Whatever skills you need for your project. It's never just a matter of making a plan and following it, you actually need to be good at the techniques you use and that takes practice. For example, my PhD involved using scanning probe microscopes. It's possible to learn the basics of how they work and how to use them in an afternoon, but it takes a lot of experience to be able to use them well. The same applies to pretty much any research technique.
How do you plan to do that heuristic qualitative analysis? Do some kind of small scale practice run to figure out the data gathering and analytical process. Don’t let the first time be the one you rely on for your whole PhD
@@James_Hayton well, I’m actually doing it. I’m applying a thematic analysis to the transcripts of the recorded interviews. I’m learning as I’m going along, and frankly, it’s been very frustrating. Not getting much feedback from my committee chair, mainly because it’s expected that I know this already I’m at my wit’s end.
This drives me crazy... how are you supposed to know how to do it already? And if you don't, their job is to help you! Is there anyone else in your department you can talk to who's done thematic analysis?
Extremely important. 100% agreed about what you say about practical skills needed for execution. I think it's very important to keep a healthy balance between 'reading' & 'doing' (including writing & synthesising the literature)...both should be an ongoing, simultaneous process.
Why should they be simultaneous? You can prioritise different things at different times, depending on what you're trying to achieve. For example, you might be trying to solve a practical problem in your research and turn to the literature to try to find answers, but you don't have to write and synthesise the literature at the same time.
the originality part is so related! I submitted this manuscript looking something quite new, so no direct literature to cite, and I got rejected by four different journals~😅
Me too...my work was rejected by 5 journals..I eventually managed to present it at 2 conferences and get published..I'm hoping it will get accepted by a journal too! 🤞
@@ratnanirupama Thank you for the suggestions! I guess I just worried that the data might get dated cuz it has been like 3 years~ And wish you good luck on the journal submission!
Depends on what we consider originality. According to Kant, exemplary originality matters, and there is original nonsense. The same goes with creativity - as far as I can see, psychologists consider creativity only when it has some merit. The "competence" doctrine in education is one way of seeing, but it can be learned. Exemplary originality according to Kant, cannot. What I am saying is that right way to approach this balance, is to develop skills that allow to make originality exemplary. Of course skills important, but more important is to know how much skills and what skills you need, not to drown in skill acquisition and "forever learning" (including "learning by doing").
I'm not sure I understand. Kant says you can't learn exemplary originality, but the right balance is to develop skills that allow you to make exemplary originality? Also not sure where the point about drowning in skill acquisition came from. You should develop skills that are useful and valuable.
@@James_Hayton thank you for the reply. That's right exemplary originality cannot be learned. More specifically originality cannot be learned. The part of exemplary requires learning and skill - Kant explains that even genius artist needs to learn the craft. But when one learn skills + originality, when exemplary originality again cannot be learned. But in my eyes, the problem is how much and what skills to learn. There are so many theories, methods, statistical tools, approaches etc. that you can drown in merely learning techniques. I think, originality is way more important that skills, skills you can aquire and universities prepare only just as much for practice (usually, you learn what is required for the specific company when you start to work for them). Anyway, good and helpful content :)
Thank you for this. This video has been really helpful for me in forming the thesis statement for my PhD, and actually gave me the 'Aha!' moment I have been searching for.
My PhD thesis is a novel idea. However, in every DC meeting, I am being asked only trivial questions. Also, I find my supervisor very supportive regarding completion of my thesis and manuscripts. However, when it comes to collaborating and traveling for conferences, I think I will have to do more than what my supervisor expects. Your take on this !?
If the committee only ask trivial questions, talk to other people about your research! Regarding collaborating, I'm not sure... depends what the collaboration is for. Traveling for conferences (and presenting your work) is usually a good idea
I like all your videos, great work. I am doing my PhD in Election Law. My original contribution to knowledge is filling the gap between democracy and Law.
Hi, in the start of the video, you mention working in areas that are established will make us more employable. Thinking on those lines, how does one stay on top of the recent publications, in the broad area that I am working on ?
Forget staying on top of literature in the broad area and be very specific. When you go broad, it's more about trends (which don't change that fast). I'll do a video about working with literature soon
Also, I should clarify... areas that are competitive tend to attract funding and that's likely to mean more job opportunities, but it's a good idea to check what jobs are available in your research area and also talk to people in your department about career paths. There are no guarantees of jobs in academia, but being informed and knowing the market gives you a better chance
If you read just a few papers on the same topic, you'll probably notice that there's some overlap in the broad issues/ debates they mention. For example, in superconductor research they've been trying to make the materials work at higher temperatures for decades. It's a long-standing problem/ area of debate. You can be aware of the kinds of things people are trying and the key breakthroughs without having to read every paper that gets published.
