[Zahda Yazid]

in reply to: Module 5, Session 1: Project Management and Time Planning #6023

I think managing a Ph.D. research as a project helps the researcher develop the following skills that can be useful not only in completing the work at hand but also in managing future projects on the personal and professional levels:

1. Design: how to develop the concept and overall objective of the project and divide it into segments/stages

2. Planning: how to allocate sufficient time in order to implement each stage of the project, and which stage/s require more time than others

3. Time management: how to ensure that time allocated to each stage is feasible

4. Monitoring: how to follow up on progress made in the implementation of the stage of the
project

5. Analysis: how to identify the obstacles/hurdles facing the implementation of the project

6. Reflexivity: how to think about what went right and what went wrong and why

7. Resilience: how to address interruptions/crises and find alternative approaches to continue the project

8. Communication: how to communicate (in writing or presenting) progress/ problems/achievements in the projects to the stakeholders or supervisors

9. Evaluation: how to evaluate the process of implementation, what are the lessons learned?

10. Teamwork: how to work with others on the project; usually projects have more than one person on board. Learning how to share responsibilities and distribute tasks among the members of the team is crucial to the successful implementation and completion of the project.

I think what needs to be added to the management process is risk analysis. Most researchers come across hurdles in the implementation process, identifying potential threats, problems, etc. in the planning phase can help the researcher be proactive and anticipate solutions.

[Zahda Yazid]

in reply to: Module 4, Session 4: dive deeper #6016

Assessment of Ph.D. theses is could be more subjective than objective as long as there are no well-defined criteria to ensure impartiality and consistency in the examiners’ reports. But the question is then, is it possible to create such criteria in the first place? and if not, what to do then?

I personally believe that given the heterogeneity of areas of research, it is definitely impossible to have well-defined criteria for all disciplines for several reasons. First of all, whether the research is quantitative, qualitative, or mixed has implications on how to assess it. Quantitative research needs certain criteria that are not possible to be used in assessing qualitative research. The former needs to focus on certain criteria to ensure that the research methods and results are valid and credible, whereas the latter does not seek consistency or validity in the results as much as it needs to show the fact that inconsistencies are not a problem in the research, but rather a finding that needs to taken into account when it comes to understanding or explaining a research topic. Secondly, in qualitative research, there are many methods, case studies, interviews, etc. Different methods require different criteria for assessment. Having one set of criteria does injustice to the research in question and to the researcher. Finally, researchers do not all have access to the same sources. Those with more access, their research can be more robust than others with limited sources (databases, books, archives, etc.). However, such constraints on the researchers can be structural (lack of financial resources to get access to expensive databases, for instance). In such cases, in my opinion, a researcher’s work cannot be assessed in the same way as one does with a researcher with abundant stock of sources.

Therefore, I think seeking to establish one-size-fits-all criteria for assessment can do more harm than good. Examiners should take into account the above variables when they assess research works.

[Zahda Yazid]

in reply to: Module 4, Session 4: Food for thought #6015

The doctoral assessment at the University of Antwerp is split into two parts: the assessment of the doctoral process and the assessment of the doctoral study program. Based on the slides of the presentation, I could not understand exactly what exactly is meant by assessment in the two cases since the Ph.D. researcher after publicly defending their thesis does not receive a grade, which means that we are dealing with evaluation rather than assessment per se. As for the study program, I assume that researchers/candidates are assessed in the courses they take, but still, it is not clear what benchmark they have to achieve to pass or fail.

I find the focus on the research reports is very helpful for the Ph.D. committee to see what progress has been made, however, it is not clear to me if the researcher in question receives feedback on their report, and if they do, how it feeds into the improvement of/changes in the ongoing research. This also raises other questions as to whether researchers/candidates get the chance to engage with their faculty community on the research they are doing, whether there are open seminars for them to present their work, and whether they are encouraged to participate in local/international conferences to present their work as a way to engage with academics in their area of research. If such avenues are available, do they take their share in the “assessment”? Moreover, the pre-defence presentation is a good opportunity for both the researchers/candidates and supervisors to present their work on a technical level and receive feedback in order to improve/modify their work. However, I still believe that more engagement with academic and non-academic communities is needed in order to explore how others relate to the ongoing research.

Having examiners from the university and outside helps set the evaluation of the research in an objective manner. The problem could arise, however, if the examiners come from totally divergent ontological worldviews (positivist versus post-structuralist) and the research to be “assessed” is entirely qualitative. The chance that a positivist examiner fails the thesis/research is very high. Therefore, the composition of the examination jury is crucial to ensure that no conflicts arise due to such ontological differences.

I think the study program offers good training for the researchers/candidates to help improve/develop their skills needed not only for the doctoral program but also for any profession they choose to do.

[Zahda Yazid]

in reply to: Module 4, Session 1: Ethics in Research #5990

My research involved interviewing people who occupied high positions in their government, and for that reason, they were very cautious as to what to say in the interviews. For me, it was extremely important on the ethical level to ensure that they remain anonymous if they wish to, and for those who agreed to have their names cited, they would still have the chance to read the part/s of the research where they are mentioned so as to avoid any inconveniences that would compromise their job positions or personal safety.

Ethics in doing research need to be taken seriously by academic institutions; they should provide potential researchers with the right tools to ensure that humans, animals, and the environment are not exposed to harm during and/or after the researcher has accomplished their task/s. Raising researchers’ awareness of the ethical implications of doing research is as important as, if not more important than, the research project itself.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 10 months ago by Zahda Yazid.

[Zahda Yazid]

in reply to: Module 3, Session 3: Research approach and design #5989

I believe that the worldview is fundamental when approaching research in general. The fact that there are divergent worldviews (positivism versus postpositivism) brings about two exclusively incompatible explanations or understandings of the world itself. These views are irreconcilable if our ontological stances remain unchanging even if we sometimes tend to reconcile them using mixed methods. If a researcher sees the world from a positivistic ontology, whereby observation is the way to uncover it and learn how it functions, they would only provide knowledge that either confirms or disproves their hypothesis about it. Therefore, knowledge about the world is shaped by the tools that the researcher uses. Lab methods are different from interviews, for instance. Therefore, the type of knowledge they generate reflects the type of knowledge we want to have about the world.

[Zahda Yazid]

in reply to: Module 2, Session 4: EPE resources’ assessment #5875

The website is resourceful; it provides Ph.D. researchers with the tools and skills they need to develop themselves academically and professionally. The areas covered are pertinent to the needs of novice researchers as well as experienced researchers.

I think that some resources on the ontological and epistemological debates can widen the scope of researchers on how to approach research topics and know what methodology to use and why. I also believe adding some tutorials on writing proposals for research funds would be very useful as many researchers (including me) lack the skills required for writing such proposals.

[Zahda Yazid]

in reply to: Module 2, Session 2: Scholarly community of practice #5432

A scholar in my understanding is someone who devotes their time and efforts to their research field and always seeks to keep abreast of the latest developments in that field. They are also keen to explore a variety of epistemologies, methods, etc. in order to enhance their understanding of the topic/s of their interest and bring new perspectives from other disciplines to their field of research/expertise. If a scholar does not challenge their knowledge about what they have come to know about (a) certain topic/s, they would never be able to make breakthroughs in their research and, thereby, make value-added contributions to the academic enterprise. In addition, a scholar has an open mind and does not underestimate or devalorize what other scholars do because they do not conform to their ontological and epistemological approaches. Many scholars, unfortunately, live in silos and refuse to work with others from other disciplines for the simple reason that they believe others are not as “good” as they are, a phenomenon that I can describe as “ontic/epistemic prejudice”.

This leads me now to talk about academic jealousy, which, I believe, has in some ways tainted the whole academic community. Many scholars are under pressure to publish and/or win research funds. The fact they are being assessed on how many publications they have produced and project funds they have won creates an unhealthy competitive environment in the community, whereby those who do not score high enough or simply do not score at all, their chances of receiving a promotion are limited, and therefore, their academic career is a stake. Working in such an environment breeds jealousy and the feeling of unworthiness among scholars. Jealousy leads to poisonous relationships between the members of the community. Universities, which are run by the people from that same community, do not take action to remedy this situation, on the contrary, they perpetuate the system. Jealousy is rarely if at all brought up in the discussions/meetings of those in the decision-making hierarchy. It is left to spread even further to the point that universities have become places hosting researcher/s that work solely to achieve their own glory.

[Zahda Yazid]

in reply to: Module 1, Session 2: Supervision with a humanizing pedagogy #5386

The PowerPoint has opened my eyes to many issues that can influence our behavior and knowledge regarding supervising people and teaching. The main challenge in my opinion is the fact Global North universities are to a large extent under the spell of one “typical knowledge” about the world, which they ironically work so hard on diffusing all over the world regardless of the existing differences between people on so many levels, cultural, historical, geographical, religious, etc while selling themselves as being open-minded, inclusive, culturally conscious of diversity in our world, and the list goes on.

[Author]

Posts