Here
are some improvements and refinements to the guidelines for PhD
students, focusing on clarity, structure, and adding some helpful
details where needed.
Three Characteristics of a Reasonable Research Project:
- Novelty:
- This
is typically established through a thorough literature search or
review. Your research should contribute something new, either by
exploring uncharted areas or by offering fresh insights into existing
knowledge. Ask: What gap in the literature does this work address?
- Significance:
- Why
does this work matter? A project should address a meaningful question
with potential impact on the field or society at large. What is the
broader importance of the problem you're solving?
- Doability:
- Is
the project feasible given the time, resources, and skill set you have?
Ensure that your research scope is manageable, and that you have or can
acquire the tools needed to complete it.
Influence of Funding Agencies on Research:
NSF: The US National Science Foundation evaluates proposals based on Intellectual Merit (quality of the research) and Broader Impacts
(potential to benefit society). While these concepts overlap with
novelty and significance, they are distinct in the way they emphasize
the broader societal benefits of research.
NIH:
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the largest biomedical
research agency, uses different criteria focused more on health impacts
and clinical applications. Know the specifics of the funding agency
you're targeting.
How to Find a Research Topic:
Interest:
- Choose
a topic that genuinely interests you. PhD research is a long process,
and maintaining motivation is easier if you’re passionate about the
subject.
Background & Expertise:
- Building
on a foundation where you have some background helps you get started
faster. It also helps ensure that your project is within your skill set.
Collaboration:
- Finding
a person or group to collaborate with is crucial. They can provide
resources, technical expertise, and insight into cutting-edge
developments.
Replicate and Extend Existing Research:
- Start
by replicating a study, then extend it. This is a good approach, but be
aware of pitfalls (e.g., unreported details in the original research,
reproducibility issues). Ask experienced researchers about common
challenges.
Systematic Literature Review (SLR):
- Surveying
a topic through an SLR is a great way to understand the landscape of a
field, identify gaps, and find emerging trends. An SLR may also yield a
publishable review paper, providing an early win.
Conference Paper Project:
- Doing
a smaller, focused project that results in a conference paper allows
you to test the waters. It gives you experience, sharpens your research
focus, and provides feedback from the academic community.
Advisor-Assigned Topics:
- Some
students prefer having a defined starting point. Ask your advisor for a
topic, or they might assign one based on their ongoing research
projects.
Research Methodology Courses:
- Taking
or auditing a research methodology course can solidify your
understanding of how to design and conduct research effectively. These
courses also introduce key concepts that may shape your dissertation.
Example Courses:
- IFSC 7399: ST: Research Methods in Information Science
- SYEN 7101: Research Methodology
- INFQ 7322: Information Quality Theory (Instructor: E. Alikhachkina)
Critical Questions for Reviewing Articles:
- What is the source? (Is it reputable?)
- What is the most significant advance in human knowledge presented?
- Why is that advance important?
- What questions for future research arise from this work?
- What questions should the paper have answered but didn’t?
- What is novel about this paper?
- How does it relate to your own research goals?
- What’s the most important takeaway from the article?
These questions help clarify the impact of the work and place it in the broader context of your field.
Writing Tips:
Review of Related Work:
- Every paper needs to review prior work. Consider using systematic review guidelines like:
- Kitchenham's 2004 Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews
- PRISMA Statement for transparent and comprehensive literature reviews.
Structure for Clarity:
- Each
passage in a document should start with what is already known and end
with the new key point. This structure applies to sentences, paragraphs,
sections, and entire documents.
Responding to Reviewers:
- There are two main approaches to addressing reviewer comments:
- Individual responses to each comment, explaining how changes were made.
- Highlighting the text that was added or modified in response to the feedback.
- Sometimes, using both methods is necessary, especially when asked by journals or funding agencies.
Generative AI Tools:
- Tools
like ChatGPT or Claude can assist in drafting and refining documents.
However, always review and edit AI-generated content to ensure accuracy,
clarity, and relevance. Remember, you’re still responsible for the
final result.
Final Thought:
While
coursework and methodology are important, the main goal of a PhD is to
develop your independent research capabilities. Stay curious,
collaborate, and build a strong foundation for your research.
These
improvements clarify the intent behind each section, emphasize key
points, and provide more context for various aspects of PhD research.
Let me know if you’d like to expand on any particular section further!
3. Guidelines for PhD students, revised by Claude.ai from ChatGPT's improved guidelines
3.1 Introduction
Thank you for sharing these guidelines for PhD students.
They provide a solid foundation for understanding key aspects of research
projects, finding research topics, and developing research skills. I'll review
the content, offer some critiques, and suggest improvements and additions.
I've created an improved and
expanded version of the PhD research guidelines in the artifact above. This
revised version builds upon the solid foundation provided in the original
document while addressing some areas for improvement and adding new sections.
Here's a summary of the key changes and additions:
- Expanded on the characteristics of a reasonable
research project, adding more depth to novelty, significance, and
doability.
- Added a new characteristic: ethical considerations.
- Broadened the discussion on funding agencies and their
influence.
- Enhanced the section on finding a research topic with
additional strategies and considerations.
- Expanded the research methodology section to include
more contemporary approaches and considerations.
- Added more critical questions for reviewing articles.
- Expanded the writing tips section with additional
practical advice.
- Included new sections on developing a writing routine,
collaborative writing, data visualization, publishing strategy, and
networking.
- Enhanced the final thoughts to address work-life
balance, transferable skills, and embracing failure as a learning
opportunity.
These improvements aim to provide a
more comprehensive guide for PhD students, addressing various aspects of the
research process and academic life. The structured format in the artifact
allows for easy reference and potential future modifications.
Would you like me to elaborate on
any specific part of these improved guidelines?
3.2 Revisions to the Guidelines
Improved PhD Research Guidelines
Characteristics
of a Reasonable Research Project
The existing guidelines provide a
good starting point with novelty, significance, and doability. Let's expand on
these and add some nuance:
- Novelty
- Existing: Focuses on filling gaps or offering fresh
insights.
- Improvement: Consider different types of novelty:
- Theoretical novelty: New concepts or models
- Methodological novelty: Innovative research methods
or tools
- Contextual novelty: Applying existing knowledge to
new contexts
- Addition: Discuss the importance of incremental vs.
revolutionary novelty.
- Significance
- Existing: Emphasizes broader importance and impact.
- Improvement: Break down significance into different
levels:
- Academic significance: Advancing the field
- Practical significance: Real-world applications
- Societal significance: Addressing important social
issues
- Addition: Discuss how to articulate and demonstrate
significance effectively.
- Doability
- Existing: Focuses on feasibility given resources and
skills.
- Improvement: Expand on resource considerations:
- Time: PhD duration and milestones
- Financial resources: Funding opportunities and
constraints
- Human resources: Collaborators, mentors, and support
networks
- Addition: Discuss the importance of scalability and
flexibility in research design.
- Ethical Considerations (New)
- Discuss the importance of ethical research practices
- Address potential ethical challenges in different
fields
- Highlight the role of Institutional Review Boards
(IRBs) and ethical approval processes
Influence
of Funding Agencies
The existing content provides a good
introduction to NSF and NIH criteria. Let's expand this section:
- Add information on other major funding bodies (e.g.,
European Research Council, private foundations)
- Discuss the growing emphasis on interdisciplinary
research and its impact on funding
- Address the importance of aligning research with
national or global priorities
- Highlight the role of preliminary data in securing
funding
Finding
a Research Topic
The existing guidelines offer
several valuable approaches. Let's enhance this section:
- Interest
- Addition: Discuss the balance between personal
interest and market demand for research topics
- Background & Expertise
- Improvement: Emphasize the importance of identifying
and addressing skill gaps
- Collaboration
- Addition: Discuss strategies for finding and
approaching potential collaborators
- Replicate and Extend Existing Research
- Improvement: Address the "replication
crisis" in some fields and its implications
- Systematic Literature Review (SLR)
- Addition: Discuss tools and software for conducting
SLRs (e.g., Covidence, EPPI-Reviewer)
- Conference Paper Project
- Addition: Discuss the role of preprints and open
science practices
- Advisor-Assigned Topics
- Improvement: Discuss strategies for negotiating
research direction with advisors
- Emerging Technologies and Trends (New)
- Discuss the importance of staying current with
technological advancements
- Address the potential of emerging fields (e.g., AI,
quantum computing, renewable energy)
Research
Methodology
The existing content mentions
courses but could be expanded:
- Discuss the importance of mixed-methods approaches
- Address the growing role of data science and big data
in research
- Highlight the importance of reproducibility and open
science practices
- Discuss the role of qualitative research methods across
disciplines
Critical
Questions for Reviewing Articles
The existing list is comprehensive.
Consider adding:
- How does this work challenge or support existing
theories or paradigms?
- What are the limitations of the study, and how might
they be addressed in future research?
- How generalizable are the findings?
Writing
Tips
The existing tips are valuable.
Let's add some more:
- Developing a Writing Routine
- Discuss strategies for consistent writing habits
- Address common writing challenges and how to overcome
them
- Collaborative Writing
- Discuss tools and best practices for writing with
collaborators
- Data Visualization
- Emphasize the importance of clear and effective data
presentation
- Discuss tools and principles for creating impactful
visualizations
- Publishing Strategy
- Discuss how to choose appropriate journals or
conferences
- Address open access publishing and its implications
- Networking and Research Dissemination
- Discuss the importance of presenting at conferences
and seminars
- Address the role of social media and online platforms
in research dissemination
Final
Thoughts
The existing final thought is
important. Consider adding:
- Emphasize the importance of work-life balance and
mental health in PhD studies
- Discuss the value of developing transferable skills for
diverse career paths
- Encourage students to embrace failure as a learning
opportunity in research
These improved guidelines provide a
more comprehensive and nuanced approach to PhD research, addressing additional
aspects of the research process and academic life.
4. Guidelines for PhD students, revised for lectures
1. Guidelines for PhD students
- Three characteristics of a reasonable research project:
- Novelty
- Typically established by lit. review
- Significance
- Doability
- The
US National Science Foundation
- Not the authority on what science is!
- Does influence research
- Proposals usually must discuss
- Intellectual Merit
- Broader Impacts
- These are related
but not identical to novelty and significance
- How to find a research topic:
- Be interested in your topic!
- Good to build on your background and expertise, if any
- Good to find a person or group to collaborate with
- Research is a social endeavor
- Find
an article of interest, then:
- Consider replicating and extending it
- This sounds simple
in principle
- Less so in practice!
- At least, defines a bite-sized first step
- Survey
a topic you might be interested in
- Consider doing a SLR
- (systematic
literature review)
- This way you can find out
- where the field is going
- what the open
problems are
- what the current active areas are
- Why not polish and publishe the review?
- Articles often suggest future work
- . . . you need to do some future work!
- Do
a smaller project
- Maybe get a conference paper
- The experience and knowledge may help decide on what to do next
- This is bite-sized too, but a bigger bite
- Ask your advisor for a research topic
- Some might assign you one
- Others might ask you to find one
- Research methodology courses
- Take one, or ask to attend informally
- IFSC 7399: ST: Research Methods in Inf Sci
- SYEN 7101: Research Methodology
- INFQ 7322: Information Quality Theory
- Practice writing parts of a possible future dissertation
- Taking courses
- Not the main point of a PhD!
- See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy
- How to read articles
- Here are some generic questions to ask
- What is the source?
- What is the most significant advance in the human knowledge presented in the paper?
- Why is that advance important?
- What important questions arise from the paper for future research?
- What do you wish the paper answered, but it doesn't?
- What does the paper present that is novel
- What is the relevance of the paper to you?
- What is the key lesson of this article?
- A good article should have one
- . . . but probably not two or more
- Anything else to add to this list?
- Writing hints
- Every paper, proposal, dissertation needs to review related work
- An increasingly influential methodology:
- Begin each sentence/par./section with:
- A reminder!
- Something the reader already knows
- Something the reader should know
- e.g. something presented earlier
- End each sentence/par./section with:
- the key takeaway from it!
- Everything else goes in the middle
- Revised documents may need to say how reviewer comments were addressed
- Articles submitted for publication get anonymous peer reviews
- Proposals
get reviewed
- anonymously if they are funding applications
- by your
committee members if for a PhD
thesis
- 2 ways to
respond to review comments:
- Individual response to each review comment
- Highlighting
any changed or added text
- So the reviewers can focus on the updates
- Maybe they don't want to reread the entire document!
- That might cause them to
- be annoyed
- procrastinate about
- even refuse to do
- Sometimes
it is good or even required to do *both*
- I have
reviewed articles submitted to MDPI that had to do it both
ways
- AIs can convert
- a rough draft into a better draft
- rough notes into a draft
- But, and it's a big but:
- You need to carefully check the result
- catch repetitiveness
- catch passages that read smoothly but say little
- catch passages that read well but are actually incorrect
- catch passages where the AI style is too obvious
- Generative AIs can make good
assistants
- The user should stay in the driver's seat!
5. Video version
This is very informative. Thank you
ReplyDelete