reviewed papers published in academic sources during one’s enrollment and a dissertation comprised of papers or work published before starting a PhD program.
The traditional dissertation format, however, would not have survived for such a long time if it did not offer strong advantages. The familiar format provides a standard template and shared experience for all doctoral students. This makes the doctoral process more consistent and understandable. It also provides training in delivering an in-depth piece of original research. This training is a singular opportunity in most academics’ careers that allows them to acquire the experience and evidence of mastering a topic and methods.
However, Duke and Beck believe traditional formats do not offer sufficient practice in writing the journal or trade articles that students will be expected to master upon graduation (1999). They posit that a traditional dissertation is a unique genre in both style and in readership. Dissertations are thus like a will; one only writes one once. Mastering this genre is consequently of minimal value. They also argue that the style and circumstances of a traditional dissertation are such that few are suitable for publishing or apt to be reworked into more than a couple publishable papers at best. Very few dissertations thus result in any publications. Duke and Beck therefore advocate for the multipaper format as it offers the opportunity for more real-life practice and increased readership.
The following additional benefits can be listed: it can accelerate a career by improving one’s curriculum vitae and connections with journal editors; it provokes comments from reviewers that can be invaluable and may come from scholars more knowledgeable on one’s specific domain than may otherwise be available; it encourages collaboration; it mitigates against poor results or arriving at a project failure too late in one’s dissertation process by focusing on smaller projects and getting progressive feedback through the publication process.
Multipaper dissertations have disadvantages: the process is slower due to publication timeframes, and if full publication is required this can amount to a substantial delay; one gets experience with several smaller projects but not the benefit of working on one big, in-depth project; peer review may be tougher and less open to discussion than one’s committee; and there may be a lack of experience at one’s university with this format that may provoke resistance or result in insufficient support.
To get around the time delays that academic publishing often entails, Duke and Beck suggest that a multipaper dissertation be allowed to include papers that are ready for consideration or in the process of consideration for publication (1999). Another way to combat publishing and feedback delays is to publish in conference proceedings. Further consideration should also be made to account for an individual student’s personality, circumstances, faculty, and topic that may – or may not – be conducive to such an approach.
Evaluation criteria
This nonstandard dissertation format introduces the problem of finding an evaluation criteria. Traditional quality metrics may not apply to such a format with profound differences in structure and goals.
The traditional format appears to have a general consensus on quality hallmarks. Garson is representative of the standard advice, stating that dissertations should start with framing an analytic question and offering a roadmap; have a robust, well-organized literature review; develop a model through operationalizing variables and a rigourous research design; present the case through clear writing and valid findings; and conclude by drawing inferences, making generalizations, and pointing ahead. More specialized advice for qualitative dissertations is offered by Piantanida and Garman (1999). They outline high-level qualities for optimal qualitative work, which are integrity (structural soundness), verité (rings true), rigour, utility, vitality, aesthetics, and ethics.
Unlike with the traditional format, there appears to be little guidance for multipaper formats; I was able to find only one source for any discussion of evaluation. Badley, in his overview of the status of the format in the UK does offer some quality benchmarks (2009). He believes such dissertations should strive for originality, rigour, significance, and coherence.
Badley acknowledges that these criteria are not necessarily unique, objective, or well-defined. He even questions whether a discussion of quality is necessary since the articles have already been peer-reviewed and accepted by journals. He notes that the multipaper format is evaluated more on process rather than the product.
Originality
Ascertaining a work’s originality within an entire subject is hard to assess for any work. With multipaper dissertations traditional ways to assess originality also applies, but a unique issue arises when the associated papers are jointly authored. This raises the question of individual contribution, which is rarely an issue for dissertations otherwise. In a traditional dissertation the work is assumed to be new work originating from the PhD student. With multipaper dissertations the master dissertation document would always be authored by an individual PhD student, but it is not uncommon for the associated publications to be comprised of jointly authored papers. This raises the question of how much work is done by the individual. Robins & Kanowski (2008) find this issue to be one of the main contentions with this format at many universities. They advise that universities should require a declaration from the PhD student regarding their level of contribution. They do not, however, advise how to determine sufficient individual effort. Universities accepting this format, it would seem, must be comfortable with collaborative rather than entirely individual effort.
Rigour
Again traditional evaluation criteria (e.g. appropriate sampling strategy, validity of findings, etc.) do also apply. Where the unique aspects of the multipaper format arises in regards to this criteria is in the length of reporting on methodology. Although methodology sections can be unsatisfactorily brief in traditional formats, in multipaper dissertations they are almost brief by definition. To further compound the problem are articles published in conferences proceedings as such articles are even shorter than conventional journals. This further reduces the opportunity to supply sufficient methodology details. Wilson encountered this situation when his university began accepting the format (2002). This posed a roadblock to committee members feeling they were able to adequately evaluate candidates' work. Wilson notes that this was rectified by requiring candidates to augment their dissertations with further methodology details.
Significance
As multipaper format dissertations are comprised of existing published works, evaluating significance can be done by examining the papers publishing records and feedback. This can be assessed based on impact factors, download totals, citation counts, prestige of publication source, reviews, and informal feedback. This data is useful to demonstrate that the work had importance and influence in the field – and also indicates that a dissertation was read by more than just a committee and a student’s spouse.
Coherence
Traditional dissertations can suffer from an inability to maintain a clear focus, but this problem is exacerbated when a dissertation is also comprised of multiple, possibly external, papers. To further compound the problem, the research could have been conducted through a series of separate projects conducted years apart. The goal of a dissertation is to demonstrate mastery of conducting research on a single topic, not to patch together a collection of assorted work that one has already conveniently published. A dissertation can explore various dimensions of a subject, but at some point trying to marry divergent works into one document becomes difficult. Cinderella’s wicked stepsister managed to get most of her foot in the glass slipper, but it clearly did not fit and it wasn’t pretty. Thus achieving coherence in a multipaper dissertation is an important, if difficult, undertaking.
PhD as process, not product
I heard a saying that the only good dissertation is a completed one. If dissertations are a journey then some see the destination as less important than how one got there. Badley notes that shares the journey analogy as it “should help candidates shift attention away from the traditional PhD emphasis on the research product – the thesis itself – towards the development of the autonomous scholar who is capable of undertaking further research journeys” (2009, p. 340).
Samples of multipaper format
The two dissertations below offer two different styles using this format. Harper uses the more conventional (of this unconventional format) approach of including his published papers in his dissertation with a framing introduction and conclusion. Roto, on the other hand, lists her published papers and then synthesizes from them to offer an entirely new paper in a conventional format.
Harper, F. (2009). The impact of social design on user contributions to online communities. University of Minnesota, Department of Computer Science and Engineering.
Roto, V. (2006). Web browsing on mobile phones – characteristics of user experience. Helsinki University of Technology, Department of Computer Science and Engineering.
Sources:
Badley, G. (2009). Publish and be doctor-rated: The PhD by published work. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(4), 331-342.
Duke, N. K., & Beck, S. W. (1999). Education should consider alternative formats for the dissertation. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 31-36.
Garson, G. D. (2001). Guide to writing empirical papers, theses, and dissertations. New York: M. Dekker.
Grant, D., & Reed, A. (2006, April 21). Multi-paper Dissertation. Retrieved April 23, 2010 from http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:hgjsmltiqo4j:saet.cs.depaul.edu/ multi- paper%2520dissertation%2520presentation%2520042106. ppt+multipaper+dissertation&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca
Piantanida, M., & Garman, D. N. (1999). The qualitative dissertation: A guide for students and faculty. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Robins, L., & Kanowski, P. (2008). PhD by publication: A student's perspective. Journal of Research Practice, 4(3).
Starrs, B. (2008). Publish and graduate?: Earning a PhD by published papers in Australia. M/C Journal, 11(4).
Wilson, K. (2002). Quality assurance issues for a PhD by published work: A case study. Quality Assurance in Education, 10(2), 71-78.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)