目前分類:Diary (2)

瀏覽方式: 標題列表 簡短摘要

In the UK, the PhD VIVA is not opened to the public. Usually just two examiners (one internal and one external) with PhD candidate!

Yesterday I passed my PhD VIVA with a minor correction after a period of 5-year study. I have to say that this is the best result I can get for such a controversial research subject in the planning department from two distinguished professors (examiners) in the transport field. Many friends have told me that “just prepare some key questions, relax, and enjoy!” It is ture. I enjoyed very much the whole process and felt lucky and even spoilt to have full two and half hours’ discussion with examiners who were asking critical questions about it. 

This is a list of rough questions they had asked (in fact, the whole process was not so clear-cut, there were a lot of discussion and links between different questions…) 

  1. Explain why I choose this research subject?
  2. Why not include more recent literature on some impact studies ? (Chapter 2 and 3)
  3. The research methods I use and my strong claims quantitative chapters (Chapter 4 and 5). 
  4. Almost no questions on my qualitative chapters (Chapter 6,7,8, &9) except for a few comments.
  5. Then the final conclusion, they want me to put more reflection, not summarize what I found, but put some discussion on limitation and more on suggesting future study and next steps….

The biggest debate was on my quantitative analysis. Why not use statistical test modeling, time effect on impacts, and what do I think the difficulties and limitations will be.. etc? I managed to defend the request for some statistical tests and the clarification of terms which may be confusing somehow. They are both very friendly and encouraging! I learn a lot from the process. Approaching the end of viva, they were really nice to ask that whether I have questions for them after they had questioned me for 2 hours. I honestly said to them that I am very glad to have both of them to be my examiners because this is a controversial and interdisciplinary subject. I am curious about their view on my subject and the way I conducted with this topic…I do feel and believe their input will strongly enhance the PhD thesis! After all, the PhD VIVA is just the beginning of a professional career.

Charline2007 發表在 痞客邦 留言(1) 人氣()

對於我這種學術菜鳥來說,投稿期刊的審查意見之回覆,該如何面對與心情調適還不成熟,尤其是最近第二篇期刊文章投稿剛收到回覆,雖然編輯來信帶來好消息,只要些微修改就會接受出版。但是看到兩位審查意見之天壤之別,深深感受到不同方法論之間的差異與不相容,第一個意見非常肯定,有相當的學術貢獻,並提出詳細的改進意見。第二位的意見就非常不屑,我想他(她)根本沒看,然後就是短短一小段文字,然後也沒有說要不要退件,只質疑我的研究內容只有一個統計上相關性分析,這樣也算是有貢獻嗎?然後完全不管其他的資料及分析,就說如果這個答案注定是yes, 那這個期刊就是一個適當的"outlet"...算他狠.... 然同一個問題,第一個審查意見也有提到,他(她)就覺得這個表格的分析不能讓他信服,而且還說這種類型的分析不適合放在這裡,請我拿掉....其實這個統計分析的表格有或沒有,並不會影響到研究的結論,而混用不同方法論的方法的下場就是這樣,不過沒試過,也不知道到底是怎樣一回事.....

另一方面,第一次被邀請扮演研究領域相關的期刊文章審查工作。當初答應是覺得看起來並沒有使用高深的統計工具,而引用的文獻也絕大多數是我熟悉的。然而細讀就發現,以我初淺的經驗,會覺得該文章並沒有任何證據或新發現,只是提出很多聲明或宣言,對於學術上來說,並沒有實質貢獻。為求審慎,請老師幫我看看,是不是我的意見太過狹隘,結果老師竟然說他也同意我的看法,如果他是審查人員他會傾向退件,但是如果邀請作者做根本性的修改會比較仁慈一點。以我對於這個期刊的了解,好像不會再做第二次審查....這樣的文章如果出爐,後果不堪設想....所以今天掙扎一小下,為了捍衛期刊的名聲,提出很多問題與建議後 還是建議退件.............

Charline2007 發表在 痞客邦 留言(8) 人氣()