eee_phd_roughguide

8/7/2019 EEE_PhD_RoughGuide

1/22

Rough Guide to an Electrical Engineering PhD

Keith Bell

Department of Electronic and Electrical EngineeringUniversity of Strathclyde

March 2007

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION........................................................... ............................................................ ................ 2 2 CONSIDERING A PHD........................................................... ........................................................... ....... 3

2.1 WHAT IS A PHD? ...................................................... ........................................................... ................. 3 2.2 WHY DO A PHD? ...................................................... ........................................................... ................. 3 2.3 WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A PHD? ......................................................... .............................................. 4 2.4 WHAT IS R ESEARCH ? ......................................................... ........................................................... ....... 6

3 DOING A PHD...................................................... ........................................................... ........................... 8 3.1 WHAT QUALITIES DOES A PHD STUDENT REQUIRE ? .................................................. ........................... 8 3.2 WHAT CAN A PHD STUDENT EXPECT OF A SUPERVISOR ? ..................................................... ................. 9 3.3 WHAT ARE THE STAGES OF A PHD?........................................................ ............................................ 10 3.4 WHAT ARE THE RESOURCES A PHD REQUIRES ? ......................................................... ......................... 12 3.5 WHAT HAPPENS IF THINGS GO WRONG ?............................................................ .................................. 12

4 GAINING A PHD ........................................................... ............................................................ .............. 14 4.1 HOW IS A PHD ASSESSED ?.................................................. ........................................................... ..... 14 4.2 WHAT SHOULD GO IN A THESIS ? ................................................... ...................................................... 15 4.3 WHO ARE THE EXAMINERS ? ......................................................... ...................................................... 17 4.4 WHAT WILL THE VIVA BE LIKE ?.................................................... ...................................................... 17 4.5 WHAT MIGHT BE THE OUTCOME OF A VIVA ?............. ............................................................ .............. 19

5 SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS........................................................... ............................................ 20 6 FURTHER READING ................................................... ............................................................ .............. 21

Keith Bell, 2007


2/22


2

1 Introduction

A PhD is quite a singular activity sometimes lonely, often challenging but usuallyrewarding. Core to it is an individuals pursuit of knowledge, their management of their own

time, analytical and problem solving skills, their imagination and perseverance. They aresupported by a supervisor but the main research challenges, intellectual excitement andrewards remain with the student.

Many guides to what a PhD involves do already exist. Some are referred to in the Further Reading section below, but most are either very general or particular to arts or socialsciences. This rough guide attempts to give a relatively brief but useful overview of what aPhD is about for an engineering research student. It is rough because, although it is theproduct of the authors discussions with colleagues as well as his own ideas, it makes nopretence to be complete or completely objective. Nevertheless, it is intended to give someinsights that will help a PhD student to feel more confident about what they are doing and tohave a clearer idea of where they are trying to get to.

The guide proceeds in three main parts:

1. considering a PhD what is it and why should you do it?2. doing a PhD what sorts of things do you need and what should you be doing?3. gaining a PhD what are the main criteria for passing?

Some concluding remarks are then made and some further reading suggested.


3/22


3

2 Considering a PhD

2.1 What is a PhD?

A PhD a doctorate of philosophy is a postgraduate degree by research. That is, it is afurther degree after a Bachelors or Masters that is gained by undertaking research of acertain quality (see later for what that quality might be). In the UK, it normally requires aminimum of three years of study. (In many other European countries, a minimum of 4 or 5years is required and the student must already have gained a Masters.)

In recent years, at least, it has not been necessary to sit any taught classes, but that ischanging in a number of places as institutions attempt to ensure that PhD students gainrelevant basic knowledge and skills as quickly and effectively as possible. In the Departmentof Electronic and Electrical Engineering at Strathclyde that is being interpreted at time of writing as meaning taking at least one Level 5 undergraduate class.

2.2 Why do a PhD?

Traditionally, a PhD has been a gateway to and a pre-requisite for an academic career as aresearcher and/or lecturer. However, in some science subjects such as biochemistry or pharmacy it has also become more or less essential for a research position in industry .

In electrical and electronic engineering industries, it has never really been regarded asessential. Indeed, many industrial employers have regarded it as an irrelevance; for others, it

has been worse than irrelevant, an actual hindrance an unnecessary delay to entering theworkforce proper and a sign of a tendency to geekiness, over-analysis and aloofness.

Fortunately, this sort of attitude is becoming a thing of the past. Many companies arerecognising the value of highly developed technical knowledge, problem solving skills, theability to assimilate and interpret complex issues and data, qualities of self-management,discipline and rigour, documentation and organisation skills, perseverance and the ability toself start that good, successful PhD students should have gained from their studies. They areincreasingly inclined to recognise this in preferring to offer engineering positions to PhDgraduates over applicants who only have Bachelors or Masters degrees, and sometimesbetter starting salaries. Even if a better starting salary isnt on offer, a good PhD graduate

should be able to progress through an organisation more quickly than their counterpartswithout PhDs as they demonstrate these qualities of being able solve problems, be undauntedby complexity, self-start and so on 1.

A PhD remains a necessary though not sufficient qualification for an academic career.However, while, as already noted, there are now wider career advantages, the main reasonwhy a student should do a PhD is simply that they want to. That is, they want theintellectual challenge of solving difficult problems or of addressing important questions 2, theopportunity to deepen their own knowledge and the excitement and satisfaction of making a

1

I have very deliberately referred to a good PhD graduate as shocking though it might seem it has beenknown for weak PhD candidates who exhibit few of these qualities to still gain a PhD.2 If were honest, we would have to admit that difficulty and importance dont always go together.


4/22


4

contribution to knowledge generally. There will be the chance to travel internationally andattend conferences, meeting, sharing ideas with and sometimes challenging and beingchallenged by other researchers and becoming part of a worldwide research community.This can create friendships around the globe that can last a lifetime. In addition, when theproject has an industrial collaborator, it often provides easier access to senior and influential

people in that company than is found by the students contemporaries working full-timethere, and through the contact and exposure can accelerate the students career.

All these are good reasons for doing a PhD, and the reasons need to be quite good becausevery few people find a PhD particularly easy 3.

2.3 What is the purpose of a PhD?

The above has discussed some of the reasons why an individual might want to do a PhD, butwhat does the PhD process actually deliver? What is the material outcome from the point of view of the supervisor or a third party?

A PhD study will be an investigation into a particular research question, so what that is willbe very important. Is the discovery of the answer to that question the be all and end all of aPhD? Or is the process of attempting to find it as important? Or, indeed, is the learning of how to go about answering research questions in general the main purpose?

Different supervisors and as importantly examiners probably regard all those aspects asimportant but will place different emphases on them. For example, for many, and for manyindustrial sponsors of a PhD, the answer to the research question is the most significant thing.

In some disciplines, an offer of a PhD place is dependent on a prospective student havingalready articulated an interesting research question and a promising strategy for how toanswer it. For others, a place may be offered for work in a very general area and the first fewmonths will be spent by the student trying to hone a specific question that allows acontribution to knowledge to be made, and an approach to how to answer it. If they fail toarticulate a valid and interesting question and strategy, they are unlikely to be allowed toproceed to their second year.

In electrical engineering, as will be discussed below, research should not only deliver acontribution to knowledge but that contribution should be, in some way, useful, i.e.

something that can be applied or from which something might be developed that can beapplied. Most engineering academics will be conscious of this; if a student is lucky or doeshis or her research on prospective supervisors they will find that a supervisor already has avery clear idea on a research question that permits a contribution and will be valuable, and agood idea of the approach that is most likely to yield a successful answer. However, becauseacademics are generally at least a little distant from current industrial practice, it is oftendifficult for them to articulate a research challenge beyond some generalities.

3

Of course, as a good friend of mine often says, its all relative. One of the reasons I myself did a PhD wasthat it promised to be easier than becoming a school maths teacher, which was the alternative I was consideringat the time. I think I was right.


5/22


5

Because engineering is by its nature concerned with application, there will very often besponsorship and support available from industry and the company involved may have a clear research challenge already in mind. The need for a PhD student to define a question that willpermit a research contribution is therefore much reduced, but it is rarely removed entirely.While an industrialist may have something very clearly in mind, it will have arisen out of

their own industrial practice and experience, experience that the student and crucially thestudents supervisor will not generally have. On the other hand, an industrialist may not havehad the opportunity or the skills necessary to keep up with the latest ideas and developmentsemerging from conferences and the literature.

Usually, an academic is better placed than an industrialist or civil servant to be fullyconversant with the latest innovations 4. In the end, this and the space afforded to thinking andexperimentation are two of the most important things a university engineering research groupcan offer industrial, governmental and private clients 5. However, while active engagementfrom those clients can help define research and ensure its potential usefulness, it can alsocramp a supervisors and a students space. Academic freedom is sometimes reduced andthere can be from the point of view of the academics a frustrating concentration on shortterm developmental and implementation issues at the expense of progressive research 6.

To emphasise the answering of a specific research question risks overlooking the pedagogicaldimension of a research degree. That is, in common with other degrees, the final qualification in this case a PhD is a measure of having been educated and of having learned certainthings knowledge and skills that in a research degree are necessary to being a goodresearcher. Thus, people trained in how to do research is the third thing that a universityresearch group offers industry and society as a whole. This is something that has not alwaysbeen recognised by industrial employers, but, as was suggested in section 2.2 above, this ischanging 7.

4 At least, if undergraduate teaching and administration do not swamp their time and they retain some degree of professional pride, they should be.5 It still remains frustrating to forward thinking industrialists and the more self-critical kinds of academic that somuch that emerges from university research and finds its way into the literature goes no further than playingwith toy problems that seem to contain no promise whatsoever of ever leading to progress in generalengineering practice. If the student, in tackling these problems, has learned something of how to be a researcher,then the exercise will not have been totally without benefit, but more real engineering problems would havegiven a keener edge to the research and a more complete proof of the students skills and knowledge. For onething, it has been my experience in interviewing PhD graduates for jobs in industry that those who have workedonly on toy problems seem to have little understanding of the context of or motivation for their work and show

no advantage for their extra three or four years of study over their competitors who hold only Masters or Bachelors degrees. Moreover, the supervisors of such students seem to have weak industrial contacts. At least,this is true of UK industry, but it should probably also be said that they sometimes have stronger contacts in lessindustrialised parts of the world and that the research they lead while of scant interest in the UK is of significant interest elsewhere and thus may still have archival value.6 If gossip from other fields and in the newspapers is to be believed, things can be worse than this. For example,it is said in other fields pharmacy, pharmacology and medical science spring to mind that there is enormouspressure from industrial sponsors to bury undesired results or to distort, if not results, at least commentary onresults. Fortunately, I am aware of no cases of this happening in electrical engineering.7 The Engineering Doctorate or EngD programmes now offered by a number of universities can be seen asan attempt to get a better balance between the need for useful research and the objective of training anindividual. Close industrial engagement from a sponsoring company is a pre-requisite for an EngD as thestudent will spend majority of their time located with the company. The programme also includes obligatory

taught classes on various business and management issues and in order not to unduly limit the time availablefor research therefore last for a minimum of 4 years. The advantage for the student is a much more developedindustrial awareness and normally the annual stipend is higher than on a standard research council grant.


6/22


6

2.4 What is Research?

As should be evident from the discussion above, it is important for the research question the

avenue of enquiry to be adequately defined, to enable some kind of contribution to bemade to knowledge, ideally, in engineering, a useful one, and to provide a clear enoughfocus for the PhD studies. The supervisor should be closely involved in this, but the finalresponsibility rests with the student 8.

Generally speaking, research will be concerned with one or more of the following:

solving a problem; improving a process, product or method; developing a new product, process or method; answering a question; uncovering or discovering truth; contributing to knowledge.

Engineering, being an applied science, will be particularly concerned with the first three of those. Since engineering ideas should be applied or at least be applicable, truth for its ownsake is of less concern than it is in pure science or in the arts though a process, product or method that works should, one would expect, be consistent with some underlying truth.Engineering research, unlike that in arts subjects, is rarely about articulating some truth in adifferent way from before. At least, it is not solely about that. Sometimes, looking at aproblem from a different angle or describing it in a different way can uncover a route to a

new or improved product, process or method; if it does that, then the new perspective hasvalue.

Research should be concerned with uncovering, discovering or developing something new;thus, there should be a significant element of originality in the outcome of the research andperhaps in the methods used to reach it.

A common difficulty for engineers is to discern the distinction between research anddevelopment . What is the distinction, and why does it matter? It matters because a PhD is adegree by research, but much of what an engineer is about will concern development, even if only of the research tools. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary describes research asbeing concerned with the systematic investigation and study in order to establish factsand reach new conclusions. In other words, with uncovering or discovering truth. It goeson to relate research and development to innovation in industry, etc. in products andprocesses. Thus, it seems that aspects to do with new or improved products, processes or methods are, by nature, quite developmental. Are such outcomes invalid for a PhD?

8 It is probably not too much of a generalisation to say that the two most common causes of failure of a PhDstudent to finally gain their PhD are (i) failure to finish writing up their thesis either at all or to an adequate

standard, and (ii) failure to identify an appropriate research question. Actually, thats probably only one and ahalf reasons as often a failure to complete an adequate thesis is a consequence of failing to define an appropriateresearch question.


7/22


7

I think the answer to that is not necessarily. But how can one tell valid from invalid? I think auseful test is of the archival value. A good researcher will start their researches from what isin the archive, i.e. the published literature from books, journals, conference proceedingsand, increasingly (though, in view of the relative lack of peer review, not always reliably)online. Most academic disciplines are now so complex and the body of knowledge so rich

that it is extremely rare for an idea to emerge out of nowhere without being based on prior knowledge or, as even a genius (an arrogant one at that) like Newton felt drawn to describe it,standing on the shoulders of giants. Familiarity with the literature the archive is alsoessential if a researcher is going to be confident of the originality of their work.

The literature the written archive is thus obviously the main repository of knowledge. If a contribution to knowledge has been made, it should find its place in this archive. Puttingaside the vagaries and inconsistencies of the peer review process and, especially, of individual reviewers, and assuming that it is well presented, to find a place in the archive, apiece of work requires (a) originality, i.e. to be different from what is already in the archive,and (b) people who would want to read it.

It is in this second aspect that a difference between research and development can perhaps befound. It is generally reckoned among engineering researchers that development is merelyprocess, something that leads inevitably from A to B to C and all the way to Z without theneed for innovation or particular imagination on the way. In other words, it is not somethingthat people would resort to the archive to find out once they know the location of A,capable engineers can find their way to Z by themselves; development therefore has noplace in the archive and no archival value.


8/22


8

3 Doing a PhD

3.1 What qualities does a PhD student require?

It seems to me that a PhD student requires really the same qualities that a professionalengineer requires albeit perhaps with different emphases. These include:

analytical skills; independent decision making skills, or judgement; communication skills; creativity; and perseverance.

Those that can be emphasised for a PhD student include the ability to work independently

towards a long-term goal, making key judgements along the way, and perseverance.

An important part of judgement is being able to tell when the results needed for evidence of acertain proposition are not quite right. This doesnt mean that results should be cooked,but since it is always possible that a mistake has been made in some analysis or anexperimental procedure, whether that be in hardware or in a computer simulation, a goodresearcher will be able to sniff out inconsistencies either between different sets of results or between the results and what the proposition suggested should be the results. This of courserequires an understanding of the theory upon which the proposition was based either textbook theory or some theory, however vague, that the researcher has developed and theasking of the question why are the results as they are? Then, if it turns out that there were

no mistakes in the experiment, it would seem to indicate a need to modify the proposition.

Unfortunately, it is rarely the case that the required skills are actively taught on a PhD 9.Rather, the student is required to learn by doing, to pick up the necessary skills as they goalong. It is for this reason that the first year of a PhD study often seems hellish as the studentis, to a very large degree, thrown in at the deep end, and why perseverance is so important inorder to reach the excitement of finding solutions to problems and the creative momentumthat carries you on to greater understanding and more ideas. However, it also falls upon thesupervisor to offer a PhD place only to someone whom he or she thinks can rise to thechallenge, who has the potential to learn the necessary skills and develop the requiredqualities.

The box overleaf suggests some further aspects of some of these skills that are found both ina good professional engineer and a successful engineering researcher.

9

Actually, this is changing. A number of universities or the research councils that many PhD students arefunded by are now offering short courses in such things as time management, project planning and academicwriting. These are worth looking out for.


9/22


9

Analytical skills

By analytical skills, we might mean

the ability to actively manage large quantities of information; the ability to understand detailed results, and how to get them; the ability to identify key without which outcomes or issues.

The efficient exercise of these abilities depends on deep knowledge of the area of work; familiarity with tools; rigour; clear organisation of data, thoughts and process.

Decision making skills, or judgement

A good decision maker is very likely to be able to receive quantities of evidence and weight it appropriately. identify evidence that is presently missing but is (a) useful, or desirable in helping shape the decision; or (b)

essential to making a good decision; and identify the necessary precision of that evidence. understand the constraints on the decision, e.g. time, unavailable evidence. have a broad knowledge of influences on a decision and the context in which it will be placed.

Communication skills

By communication skills, we might mean the ability to express ideas or experiences, to articulate a position; the ability to persuade or influence.

Successful exercise of these abilities depends on verbal skills the gift of the gab: one-to-one conversation and discussion; and one-to-many

presentations (with good graphic design abilities a useful extra). written skills wordsmithery; empathy the ability to put oneself in another persons position, to understand their perspective, and to use

that understanding to (a) shape the emphasis of your argument; and (b) shape the style of your argument.

Creativity

All of the above depend on creativity, the generation of ideas, which, in an engineering context, might be any of the following abilities: to articulate an original question or find a novel perspective;

to imagine or mentally model the impact of each possible decision, action or description; to intuit that an apparently unrelated idea from another field or application might be relevant to a current

investigation or problem.

3.2 What can a PhD student expect of a supervisor?

Each PhD should have at least one supervisor. It should be possible to rely on them toprovide support, guidance, resources, contacts, opportunities (for example, to attend one or more conferences) and advice but not the answers to the main research questions!

Different supervisors have different approaches and will commit different amounts of time tomeeting and working with their PhD students. Some will be very hands-on, engaging quite


10/22


10

closely with the detail of the research, closely reviewing results of experiments or simulations, pushing the student quite hard and spending a few hours a week with them.Others will be more hands off or laid back, contenting themselves with trying to be sure thatthe student is generally moving in the right direction, trusting them to make their ownjudgments about results and what they mean and hence about what to do next. They will

make suggestions on things to try only from time to time and may only spend, on average,half-an-hour a week or less in discussion with the student.

The relationship between student and the supervisor will be an important one as it should lastfor at least three years and they have a lot invested in each other the student depends on thesupervisor for good guidance and support and the supervisor depends on the student to realisetheir research vision. Supervisors may take quite a professorial attitude to the student, beingquite formal and academic in an old fashioned way, perhaps always a little bit superior.Others will be happy for a more friendly and equal relationship to develop, though even thenit is usually best for the student to still remember the respective formal positions.

It depends very much on the student what kind of approach is best. Some like the reassuranceof an experienced and knowledgeable academic taking a close interest and giving a strongsteer to the work and would feel lost without it. Others resent that, finding it invasive,pressured and cramping of imagination and creativity. Since the relationship between thestudent and the supervisor is so important, it is not just the subject of study that should beconsidered by a student when choosing a PhD position or the intellectual ability of thestudent when a supervisor decides whether to take them on, but also the personality andwhether they each think they will be comfortable with or at least tolerant of the othersstyle. Because being part of a research community can contribute so much to the experienceand the achievement of a PhD, account should also be taken of the supervisors success infostering a close and supportive group of researchers.

Probably there needs to be a balance between the hands on and hands off extremes of approach in terms of the supervision of the work. Many supervisors will demonstrate bothwith the same student, being quite closely involved and directive in the early stages of thestudy and allowing the student more freedom later on. Certainly, if the research is going well,the student should, before too long, find themselves knowing more about the particular subject of the research than the supervisor does and the supervisor may well then look to thestudent to become, in some way, the teacher and the supervisor the student. A maturesupervisor will recognise this as a good thing and their role changes to one of being more areviewer and challenger of the work in order to test its robustness than of a setter of direction

and proposer of solutions to problems. While their own knowledge of the particular field of study may well have become exhausted, they should still have enough nous and experience tooften be able to sniff out any problems or inconsistencies with what has been done and tosuggest promising further avenues. However because of limited time and limitedknowledge they certainly can not be relied upon to spot all possible problems. Theresponsibility for the quality of the work lies, in the end, with the student.

3.3 What are the stages of a PhD?

It is certainly an over-simplification, but its probably still a useful one to say that an

engineering PhD falls into three distinct phases that align quite closely with the three years of study:


11/22


11

1. reading : learning from existing knowledge by a search through the literature, andtrying to articulate the research question more precisely;

2. development : use of the knowledge gained and own experimentation to develop aprototype working solution to the research question;

3. refinement and presentation : refinement of the developed solution to make it robust,gathering of evidence that it really is a solution to the question, and writing of a thesis.

As has already been noted, few workable ideas in a field as complex and well-developed asengineering emerge out of nowhere. They must inevitably be built upon the explorationsand findings of others, taking that work further, perhaps reducing its limitations or wideningits scope, or working out how to apply elements of it in a new context. The question of originality must be kept in mind and the need for it is likely to lead to a refinement of themain objective of the research in light of what has been found in the literature and perhaps, asawareness of the magnitude of the challenge grows, a limiting of its ambition.

The first phase outlined above can be tough, little about it is creative and much is hard slog,trawling through reams of dry text and mathematics. If it is done well, however, it providesessential foundations in terms of knowledge and critically confidence in that knowledgefor the blossoming that is the second phase.

The second phase that of development of an answer to the main research question isusually the most creative and enjoyable. The knowledge built up in the first phase givesconfidence about the potential significance of the researchers ideas and that they are original.That knowledge can also allow ideas to be generated in the first place since these often arisefrom analogy the spotting of some underlying and perhaps normally hidden similaritybetween the researchers own field of study and another one, and of where an idea from thatother field might be useful to the researchers own field. Usually, the idea cannot betransplanted directly but must be adapted or developed to be able to use it, and this is oftenenough for a contribution with archival value to be made.

The second phase is rarely straightforward. Although the experimentation required is oftenfun just in itself, there can be many dramatic ups and downs of emotion as a new potentialsolution to a problem is hit upon but is then proved to not quite work or to be incompleteprompting more searching, head scratching and frustration until a new way forward emergesfrom the fog 10.

As time and testing progress, hopefully it will gradually become clear that there is at least oneidea that basically works. The rest of the time available on the PhD will be concerned withsmoothing rough edges and imperfections as much as possible. It may never be made to work completely so some hard judgement is required: is it good enough, and in what terms? Goodenough to be a significant improvement on a present method, process or product? Goodenough to be a springboard for further research that can be expected to deliver a useful newor improved method, process or product? Or good enough to get a PhD? What evidence isrequired to be able to prove to an examiner that it is good enough? 11

10 Or from the bog when I did my PhD, sometimes thats where the best ideas emerged (and where the worst

ended up).11 This is often where a good supervisor can show most value his or her experience being sufficient to be ableto tell when a student has done enough to earn a PhD.


12/22


12

When the students final answer to the original question is settled upon and the evidence thatit is a good enough answer to it has been gathered, the last stage of the final phase is thepresentation of the question, the answer and the evidence in a thesis.

3.4 What are the resources a PhD requires?

The resources required for a PhD study depend on what is being studied. For example, somestudies only require evidence from computer simulations, so appropriate software is needed.Others require experimental observations from hardware, so the hardware is required.

All serious PhD studies, however, require a library, a desk and some peace and quiet for thought. Nowadays, the library need not mean solely the large forbidding building stuffedfull of books and large, forbidding librarians the door of which you only darkenedoccasionally during undergraduate days to meet and try to chat up a girl or boy from the artsor social sciences. It also includes the wealth of research papers, magazine and newspaper articles, company reports, government surveys and statistics and international standards thatcan be found on the internet. Because anyone can publish on the web, it also includes a fair amount of rubbish.

Another resource that is not strictly essential but is extremely useful is a community of researchers to be part of. The value of sharing and testing ideas with others cannot beunderestimated knowledge can be shared, but the problem of how to be sure that your ideasare good can also be addressed: in a group of similarly motivated and bright researchengineers, you have a ready and perhaps rather blunt access to peer review. While it cansometimes be intimidating, the furnace of trial by colleague can be just what is needed toprove your idea or to get the juices flowing that can turn up a string of new, better ideas. Andif your colleagues criticisms turn out to be a little too harsh, while the research team shouldnormally be a friendly and supportive group, there should always be your supervisor to turnto for a real (or virtual, bearing in mind ethics and the need for probity) research hug.

A final key resource that we might mention now is data key parameters of an existingsystem that is to be modelled or physical measurements produced by others that are to beanalysed or against which the ideas developed in the research are to be tested. It is oftendifficult for university research groups to get access to adequate data that are often owned byindustrial, commercial or government organisations. As well as the financial support andexperience that an industrial sponsorship can provide, a relationship with a company can also

give access to data.

3.5 What happens if things go wrong?

It has to be admitted that not all PhDs follow the nice, smooth progression suggested insection 3.3. What are the things that might go wrong?

The first thing is that the initial period of study and the literature review might fail to reveal apromising avenue down which a contribution can be made with the time and resourcesavailable. Or at least it is not clear to the student, and the supervisor lacks the time or thedepth of knowledge and experience to identify it clearly.


13/22


13

The second thing is that the main original idea developed turns out not to be as robust asoriginally hoped and it is too late now to find an alternative. This can be a result of lack of understanding in the first instance, slowness in testing the idea or simply bad luck. A further very real possibility is that it really was a good idea at the time but, unfortunately, it doesntwork. In this case, at least, all is not lost since the fact that this apparently good idea cannot

answer the original question can be a very important contribution to knowledge and can initself shed valuable light on what else might work that can be developed by someone else.

The third thing can be a failure to complete the thesis. This is normally a result of thetimescales getting out of hand the development and evidence gathering stages taking longer than expected and the research funding running out before the student takes new full-timeemployment. This is a problem since experience suggests that it is extremely difficult tofinish a thesis in your spare time, especially when away from the university resources such asexperimental facilities to fill in any gaps in the evidence or the library to complete thecontextualisation and recall some of the early reading. The other sad possibility is that thestudent suffers some form of writers block in which case its best to seek help for cunningstrategies to overcome it if possible.

So why does time run out? It can be because of difficulties with the main idea or experimental facilities. However, it might also be because of too many distractions, includingcalls by the supervisor to work on other short projects. These can often be a good thing givingexperience of different methods, techniques and practices that can be very useful to the PhDresearch, and contact with industry. However, it should not be to excess and the student maysometimes need to be strong enough to call a halt and get back to the main topic.

Another reason for time running out for the write-up can be excess ambition on the part of thestudent, i.e. trying to do too much, or too much perfectionism. After all, in spite of all theriches that the research direction promises, the timescales are pretty fixed, and in the end allthat is required is something that is good enough to get a PhD. So long as that is achieved,whether the work can be taken to full fruition and application can be addressed afterwards.


14/22


14

4 Gaining a PhD

4.1 How is a PhD assessed?

Whether the work a student has carried out is worthy of a PhD is judged by means of awritten thesis and an oral examination a viva. In Britain, there are normally two examinerswho assess the thesis and conduct the viva an internal examiner from the students owninstitution and an external examiner.

The basic criteria are that the student should have presented their own original contribution toknowledge in the form of a novel proposition, answer to a research question or a new or improved process, product or method, and that that contribution should be supported bysufficient evidence.

The difficulty with the simple summary just suggested is in determining what is sufficientevidence and how significant the contribution should be. This has already been discussedabove in section 2.4 on what research is, and perhaps the key point to take from thatdiscussion is the importance of archival value: if the work has archival value, then it isresearch of significance. Perhaps the best test of archival value is whether it has alreadybeen admitted to the archive, in particular a reputable peer reviewed academic journal 12.

Every researcher should seek to contribute something to the archive in any case, butpublished papers have enormous practical value to the passing of a PhD: if the journal whereit is published is significant, for a paper to be published it will already have been judged bycompetent and internationally recognised reviewers to represent a significant contribution to

knowledge and to be backed by sufficient evidence. While there could be improvements thatneed to be made to the presentation of the work in a thesis, it would be a very brave PhDexaminer who would contradict the journal peer reviewers and assert that the research itself and the evidence do not satisfy the requisite standards for a PhD. In other words, if a PhDcandidate has already published their PhD work in one or more papers in major journals, theyhave already gone most of the way towards gaining a PhD. Thus, a PhD student should beaiming to get at least one good journal paper accepted for publication no later than some timethrough their third year.

By the time a student gets to the third year of study towards a PhD, provided they finishwriting their thesis, it is not unreasonable for them to expect to go forward to a viva.

However, it will be the case that some theses are weaker than others and an experiencedsupervisor will be reluctant to let the student go to a viva without improvements. The studentwould be well-advised to take the supervisors opinion seriously in such an instance eventhough there will be tensions between supervisor and student and, because the student wouldalready have committed at least three years to the work, the supervisor will feel pressure tolet the student through.

Partly for that reason, it has become extremely important to nip any potential problems in thebud, in particular to decide quite early on whether the student is likely to get through to

12

It is often surprising how apparently very minor advances can still be judged worthy of publication. A PhDstudent daunted by how difficult a question is or how much work they think there is to do should take comfortfrom that.


15/22


15

writing a decent thesis. In many institutions, that means placing significant weight on an endof first year review.

In the electrical engineering department at Strathclyde, the first year review requires thestudent to write a 20 to 30 page report summarising what they have learned in their first year

of study and found in the literature, and giving details on the main future focus of their research, what ideas they intend to explore and where they see their contribution thearchival value eventually coming from. There will then be a short viva conducted by twointernal academics familiar with the relevant field. The importance of this arises from therecognition described above that one of the reasons why a PhD study may get into difficultyis failure to gain the necessary depth of understanding of the field and identify a suitableopportunity for novelty 13. If they judge that the student has failed to do that, they may givethe student more time perhaps 2 or 3 months to work on it more and ask to meet themagain. They may instead recommend that the student does no more than one further year of work and aims to obtain an MPhil degree rather than a PhD. In an extreme case they may feelthat it would be in the best interests of the student that they recognise that a research degree isnot the best way they could be spending their time and that they withdraw from their studies.

4.2 What should go in a thesis?

The thesis is the main record of the research and therefore the main deliverable. Somedetails of the general structure of a thesis vary from between different disciplines, but itshould address something like the following:

What was the main research question that you tried to answer?o

Why is it interesting, or particularly important for engineering useful?o From where has the question arisen? What have others done that is relevant?What other work will you build upon? Where will your particular contributionto knowledge lie?

What have you done in order to try to answer the question?o What tools or techniques did you use? Which have you had to develop

yourself? Why did have to develop them?o Are the tools or techniques you have used sound?

What is your answer?o What is the evidence for your answer?

Another way of viewing what the thesis should address considers the thesis itself as anoriginal proposition that the student wishes to make and defend. As already suggested, thiscould be an answer to a question, or it could be that a certain method, product or processdeveloped by the author is an advance on what has been available before, at least in certainterms that the author wishes to emphasise 14. The method, product or process should bedescribed and evidence presented for why, in the authors chosen terms, it represents anadvance and why or under what circumstances those terms are significant.

13

In engineering, we may qualify that by asking for useful novelty, though not all engineering academics findthat necessary.14 But be sure to know what the archival value of your method, process or product might be!


16/22


16

Whichever of the above models you prefer, the basic elements of a thesis should include:

an introduction, to the written thesis and to the main proposition that will be madeand defended or the question that will be answered;

a description of the background to the work, its context and its motivation; a summary with appropriate references of the present state of relevant

knowledge, in particular that which has been used or built upon; a description of the research procedure, methods or tools used in the development

and testing of the main proposition or the discovery of the answer to the mainresearch question;

presentation of the main proposition, answer or, if a new method, product or process has been developed, a detailed description of it;

presentation of evidence supporting the proposition or answer, i.e. results fromexperiment, simulation or analysis, and discussion of that evidence and itsmeaning;

discussion of any limitations to what has been developed or proposed, andproposals for future work; a summary of the main conclusions.

The main body of an engineering thesis is often between 150 and 200 pages long (on A4using 12pt type with spacing and a half or double spacing between lines). As much out of respect for the examiners who have to read it as anything else, while being thorough, serious,precise and scholarly, it should make a decent read and there should be a clear threadrunning through the different chapters so that each builds on the last and it will be clear whythe material in each chapter is being included and where the overall thesis is going. To ensurethat, it can be useful to think of it as like a novel, telling a story (albeit a true one) that is

unafraid to develop different plot lines where necessary but where the direction of the overallnarrative is clear and various strands of the story are eventually brought together 15.

In order not to interrupt the flow of the main narrative, but to ensure that there is enoughinformation to allow a reader to test the proposition thoroughly for themselves 16, there maybe a number of appendices in which supporting information or data are included.

Following on from the discussion about publications in section 4.1 above, it may be noted inpassing that some PhDs are awarded by publication. That is, a bunch of publicationsstitched together are taken as sufficient evidence of the work being worthy of a PhD insteadof a thesis (though a viva is usually still required). However, this is not currently common.Moreover, simply to copy and paste published journal papers into a thesis does not generallysuffice to make a good thesis since, due to the need for brevity in a paper, there is normallyinadequate discussion of background and motivation, insufficient description of the researchmethod and often a failure to tell a story in a readable flow. Thus, even if the researchoutcome is strong, the candidate may find themselves having to make improvements to thewritten thesis.

15 On the other hand, it would not be wise for a student spend too much time writing the perfect thesis themain objective in the end is to produce a thesis that is good enough to get a PhD and timescales, funding and

what should happen next in the students life should be kept in mind.16 In general, in science and engineering, enough information should be provided for the reader to be able tomake a decent stab at reproducing the authors results.


17/22


17

4.3 Who are the examiners?

When it comes to the final assessment, choice of the external examiner is one of thesupervisors most important roles. The examiner should be someone who is sufficientlyexpert in a similar field to that of the PhD work to be able to assess it rigorously but fairlyand should also be someone who can be trusted to conduct the viva in an appropriatemanner 17. Provided the work is strong enough, the viva can represent a good opportunity for the student meet and have a good discussion with a leading international expert, and whoknows what future research opportunities that encounter might lead to.

The internal examiner also nominated by the supervisor should also be reasonablyfamiliar with the field of study. The external is normally expected to be the main opinionformer, so, to an extent, the internal examiners role is one of guaranteeing fair play andconsistency with the normal standards of the institution. (The external should ensureconsistency with standards outside).

4.4 What will the viva be like?

An engineering PhD viva in the UK is a discussion between the external and internalexaminers and the candidate 18. It usually lasts between 1 and 3 hours, though it can be longer.

Different examiners will take a different approach to the viva and their basic objective willdepend on how they themselves respond to the question asked earlier about the purpose of aPhD: is it about the research or is it about the candidate becoming an autonomousresearcher? In other words, is it about the text the thesis or the person ? In the latter case,

the viva assumes a greater importance since the candidates conduct in it will be taken as asign of whether they have succeeded in becoming a competent researcher capable of conducting a detailed and accurate discussion of research matters. They would also beexpected to describe something of the process they went through in doing the research. Onthe other hand, if the examiner feels it is more about the research, the text itself, i.e. thethesis, provides the main evidence of the standard reached and the examiner will already haveformed their opinion on whether it is worth a PhD. The viva is then really about proving thatit was the candidate who wrote it and that they understand what they were writing about.Indeed, if the examiner somehow already feels confident that it really was the candidate whowrote the thesis and they understood what they were writing about, and they are satisfied withthe thesis, it has been known for them to start the viva by saying that they intend to

recommend the award of PhD; they then go on to discuss it. Whether or not they have alreadyformed an opinion on whether a PhD should be awarded, the best examiners will at leastmake it seem as if they are genuinely interested in the work to which the student hasdedicated the last three years of their life and will stretch them in the discussion.

17 Most academic research communities are actually not very big so if an examiner doesnt conduct anassessment in a reasonable manner, word will soon get around and they will not be asked to do it again!18 In other parts of the world, the approach is different. For example, in parts of northern Europe, it is normal for the student to be required to undertake a public defence of their thesis in front of a panel of academics,including one or more externals, and anyone else, including their peers from the department, who cares to turnup. Apparently, though, while such an event seems daunting and surely is the main verdict is already

decided with the champagne and cake ready to share with the candidates parents who are likely to be present,and at least one of the academics will be ready to leap to the defence of the candidate in the face or any over-eager interrogation.


18/22


18

One interesting further thing that supervisors, students and examiners need to think about inthe context of an engineering PhD is the extent to which it is or should be a test of competence not just as a researcher but also as an engineer. Certainly, the perspective of apotential industrial employer will be that a PhD degree should be an indication of engineering

competence. While hard line or lifetime academics might seek to diminish that consideration,if the candidate ever wishes to get a job in industry it will be a very real issue for them and socannot be neglected.

Depending on the institution, it may or may not be customary for the supervisor to be present.Even though the supervisor will not participate in the discussion unless invited to by theexaminers, a candidate may appreciate the implied moral support of the supervisor. On theother hand, they may feel sufficiently sure of the candidates abilities to not feel the need tobe present, and the candidate may find reassurance in that vote of confidence.

Again depending on the institution, there may be a separate chairperson present. This wouldnormally be someone from the host institution but not the internal examiner. Their role is notto assess the work or the candidate but to ensure that due process is followed, including therecording of the outcome.

Most engineering PhD examiners, while wishing to be rigorous in their assessment, adopt anon-confrontational style and, knowing that the candidate will be nervous, try to put thecandidate at their ease. On the other hand, it has been known for external and internalexaminers to team up in bringing down to earth candidates who seem too cocky or who seemto think they have solved all known problems to do with their work. A little humility istherefore useful on the part of the candidate. Having said that, an important thing for nervouscandidates to remember is that no-one including the international expert who might be their examiner knows more about their work than they do. The trick will be communicating thatknowledge and being able to respond to the examiners questions.

The styles adopted by examiners will include working through the thesis, not necessarilypage by page, but certainly from start to finish pausing to explore in more detail certainthings they have noted about what is written, perhaps to discuss a different angle on it, toexplore its further implications or simply to ask for clarification. Others may not actuallyrefer directly to the thesis at all but will lead a wider discussion around the area of work andits significance. Yet others will do mixture of the two.

The sorts of questions that might get asked at the viva include the following: Can you explain? Which parts did you do, or were your own ideas? How did you go about developing your ideas? Why did you do it this way? Did you consider? How do you envisage this being used? What are the weaknesses? If you were to do this again, in what ways in any would you do it differently? After the particular product youve developed has been superseded, what ideas

that it encapsulates do you think will still be of interest? What do you think is the archival value?


19/22


19

Normally, the candidate should be in a good position to answer any of the above questionsabout the work, and if they feel at all nervous they should remember that they know moreabout the new method, product or process that they have developed than anyone else,including the examiners, even if they examiner might have a broader knowledge of thecontext into which it fits. One specific risk, however, concerns others work that the

candidate has leaned on and perhaps does not know in detail. One example of this might besome statistical analysis undertaken by a statistics specialist. It probably is not worth trying tobluff if it is not really understood, but at the same time the candidate should have dug into itenough to have convinced himself or herself that what has been done is valid.

4.5 What might be the outcome of a viva?

The best possible outcome for the candidate would be acceptance of the thesis without anycorrections and recommendation by the examiners that the candidate be awarded a PhD (arecommendation which it depends on the university senate to accept and is rarely if ever not accepted).

More normal is that some corrections are required. The corrections might be simply quiteminor corrections of errors in the text, or addition or revision of some material to help clarifycertain aspects. If the corrections are relatively minor, the external examiner will be happy for the internal examiner to verify that these have been done, and the candidate will berecommended for award of a PhD. More extensive corrections may require the externalsapproval as well.

A less happy outcome is that the examiners feel that more work needs to be done, to developa more significant contribution to knowledge, a more coherent main argument or proposition,or more robust evidence in support of that proposition. This additional work and thereflection of it in a revised version of the thesis may take between 6 and 12 months and afurther viva may be required. Clearly this presents a difficulty to the student in terms of funding for the time to do it and possibly a conflict with new employment that is due to startsoon or might already have started. In such a case or if the additional work takes longer than12 months there is the strong possibility that the student will never succeed in finishing their thesis to the examiners satisfaction.

An experienced supervisor should normally never allow a thesis to be presented when there isa risk that the examiners would require significant extra work. However, as was discussed in

section 4.1 above, it is possible that a student can pass the first year review and, the longer time goes on, the harder it might become for the supervisor to deny the student theopportunity of a viva even when they feel the work is not strong enough.


20/22


20

5 Some concluding remarks

This rough guide has taken a meander through a good number of aspects though certainlynot all of PhD study: what it is, why to do it, and how to do it. Although much of it comesfrom my own personal perspective, from discussion with colleagues I think there is little thatdiverges significantly, if at all, from some commonly held views.

Although it doesnt pretend to answer all the questions you might have, I hope this roughguide will have been useful.

I felt it was important to make a prospective or present student aware of some of thechallenges and potential difficulties so that they can respond to them constructively andovercome them. However, I am aware that by doing that I might have put some people off or made it sound more daunting than it really is. I think it is important to remember (a) that alljobs that have much to interest an intelligent individual (and a PhD, being a commitment of three or more years of your life in basically one activity is like a job or, in some sense, morethan a job) have significant challenges and difficulties, and (b) that you should do it becauseyou want to, because you want the intellectual excitement, the skills and knowledge it helpsyou gain and, possibly, the career enhancing opportunities it opens up. Even though researchmight be, as I think Einstein once said, 95% perspiration and 5% inspiration, it should be acreative and fun time while I certainly found it hard at times, it was for me, and Im reallyglad I did it. I hope you will be, too.


21/22


21

6 Further reading

1 The Quality Assurance Agency, Code of practice for the assurance of academicquality and standards in higher education Section 1: Postgraduate researchprogrammes , September 2004, availablehttp://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeOfPractice/section1/default.asp Produced by the QAA along with a number of other codes in response to a couple of government enquiries into Higher Education in the UK, its authors describe it as anan authoritative reference point for institutions as they consciously, actively and systematically assure the academic quality and standards of their programmes,awards and qualifications.

2 School of Graduate Studies, University of Toronto, Graduate Supervision Guidelinesfor Students, Faculty, and Administrators , September 2002, availablehttp://www.sgs.utoronto.ca/current/supervision/guidelines.pdf Similar in motivation to the QAA document above but more user friendly even if targetted at a Canadian audience.

3 Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Supervision Guidelines ,availablehttp://www.epsrc.ac.uk/PostgraduateTraining/InformationForStudents/SupervisionGuidelines.htm EPSRC is the main funder of engineering postgraduate research in the UK. Its guide islike a light version of this rough guide, though it does have extra material on effort required to write a thesis.

4 UKgrad, Researchers , availablehttp://www.grad.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/Researchers/p!eaLbdjg

According to the website, the role of the UK GRAD Programme is to support theacademic sector to embed personal and professional skills development into researchdegree programmes (RDP). Our vision is for all postgraduate researchers to be fullyequipped and encouraged to complete their studies and to make a successful transitionto their future careers. Looking beyond the pitiful HR speak, the website does containa wealth of interesting material and the organisation runs gradschool training courses specifically for 2 nd or 3 rd year PhD students. They are free to EPSRC funded students and well worth attending.

5 Roberto Cipolla, Guidelines on PhD research and supervision, University of Cambridge, August 1995, available http://svr-www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~cipolla/phdguide.html

A nice brief alternative to this rough guide.6 University of Strathclyde, Policy and Code of Practice for Postgraduate Research

Programmes , availablehttp://www.mis.strath.ac.uk/Secretariat/Publications/general/procedures/pgr-code-pract.pdf This builds on the recommendations made in the QAA document noted above and putsthem into a Strathclyde context.

7 University of Strathclyde, General regulations for Higher Degrees by Research, part3, section 20 of the University Regulations, availablehttp://www.mis.strath.ac.uk/Secretariat/Publications/general/publications/ The Strathclyde rules that govern a PhD.


22/22


8 Society for Research Into Higher Education, Guides on Postgraduate Issues ,http://www.srhe.ac.uk/publications.gpi.asp The SRHE in association with The Times Higher Education Supplement publishes anumber of guides that can be ordered via the website. The SRHE also runs various

workshops and carries out surveys. However, when I last looked, most of the eventsseemed to designed to give specialist educationalists an excuse for showing their funders that they have successfully disseminated their work, with little of interest toanyone else.

9 Gina Wisker, The Good Supervisor , Palgrave, 2005.Aimed more at supervisors than students, the chapter on writing up the thesis isprobably worth a look.

10 Rowena Murray, How to Survive Your Viva , Open University Press, 2003.Seems amazing to me that someone managed to find the time to write an entire book just about doctoral or Masters vivas. You should not feel obliged to read the wholething, but there are some copies available in the Strathclyde university library and youmight find that a glance through is sufficient to pick up some useful tips.

eee_phd_roughguide

Documents