Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
in reply to: Module 4, Session 4: dive deeper #5764
I would like to ‘dive deeper’ on the topic of publishing as a prerequisite to obtaining a PhD, after reading Moradi’s (2019) article on the matter. When I first heard of some countries requiring publishing before obtaining a PhD, my immediate and first reaction was ‘that’s a great idea!’. After reading Moradi’s reasons why he disagrees with this practice, I can certainly see that this is a complicated matter that can be argued both ways. However, despite the drawbacks that Moradi outlines, I still lean towards feeling that the benefits outweigh the harms. One of the major tenets of conducting PhD studies is the production of new knowledge. However, when this knowledge sits in the ‘dusty tomes’ of PhD theses that are never read by anybody other than the examining committee, this means that the knowledge is never truly disseminated or communicated, and that to me seems like an incredible waste. I fully appreciate Moradi’s point that PhD candidates need to develop many other skills such as management, communication, team-work, etc. but that does not take away from the fact that new knowledge still needs to be produced. I personally would have much rather handed in my thesis as a collection of articles that had been published or at least submitted for publication, rather than this huge tome of knowledge which I then later had to sit and turn into articles for publication after my PhD was completed. Additionally, I was lucky I had the opportunity to take a postdoc position where I could use my time to publish my PhD work, but many people then simply move on and don’t publish, which as I mentioned before, I think is a terrible waste. I would also argue that there is a unique set of skills one needs to learn when publishing (how to identify the correct journal, how to deal with reviewer’s comments), which should be taught as part of the PhD journey. I also disagree with Moradi when he states that this prerequisite might call into question “the reliability of the thesis reviewing committee if their evaluation is considered valuable only when the work has already been peer-reviewed”. Having already gone through a peer-review process does not take away the need for the examiner’s to identify whether the candidate has produced new knowledge, whether the candidate has the required analytical and critical thinking skills, etc.
in reply to: Module 4, Session 1: Ethics in Research #5736One aspect that was not covered in the presentation is the ethical considerations surrounding science communication – this is often particularly pertinent in the medical field where research findings are often blown way out of proportion, taken out of context, or misrepresented. We as scientists/researchers have an ethical responsibility to communicate our science to society (as often we are using funds generated from society), but further a responsibility to communicate well and clearly.
in reply to: Module 3, Session 3: Disciplinary differences #5691While much of the natural sciences is still mono-disciplinary, I think the transdisciplinary approach should be used more often. There is a great push towards applied science, especially in Africa, i.e. how can scientific findings help and benefit society. But this is often only achieved effectively when there is co-creation of the research between scientists and non-scientists, i.e. a transdiplinary approach.
in reply to: Module 2, Session 4: EPE resources’ assessment #5654I do think a lot of the content is aimed more at the student level, rather than the supervisor level. So I will definitely be sharing this resource with my students, but I did not find much of it helpful in my own personal development, apart from the ‘Examination and assessment’ phase which directly speaks to the supervisor’s role of choosing examiners etc. It would maybe be nice to add a topic outlining what supervisor’s should keep in mind when selecting a potential student or other aspects of the student selection process.
I agree with Fiona that I have found writing after reading can be very time-consuming, but I also understand the importance of spending the necessary time with what you have just read to make sure you amalgamate the information into your own existing knowledge systems. I also find that if I keep digital notes with tags that I can search at a later date, it helps me later in the line when I need to revisit a topic/area of literature that I have already delved into. So I like to keep a balance, where if I’m reading purely for interest sake then I don’t add it to my ‘reading journal’ but if I’m reading in my field and the article contains information I’ll likely need at a later stage, then I add an entry to my ‘reading journal’. However, I add my reading journal entries very differently to the way that was suggested in this course, I’m looking forward to trying out this new technique to see if it works better for me as a scientist (where often details in the paper matter).
I have found in my personal experience that attending conferences is one of the best ways to enter an academic community. Once you have read the literature and identified the most active and relevant researchers in your field, it is always a cool experience to meet them in person at conferences and chat about their work. I then find social media to be a great tool to keep in contact and up to date with their most recent work. I think ensuring your students can attend one or two conferences during their study is very important to start interacting in the academic community.
in reply to: Module 1, Session 3: Models of supervision #5408I have only had experience with co-supervision (both as a student and new supervisor) but I really like the idea of the team supervision. In academia, you have to learn how to deal with the feedback and opinions from multiple people (especially in the peer-review process), so where better to start learning this skill than in your pg studies? I think it also facilitates the student finding ‘their own voice’ as they may have to accept some comments and not contradicting ones, and they learn how to articulate why they made those choices. I think my own studies could have definitely benefitted from team supervision.
I agree with Fiona in that I would have liked some more definitions on the different ways of being/thinking/knowing – while this idea is brought up there are no examples to clarify and help us reflect. However, I found it helpful to think about pg studies in terms of students ‘developing their voice in a new world’, and to realise that supervisors are essentially responsible for inducting them into this new world. These worlds are often quite specialised niches and students generally cannot receive advice/support from their pre-existing community, making it quite a burden on the supervisor. It goes beyond just trying to impart skills/knowledge, but also involves trying to build confidence and independence.
I think all of these variables can intersect in an endless number of ways, and that is why the supervision process is so fluid and ever-changing. For example, my experience of being in the natural sciences, fieldwork was a big factor that allowed me to build a good relationship with my supervisor and break down that ‘power’ dynamic, through spending lots of time together working in different environments and often living in the same accommodation for short periods of time. I have tried to emulate that feeling of ease with my now first masters student that I am supervising, but have been unsuccessful at it and I still feel the power dynamic at play, even though I have tried to breach the barrier. I think this is largely due cultural differences.
-
AuthorPosts
