The document provides an overview of the PhD process at UCD School of Mathematical Sciences. It discusses the standards required for a PhD degree including independence, originality, contribution to knowledge, and work suitable for publication. It outlines the research process, emphasizing the importance of planning, execution, analysis, and reporting. It also discusses the responsibilities of students and supervisors, criteria for assessing PhD theses, authorship, and responsible research conduct. Throughout it emphasizes that a PhD requires solid, independent work to advance understanding in a research area.

1. Statistics
@
UCD School of Mathematical Sciences
Presentation to PhD
students UCD
Sep 2008
John Connolly
Acknowledgements J Finn
School of Mathematical Sciences UCD

2. At the start you are Dopey and Bashful…
In the middle you are usually sick (Sneezy),
Sleepy and Grumpy…
But at the end they call you Doc and you’re
Happy
• Doing a PhD is like becoming the seven
dwarves:

3. Overview:
• PhD in UCD
• Standards for research (PhD) degree
• Research - the process
• You and your supervisor
• The thesis and examination

4. Standards for research (PhD) degree
• What makes a research project
attain standard of PhD degree?

5. Planning: Nature of the research
question
A view of the research project “which students often
begin with and have to be talked out of: it is a topic or
a problem so complex and enormous that it would
take a lifetime’s work to complete.”
(Lawton 1997: 8)
Supervisors are aware that it is adequate for a thesis to make
an incremental contribution to knowledge and understanding- a
PhD does not have to inspire a revolution in thinking about a
research discipline. As one examiner put it, ‘. . . A PhD is three
years of solid work, not a Nobel Prize.’
(quoted in Mullins and Kiley 2002: 386)

6. Expected features of a research degree
(PhD)
• Independence
• Originality
• Contribution to knowledge
• Suitable for publication

7. Independence
• PhD graduate - capable of independently
conducting original research of a standard that is
expected of professional researchers in their
particular discipline
• Research and thesis are student’s own work
• Places limits on contribution made by supervisor
(writing sections of thesis; direct analyses of
student’s data; directly interprets data)
- Collaborative work?

8. Originality
• Not as daunting to achieve as you might think
• “…flashes of inspiration are infrequent … One often
arrives at the end of a project before one is able to
take the measure of how original the contribution is,
and this illustrates the point … that originality is a
by-product of quite ordinary scholarly activity. All
one has to do is to recognise it when it emerges and
give it full scope.”
(modified from M. Talbot, pers. comm.)

9. Contribution to knowledge I
• Nature of the research question
– working at the boundaries of knowledge
– adds to conceptual/theoretical development of discipline
– not descriptive: seeks explanation, tests predictions and
extends understanding at forefront of discipline
“Research is the process of going up
alleys to see if they are blind”

10. Contribution to knowledge II
• Effective methodology (important criteria)
– Chosen research methods are valid,
reliable, rigorous and appropriate to the
research question (originality?)
• Evidence of critical evaluation
– intellectual appreciation of theory as well
as the limitations and wider significance

11. Suitable for publication
• PhD thesis should contain some
elements worthy of publication

12. Research skills
PEAR
PLANNING EXECUTION ANALYSIS REPORTING
Context Scheduling Data capture Reports
Review Techniques Data screening Papers
Protocol Recording Analysis Thesis
Design Computing

13. Planning
• Define clear objectives
• Identify context
- importance & relevance
• Literature review
• Study design
• Determine analysis to meet objectives
• Protocol - Schedule and assign tasks

14. Failing to plan is planning to fail I
• Research projects require a long-term
integration of effort (+complexity). Planning
helps to:
- clarify and manage complexity
- Reduce to a series of more manageable tasks
- better identify requirements of the project e.g.
finance, equipment, time, scheduling and research skills
- derive discipline from setting targets, and
motivation from reaching them!
• ‘Activity trap’ being busy ≠ achieving progress

15. STUDY PROTOCOL
• Objective
• Justification
• Review
• Study design
• Time scheduling of tasks
• Time budget
• Financial budget
• Recording methods and forms

16. Execution
• Skills usually in your subject area
• Keep to protocol
• Record accurately
• Flexibility

17. Analysis
• Check data
• Carry out appropriate analysis
• Perform diagnostic checks on model
assumptions
• Follow up unexpected features of data

18. Reporting
• Determine target audience
• Use appropriate reporting medium
• Follow style & detail of journal
• Writing - Practice practice practice -
courses on writing and presentation

19. Writing and presentation skills
• Reports and papers
• Poster(s) – usually years 1-2
• Oral presentation(s) years 2-3
• Presentation at international
meeting(s) – sometime during period
• Use endnote for references

20. Finance
• Usually research grant – about €16000 pa
• Supplement by tutoring/teaching
• PhD students generally not allowed to
lecture – some exceptions possible in final
year

21. You and your supervisor
• What are your supervisors’
responsibilities?
• What are your responsibilities as a
research student?

22. Student
my thesis
everything else
everything
else
student’s thesis
Supervisor
Contrasting
perspectives…
(from A. Kelly, UCC)

23. What are the responsibilities of a
supervisor? I
• Giving guidance on research – usually strong guidance
in selecting topic
• maintaining contact with student
• being accessible to student when advice needed
• giving advice on scheduling of successive stages of the
work
• requesting written work as appropriate, and providing
feedback
• Arranging for the student to talk about their research
• Facilitating extended visit to another institution

24. What are the responsibilities of a
supervisor? II
• writing reports on the student’s progress;
• ensuring that the student is made aware of inadequacy
of progress or of standards of work below that generally
expected;
• actively introducing the student to researchers and
events in the academic community
• informing the student of the institutional
regulations concerning the oral examination e.g.
nomination procedures for the examiners, and
appeals procedures.
(modified from The University of Reading 2004)

25. Responsibilities of research
students? I
i) planning the research topic and research schedule
ii) discuss modes of guidance and feedback, and agree a
schedule of meetings
iii) take the initiative in raising problems or difficulties
iv) maintain progress of work as agreed with supervisor,
especially presentation of written materials in sufficient
time to allow for feedback and discussion before
proceeding

26. Responsibilities of research
students? II
v) drafting and circulating the agenda and support
documents in advance of meetings, and drafting and
circulating the minutes of meetings
vi) keep systematic records of work completed, and provide
written progress reports;
vii) prepare thesis in good time and informing supervisors
(modified from The University of Reading 2004)

27. Seek to clarify mutual
expectations
• Ineffective communication - ineffective supervision
• Supervisors are not mind readers- discuss
expectations and establish good practice ASAP
– How often does you/your supervisor expect to meet
(formally vs informally)?
– How soon do you expect feedback on written work?
– Do you prefer verbal or written feedback?
• Appointments, or open-door?
• Produce written agendas in advance of meetings
• Agree goals, tasks, changes and keep records of
meetings

28. The thesis and examination
Recall features of doctoral
research:
• Independence
• Originality
• Contribution to knowledge
• Suitable for publication

29. The crucial examination of your
PhD candidacy is that of the
thesis, not the viva.
• “40% of examiners . . . said that the decision about
the thesis was made before the viva. In 74% of cases
the viva served merely to confirm the examiners’
opinions of the candidate. . .”
(Jackson and Tinkler 2001: 361)

30. Criteria used by examiners when assessing
PhD theses
• Conceptual clarity in the design, conduct and
analysis of the research
• Intellectual appreciation of the conceptual and
theoretical basis of the research, and its limitations
and wider significance
• Coherence of argument throughout the thesis
• Appropriate engagement with the literature
• Grasp of methodology (methods of enquiry; analysis of
data)
• Presentation of the thesis and compliance with
academic conventions
• Originality
• Potential for publication
(from Winter et al. 2000: 32-35)

31. Authorship in scientific
publications
Sample of 809 corresponding authors:
• 19% of articles had evidence of honorary authors (named
authors who did not meet authorship criteria),
• 11% had evidence of ghost authors (individuals not named
as authors but who had contributed substantially to the
work)
• 2% had evidence of both (Flanagin et al. 1998).
• Therefore, about one in four articles demonstrated
misapplication of authorship criteria and inappropriate
assignment of authorship, which is ‘incompatible with the
principles, duties, and ethical responsibilities involved in
scientific publication’
• (from Flanagin et al. 1998)

32. ‘Vancouver Protocol’ - minimum requirements
for authorship in biomedical journals
Authorship credit should be based only on:
• substantial contributions to conception and design, or
acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of
data
• drafting the article or revising it critically for important
intellectual content; and
• final approval of the version to be published.
• Whose name goes first?

33. Overview:
• PhD in UCD
• Standards for research (PhD) degree
• Research - the process
• You and your supervisor
• The thesis and examination

34. Responsible conduct in research I
• Researchers should make every effort to
honestly produce and disseminate
information that is as accurate and reliable
as possible
• ‘On Being a Scientist: responsible conduct in research’
http://stills.nap.edu/readingroom/books/obas/
• http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/talks/
• http://www.chem.vt.edu/chem-ed/ethics/vinny/www_ethx.html
• http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/

35. Responsible conduct in research II
Negligence typically does not involve premeditated plans to
be dishonest:
• insufficient time allocated for designing rigorous studies
• lapses in conscientious working methods
• insufficient reflection on the interpretation of research
findings
• preventable errors from undue haste and inattention
Misconduct is characterised by premeditated and deliberate
attempts to be dishonest.
Not same as differences in interpretation or honest mistakes

36. Examples of misconduct
• falsification of data
• plagiarism (the presentation of another person's
thoughts or words as though they were your
own)
• failure to declare a conflict of interests
• mismanagement of research funds
• presentation of other people’s work as one’s own
• improper allocation of credit and recognition
• breaches of ethical codes of conduct
• cover-ups of misconduct

37. Getting a PhD
An action plan to help manage your
research, your supervisor and your
project
John A. Finn
Routledge Study Guides

38. Overview:
• PhD in UCD
• Standards for research (PhD) degree
• Research - the process
• You and your supervisor
• The thesis and examination
• Responsible conduct in research

39. PhD in UCD – a work in progress
• 4-year structured includes 90 ECTS training
• Programme board: supervisor, 2 advisers,
• At least annual formal review
• Assessment after 1 year to continue
• Accumulate credits in first two years
• Formats of thesis – traditional and including
published papers
• Finance for 4 years?