Category Archives: Positioning

A PhD is more than a thesis

Inspired by a Tweet I read recently about the distinction between a thesis and a PhD, I have been thinking about the difference between the two.

The university really focuses on the thesis, which must :

  • be of good presentation and style
  • be a significant contribution to knowledge and/or to understanding
  • demonstrate capacity to pursue further research without supervision
  • contain a significant amount of material worthy of publication or public presentation.

What else? Well, our university specifies you must be a registered student, you must live in the UK, you must pass your probationary period, you must spend a minimum amount of time as a registered student, you must make satisfactory progress, you must have a viva, you must make any specified corrections and you must present your thesis according to the guidelines.

All very thesis focused.

Vitae has a Researcher Development Framework that covers knowledge and intellectual abilities;  personal effectiveness;  research governance and organisation; engagement, influence and impact. The university encourages students to engage with this but, apart from reporting satisfactory progress at probationary review, it isn’t enforced or assessed.

Typically, students are assessment focused. They learn what they will be assessed on. It’s not surprising, then, that many doctoral students focus their entire attention on the thesis. That is the centre of their activity – everything else that takes place at the university is a distraction and has lower priority. In extreme cases, they only visit the university for supervision sessions, talk to nobody but their supervisors about their research, and focus totally on putting their thesis together and passing their viva.

But what then? A PhD is one line in a CV – perhaps five or six if you bulk it out with a description of your research. Permanent academic jobs in the UK and in many other countries may not be as rare as hens’ teeth, but they come pretty close. Even fixed-term contracts are difficult to get.

For employers, the PhD is not just one line in a CV, it’s also one line in a long job specification.

Academic employers want to know that you can publish papers, put together grant proposals, attract funding, increase impact via social media, create course materials, teach, mentor, work as part of a team, initiate projects, provide connections to a wider academic community and work on several projects at the same time.

The people getting the academic jobs are the people who can produce evidence that they can do all those things, and that they have already done those things. The people who treated their PhD as a period of academic apprenticeship, when the thesis is just one activity among many. The people struggling to get a toehold in the academic sector are the ones who have simply written a thesis.

Scrum management framework

With its scrums, sprints and stories, Scrum Management always sounds intriguing. I’ve been involved with several teams who have either used this system knowingly, or have employed elements from it. However, I’ve never seen the process formalised until I spotted it in the January 2015 edition of Wired magazine (where they had compressed a version of Jeff Sutherland’s book). Wikipedia tells me that this style of software development emerged in 1986 – so I guess I’ve been slow in investigating the approach.

Wired describes it as a seven-step process:

1. Small  teams. These should include the product owner, who has the vision and decides on the order in which things should be done, and the scrum master who facilitates communication and removes obstacles.

2. Tell stories. Each new features should be associated with a short story about the user and why the feature will add value for the user.

3. Assign effort points. Compare the stories and give them points for effort involved (or T-shirt sizes: small, medium, large and extra large).

4. Prioritise features. Each sprint should end with something that can be demoed, so make the chunks of work small enough to fit into a sprint.

5. Sprint. A sprint should be 1-4 weeks long – long enough to deal with a set amount of effort points.

6. Scrum. A 15-minute meeting every morning, standing up, so you’re not tempted to settle in. Three questions. What did you do yesterday to help finish the sprint? What will you do today to help finish the sprint? What obstacles need to be overcome?

7. Sprint review. At the end of the sprint the team meets to discuss what has been achieved, and to improve working practices for the next sprint.

 

The Bad Supervision Guide

(Originally from Tony Winefield, University of South Australia. Came to me via an OU research degree supervisor workshop.)

Bad supervision, like any other skill can be acquired and developed with practice. Here are six simple rules to follow:

  1. Be inaccessible.
  2. Don’t return written work because you are ‘too busy’ to read it.
  3. Humiliate and belittle your students with savage, brutal and unfair criticism
  4. Alternatively, treate your PhD students as unpaid research assistants.
  5. Offer bad advice. For example: suggest an inappropriate topic, recommend research methods that have poor relibaility or validity, recommend inappropriate mthods for analysing results, allow your student submit without doing enough research, encourage your student to do far too much work, discourage your student from publishing prior to submission
  6. Choose bad examiners.

Journal impact

I’ve spent the day looking at the impact factor of various journals.

The ISI Web of Knowledge lists 1985 social science journals (according to a workshop I attended recently, only about 15% of education journals are in ISI). The ‘Annual Review of Psychology’ comes in top for 2008, with an annual impact factor of 16.217.

The impact factor is obtained by looking at all articles in the journal over the last two years (2006-7), and all citations of those articles in 2008. Divide the citations by the article and you get the impact factor. So if, on average, every article was cited once in 2008, you get an impact factor of 1. If every article was cited twice, you get an impact factor of 2. If only half your articles were cited, you get 0.5.

Of the social science journals that are listed (and many of them are not), 1685 have impact scores of less than two. On the bright side, there are 300 journals out there where your article will, on average, be cited twice a year. I’m assuming that this means it will be cited in one of the 1985 journals listed in the social science section of the ISI web of science – but I can’t find that information on the site.

Social science, though, is a broad field. Educational technology journals in which I am likely to publish tend to attract fewer than two citations per article. ‘Computers & Education’ is the honourable exception, It comes in at 244 on the list, with an impact factor of 2.19. I’d be better off becoming an expert in psychology, psychology or marketing. Education doesn’t really make it into the list until no 75, with the US Journal ‘Educational Psychologist’.

Does it matter? It does in two ways. First, the REF will be looking at impact – so we are increasingly being encouraged to go for quality, not quantity. Don’t just publish; publish in the top-rated journals. Second, I like to think that my work could/will have impact. I’m not convinced that the best way to achieve that impact is through journals (two citations a year may not be as good as five links in a blog or ten retweets on an education list). However, given that my career prospects rest, in part, on my publication record, it makes sense to prioritise the journals with the most impact.

So, I’ve sketched out some potential articles and where I might publish them. The list is significantly different from the one I had this morning when I started looking at impact factors. I may not end up writing these articles – I may not end up publishing what I write in these journals – but their impact rating is definitely affecting my thinking about what and where to publish.

Applied Linguistics (2.22)
Building knowledge in the short term
Computers and Ed (2.19)
Methodology paper
JCMC (1.9)
Building knowledge in the long term
Discourse Studies (1.16)
Avoiding disputational talk
JCAL (1.06)
Interaction on distance-learning courses
BJET (1.04)
SL paper
Improving Schools
School Visions
Learning, Media and Technology
Young users of Web 2.0
JIME
Epistolary interviews – research ethics

Flickr badge

I was just sending the first part of my email interviews out to students, when I thought I should check the link to my web page.

I’d forgotten that I’d tried out my Flickr badge there. It works very effectively but lots of my Flickr pix were taken at the Guinness factory when I went to the CAL conference at Dublin.

Thought I’d better not give the impression that I’m obsessed with alcohol on my home page. I’d use the badge in this blog, but I can’t work out how to do that. Something to do with the template, I guess. I’ve pasted it below for when I have the time to sort it out.

www.http://www.flickr.com”>www. style=”color:#3993ff”>flickr.com 

This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from ebbsgrovehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/24707984@N00″>ebbsgrove>. Make your own badge here.http://www.flickr.com/badge.gne”>here.>

     

Feeling very angry

I just logged in to FirstClass to see what was going on and in the vague hope that I would have received a message from my unhelpful gatekeeper. No such luck. However, logging on reminded me that while the gatekeeper claimed to have had no time in the past three months to OK a couple of letters I had written, they had found time to exclude me from a whole series of relevant FirstClass conferences.

It’s bad enough to have a gatekeeper who is wasting hours of my time, disrupting my research and stressing me out. That’s their prerogative. They’re not paid to help me. But being deliberately obstructive? hat sort of educator does that? My opinion of this gatekeeper has fallen very, very low.

Blog my research?

How would it be if I gave every student on DZX222 access to this blog? Or to another blog, created for the purpose? Then I could put in my musings as I go along and get student responses. It would be another source of data and a whole new use for my blog.

Of course, I’d have to be really careful about referring to data in order to protect anonymity. And if students could access my research, would it affect how they act? Would that matter? Would I be seen as interfering with the learning and teaching? Would I have to write myself some specific blogging ethical guidelines before I got going?

Same footage, many stories

Maarten Dolk http://www.fi.uu.nl/nl/medewerkers/medewerkers/medewerker63.html gave an interesting talk about getting student teachers to develop narratives about events as a tool to construct meaning about mathematics education and to bridge the divide between theory and practice.

They showed a video clip from the classroom and asked six people to comment on it. Despite them running it several times, people still disagreed on what was physically happening (was that child counting in fives or was he really counting in tens) and what the children were doing (building a tower of Unifix cubes or measuring a desk). One story, many interpretations.

Electronic runes

Lisa Gjedde talked on ‘capturing the meaning in interactive storytelling’. There were elements of the project which appealed to me, particularly the thinking of a personal question, then casting the electronic runes and interpreting the resulting video in the light of your own question. However, I won’t be going to any papers by Lisa again.

Scottish Storytelling Centre

sepia_house.jpgSpent the morning on a really fun activity. We met up at the Scottish Storytelling Centre in John Know House on the Royal Mile. I was expecting the centre to be a backroom somewhere but it’s an entire, well resourced building about midway up the Royal Mile. Seeing as storytelling in England tends to be confined to the upstairs rooms in pubs or to one-off events, this is even more impressive.

Anyway, we split into three groups and went for storytelling walks along the Royal Mile, taking digital photos as we went. Then we returned to base, shared stories and impressions and made a collage of the experience.

This seemed to tie in very well with Gill’s mobile learning. You can see the possibility for creating a really rich resource about the Royal Mile with different histories and stories and perspectives available at every point. Layer upon layer of different perspectives.

Also it made me think about why some stories/narratives endure. If a major role of narrative in education is to help us to remember things, then which stories help us to remember best? Which elements are the most important? Do we tend to remember things which make us uneasy?