what do u hope to gain from ur phd?

just a phd, or a phd + future prospect.

if u're just eyeing for a phd, i would recommend option B. it's practical and safe. u can set a target to complete it within 3 years, no hassle iA.

however, if u're looking for some added value, option A would be swell, just swell. it could be risky, but the risk does come with certain perks.

for me, i've already chosen option A for my research :)

research progresses pretty much like fashion. a particular research focus can be popular at one time, and tasteless at another. this is due to the simple fact that panels who evaluate and approve funding change all the time. each group would have their own paradigm of what is important and what is not within a temporal vicinity.

knowing this, researchers change their focus to improve their *chance* of getting a fund. it's more or less an application of game theory. u develop a proposal that u think would gain the panels' interest. at the same time, u differentiate your proposal from other similar ones. this implies that prediction is crucial. u need to predict what others could be doing and then propose something that would outshine them. failure to anticipate this can be hazardous.

for instance, someone i knew was really enthused about computational immunology 10 years ago. he submitted a great proposal and tried to market the idea to other researchers, only to be responded with demoralizing remarks. he never finished his phd and got heartbroken along the way.

in 2009 computational research gained its boom. if i'm not mistaken, until now, a few hundred million has been invested to propel its growth in the US. apparently, what was hilarious 10 years ago (computational immunology) is now considered a compelling prospect that would allow pharmaceutical companies to save billions on research. presently, it's even considered a field of its own.

to answer the question, people abandon their research due to the perception of research value. if a particular research is perceived to be useful by the research community, it is continued. else, it would be abandoned. this argumentation is meant for the behaviour of change at the macro scale. individually, people can change their research for various reasons, which include interest, collaboration possibility etc.

still, some researchers are quite persistent in their research regardless of perceived value. when george miller started wordnet about 30 years, it wasn't really popular. currently, it's being cited by hundreds of papers and used all over the world. it is said that to be an expert in a field, or to achieve a research breakthrough, u need to allocate at least 10 years of research into it ( 10 year rule / 10000 hours rule). thus, changing the research often is kinda counterproductive.

hope this has shed some light on ur inquiry.

woot!!

congratulation is in order then, DR swetchha. :)

LOL ian, im thinking more of MMORPG, like guildwars2 etc.

hey bamc,

i'm doing my phd part time too and working full time. currently, i'm dedicating at most 1H/day and on fridays, i assemble my findings for the week, which takes an additional hour or two. i try not to disrupt my weekend. it's for taking a break. hehe

it's not the amount of time that u allocate for research that determines progress, but rather, how u spend it. we gotta learn to optimize our research technique to be able to accomplish part time research successfully. i'm hoping to graduate with my other friends who are doing it full time. ambitious but doable iA, if done the right way.

then again, i'm doing my phd for engineering iA, so some might argue that the time allocation may not be suitable for other disciplines.. certain phd specializations like biology, veterinary etc that involve living entities may require more time for the experimentation. for social sciences, interviewing people can be time consuming. however, u can still optimize time by using surveymonkey or interviewing people through skype. hehe

there are many ways to do research :) . doing it part time just implies that we gotta be more creative about how we *invest* our time. above all, we must learn to have FUN with research. passion keeps the NOS in sufficient supply (metaphorically, i hope u know what NOS is for, LOL) and what's the point of juggling work and phd if we're not having fun aye?

we're juz gamers. phd's a game. :)

LOL, quite an intriguing case. seems that u're out of zest and everything is mechanical.

i would recommend that u turn it into a game. if nothing pushes u to finish than maybe u need a pull. finding ways to make something fun could introduce vigor back into ur phd.

i used this as a way of learning things that would often put me to sleep. turning it into a game requires some creativity on ur part. as long as it doesnt endanger anyone in the process, or does not entail cheating, i reckon it should be ok.

for instance, in learning literature like shakespeare and all that, i imagined that i'm the director of a movie.. and learning literature turned into "how can i make this a movie that's cool to watch". so i denoted each character to an actor/actress that i liked.. visualized their interaction in my head. pretty soon "much ado about nothing" didn't look so prosaic after all. i memorized the dialogue better because it's important to direct the right facial expression for a scene.

or, in doing laborious experimentation, i turned it into a game by asking.. "what are the 3 fastest ways to get this all done without cheating?" and i started doing some study on operational research and experimental design, only to discover new ways to do experiments. so, instead of taking the usual 6 months to get things up and running, it's taking me about half the time to get things done afterwards.

in studying history before, i turned it into a game by asking "how can i make the best comic strip from this lecture" and i changed all the notes into cartoons, caricatures and what not. my history book ended up looking more like a sketch book than a dictation of dates or facts. at first, some of the conservative educators were appalled, but when they see the rise in my grades for history they started to be more understanding.

hope it works out ok for u.

hey emma,

i would suggest taking about 3 cases first. study them closely and figure out, what exactly do u need from them.

consequently, develop a template.

u can use the template to study the other cases. this way, u can use the template to skim the other cases quickly.

u might also want to group the cases together. there might be 207 individual cases but maybe, with the template, u can study the similarity of those cases and group it into 5 - 6 main groups. this should speed things up.

explain the main feature of each group and how they differ. then, explain the special cases as the need arise. hope this helps.. all the best emaa!

"So, it's a multidisciplinary field; I think this multidisciplinary fields you'll be covering are too big for your research"/
"It's too big for a PhD work"
definitely NOT. the scope of the thesis does not change. only the approach has been adapted successfully with the strength of the other fields in dealing with the obstacles along the way.


"Although you have explained the core areas you'll be covering, I still think you're more leaning on field X/Y/Z, and not your actual field R; your PhD is in R, so you should do something related to R."
that would not be true. the other fields are only working as *supporting* fields. the major problem to be solved still remains within this field, which is field R.


"It's not enough for a PhD work" / "this work is good for MSc level. not PhD."
i have achieved all the requirements set within the proposal stage. i have published two papers in cited journals prior to this viva. i have developed the solution successfully and proven its workability. if this work is not enough for a phd, shouldn't the objective and scope be addressed at the proposal stage, 3 years ago? [this a rhetorical question which implies the insanity of wanting to change the objective and the scope after everything is done]

[the use of a proposal is to set a series of objectives and scope that if satisfied, would substantiate a worthy doctoral research. if they are saying that the phd is NOT worthy, despite reaching all the objectives and adhering to the scope, then the proposal was not properly approved. if such is true, they are implying their own self contradicting dilemma. LOL but u shouldn't point this out in this manner. insinuating it would be enough i reckon]

======= Date Modified 01 Nov 2012 00:07:48 =======

"Is there a need to do this, since some other solutions are already available?"
yes, because the rest of them do not provide [state the benefit / niche of your solution]
furthermore, they seem to lack [state the limitation of the other solutions, which is alleviated by your specific approach].

"How do you know it's going to work?"
i have developed a valid and sound model that takes into consideration the empirical aspect of it ..
i have done the proper experimentation to prove its applicability ..
i derived the solution from a series of approaches that have been proven to be highly successful.

"I can't see what you're trying to do"
allow me to restate the aim of this research as well as the process of achieving it.
aim = ...
process = 1.. 2.. 3.. [should be consistent with the aim]
[find papers that translate the aim into the process]
[find papers that justify each part of the process]


"I don't think it will work"
ur skepticism is quite understandable. Richard (2010) had expressed similar concerns regarding this type of solution. However, Linda (2011) has shown considerable evidence as to how it could work. [find a paper that attacks ur solution and another that defends it later on]

"Is this even your field?"
well, it is not confined to my field per se. i had to develop the solution based on the accumulation of interdisciplinary findings. the core principle was taken from field X. to bridge the possibility of implementing the principle successfully, i had to build upon the model employed in field Y. finally, the solution is combined with an improvisation from field Z to make it more practical for application. thus, this research is basically a combination of my field, field X, Y and Z.

u're missing the whole point doc. it's not about style vs substance. im not trivializing the importance of communication.

merely stating the fact that communication should NOT be the only factor of evaluation. einstein was kinda bad in communication, especially when it involved formalism like mathematics in explaining his theory of relativity.

would it be fair to penalize einstein just because he was bad in communication?
or because he was non-native and had problem pronouncing certain words properly?
or because his sentence construction didn't achieve the required standard of academic exchange?
or because he made some typo errors in his blog? (LOL ok, they didnt have blogs back then but oh.. u get my point)

:) i thank God that his peers had learned to look pass ALL that. i thank God that they didn't say ..

"The world of academia is littered with the corpses of brilliant minds who couldn't communicate effectively"

if prejudice had won back then, we wouldn't be watching world cup live now, would we? with this, i rest my case.. hopefully, without the need of further resurrection.

8-)

how to feel better?

whenever i feel really down, i'd try helping others to do something good. one time, during my phd, i felt completely lost and the feeling didnt budge for so long.

one day, a professor asked me to help an undergraduate student who had been failing calculus for more than 3 times in a row. at first i was really reluctant. i was down myself. how can i possibly help someone else?

the funny thing is, the more i helped this guy, the lighter my heart felt. i don't really understand why. i've been reading a couple of motivational books by anthony robbins etc and he's saying the same thing.

i hope this helps.

regarding ur phd, in which field is it? maybe some of us here can help u a bit with ur research. :)

hey kelly,

can u give me a specific example to concretize the notion that u have in mind?

i could cite a hypothetical example, just to see whether it is at sync with ur expectation.

supposed that the senior management is concerned of improving the learning environment at the university. as such, they include student representatives in monthly meetings to keep themselves abreast with the progress. this would also allow a greater rapport to be built between the two, which is rather crucial when the students leave. to note, these students will become future alumni whose degree of contribution greatly depends upon their perception of the institution. if they perceive the institution as an entity that cares about their progress, they will contribute. else, they won't. as such, the mechanism of co-production not only enables current benefits but future ones as well.

now, does this generally reflect what u had in mind?

there are many ways to handle this iA.

u could organize the information with a mind map etc.
u could learn it in stages. always start with the simplest/general version and then build up from there. (hull's effect)
u could draw cartoons to lessen the anxiety. :)
u could focus on the general pattern of the large information. (systemic thinking)

what do u enjoy doing? if u love watching CSI, maybe u could try reading the info during the commercial breaks, just to recondition ur mind to be less anxious of the subject.

lol dalmation. i think u mistake syntax with semantics. if i were to type "there are many CAT in the car" would it be grammatically inferior? of course. i missed out the 's' to indicate plurality. still, would u understand the assertion? can u imagine the implication of the statement in your head? DEFINITELY.

now, when u read his blog, did u understand what was written there, or did the occasional missing 's' or 'es' render ur cognition completely fallow? u must understand that in a formal context ie book, both syntax and semantics are vital. in an informal context however, like a blog or forum, only the latter is truly necessary.

i find it quite distasteful when academics are obsessively fixated on language at the expense of the contribution made. the formal adjective for this kind of behaviour is known as *filiopietistic".

a non-native friend of mine presented a remarkable idea on how to solve a critical problem in engineering, and all the examiners could say was.. "oh.. could u improve on ur grammar?". wth?? just because she's not linguistically competent from the aspect of verbal syntax, doesn't mean that she's deficit in thinking. please refer to gardner's work on multiple intelligence if u require further proof on this.

in effect, to assume that the advice offered within the book (formal context) is questionable, based on the improper portrayal of grammar in the blog (INFORMAL context), is how should i say, euphemistically *specious* at best.