How to Do PhD Level Research: a Few Hints

Version 3 (10/12/2024)

These notes are based on meetings where this topic was discussed. They can be further updated, so if you have any questions or suggestions, let me know!

Table of Contents:

1. Guidelines for PhD students, by DB
2. Guidelines for PhD students, revised by ChatGPT from DB's guidelines
3. Guidelines for PhD students, revised by Claude.ai from ChatGPT's improved guidelines

1. Guidelines for PhD students

• Three characteristics of a reasonable research project:
1. Novelty (This is typically established through a literature search/review.)
2. Significance
3. Doability

• The US National Science Foundation is not the authority on what science is, but nevertheless does have influence on research. They have a related take on novelty and significance. In proposals they typically require statements of Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts. These are related but not identical to novelty and significance. Other science funding agencies (NIH is the biggest) do things their own way.
• How to find a research topic:
• You should be interested in your topic
• Good idea to build on an area in which you have some background and expertise, if any 
• Find a person or group to collaborate with. They provide an infrastructure of knowledge and technologies to build on.
• Find an article. Consider replicating and extending it. This sounds simple in principle, but in practice it has some risks. Just ask VK. Still, it does define a bite-sized first step one can take. 
• Survey a topic you might be interested in. Consider doing a SLR (systematic literature review) to find out where the field is going, what the open problems and active areas are, and so on. Consider polishing and publishing the review, because why not?
• Often, articles give ideas for future work, so your SLR could highlight where the researchers in the field think the field is going and what they think it needs to do.
  
• Do a shortish project resulting in a conference paper. Then you may gain enough experience and knowledge to help decide on what to do next. (Build on it? Change direction? Etc.) Suggested by IE. This is another bite-sized first step, though a bigger bite.
• It can be a research project.
• It can be a (publishable) systematic review of the literature.
• Ask your advisor to give you a research topic, or perhaps they will assign you one even if you don't ask.
• Research methodology courses (you could take one, or perhaps you could ask to sit in on one informally)
• IFSC 7399: ST: Research Methods in Inf Sci 
• SYEN 7101: Research Methodology
• INFQ 7322: Information Quality Theory. Students write parts of a future dissertation (instructor: E. Alikhachkina).
• Taking courses is not the main point of a PhD! See the Wikipedia article.
• Here are some generic questions to ask when reviewing articles and videos. (They are in somewhat random order.)
  

• 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 important questions would it be nice if the paper answered, but does not answer?
• What does the paper present that is novel (no one else has provided that before)?
• What is the relevance of the paper to your research goals?
• What is the most important lesson of this article? A well written article should have one, but probably not two or more.
  
• Anything else to add to this list?
• Writing hints
• Every paper, proposal, thesis, and dissertation needs to review related work. A good aspirational methodology for this is:
• Procedures for performing systematic reviews, B Kitchenham, Keele, UK, Keele University 33 (2004), 1-26
• http://www.prisma-statement.org/
• Often, each passage in a document can begin with a reference to what the reader already knows or was presented earlier, and ends with the most important new content that the reader should learn from the passage. Everything else goes in the middle. This applies to sentences, paragraphs, sections, ..., books, ....
• Many documents need to be revised to respond to reviewers' comments. Articles submitted for publication get anonymous peer reviews, proposals get reviewed anonymously if they are funding applications, or by your committee members if it is a masters thesis or project proposal or a PhD thesis (also called dissertation) proposal. There are two ways to respond to review comments:
1. Individual response to each review comment. See http://thehumanraceintospace.blogspot.com/2022/11/111122-astronauts-paper-resubmitted.html for examples.
2. Highlighting any changed or added text that was generated because of the review comments. This is so the reviewers can focus in on the updates and not have to read the document from scratch, which they won't want to do and will likely be annoyed and procrastinate about (or even refuse outright).
• Sometimes it is a good idea, or even required, to do *both* of the above. I have reviewed articles submitted for publication by MDPI that had to use both methods.
  
• ChatGPT, Claude.ai, and other generative AIs can turn a rough draft into a more polished one, or even turn rough notes and lists of points into a draft. But, and it's a big but, the result needs a careful read-and-edit to catch cases of repetitiveness, passages that read well but upon reflection don't actually mean much, and passages that might read well at first but are actually incorrect. Generative AIs can make good assistants, but the user has to be careful to stay in the driver's seat!
  

 

 

2. Guidelines for PhD students, revised by ChatGPT from DB's guidelines

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:

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. 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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. Collaboration:

   • Finding a person or group to collaborate with is crucial. They can provide resources, technical expertise, and insight into cutting-edge developments.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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:

1. What is the source? (Is it reputable?)
2. What is the most significant advance in human knowledge presented?
3. Why is that advance important?
4. What questions for future research arise from this work?
5. What questions should the paper have answered but didn’t?
6. What is novel about this paper?
7. How does it relate to your own research goals?
8. 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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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:

1. Expanded on the characteristics of a reasonable research project, adding more depth to novelty, significance, and doability.
2. Added a new characteristic: ethical considerations.
3. Broadened the discussion on funding agencies and their influence.
4. Enhanced the section on finding a research topic with additional strategies and considerations.
5. Expanded the research methodology section to include more contemporary approaches and considerations.
6. Added more critical questions for reviewing articles.
7. Expanded the writing tips section with additional practical advice.
8. Included new sections on developing a writing routine, collaborative writing, data visualization, publishing strategy, and networking.
9. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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:

1. Interest
• Addition: Discuss the balance between personal interest and market demand for research topics
2. Background & Expertise
• Improvement: Emphasize the importance of identifying and addressing skill gaps
3. Collaboration
• Addition: Discuss strategies for finding and approaching potential collaborators
4. Replicate and Extend Existing Research
• Improvement: Address the "replication crisis" in some fields and its implications
5. Systematic Literature Review (SLR)
• Addition: Discuss tools and software for conducting SLRs (e.g., Covidence, EPPI-Reviewer)
6. Conference Paper Project
• Addition: Discuss the role of preprints and open science practices
7. Advisor-Assigned Topics
• Improvement: Discuss strategies for negotiating research direction with advisors
8. 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:

1. Developing a Writing Routine
• Discuss strategies for consistent writing habits
• Address common writing challenges and how to overcome them
2. Collaborative Writing
• Discuss tools and best practices for writing with collaborators
3. Data Visualization
• Emphasize the importance of clear and effective data presentation
• Discuss tools and principles for creating impactful visualizations
4. Publishing Strategy
• Discuss how to choose appropriate journals or conferences
• Address open access publishing and its implications
5. 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.