The Unwritten Rules of PHD Research 3rd Edition Marian Petre 2024 Scribd Download

Full download test bank at ebookmeta.
com
The Unwritten Rules of PhD Research 3rd Edition

Marian Petre
For dowload this book click LINK or Button below
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-unwritten-rules-
of-phd-research-3rd-edition-marian-petre/
OR CLICK BUTTON
DOWLOAD EBOOK
Download More ebooks from https://ebookmeta.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Unwritten Rules Filthy Florida Alphas Book 3 1st

Edition Jordan Marie
https://ebookmeta.com/product/unwritten-rules-filthy-florida-
alphas-book-3-1st-edition-jordan-marie/
The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible 1st Edition

Vlad Petre Gl■veanu
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-palgrave-encyclopedia-of-the-
possible-1st-edition-vlad-petre-glaveanu/
The Practical Grammar Handbook for College Writers 3rd

Edition Marian Anders
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-practical-grammar-handbook-for-
college-writers-3rd-edition-marian-anders/
Unwritten Reinvent Tomorrow 2016th Edition Jack Delosa
https://ebookmeta.com/product/unwritten-reinvent-tomorrow-2016th-
edition-jack-delosa/
Morrison s Miracle The 2019 Australian Federal Election
1st Edition Anika Gauja Marian Sawer Marian Simms
https://ebookmeta.com/product/morrison-s-miracle-
the-2019-australian-federal-election-1st-edition-anika-gauja-
marian-sawer-marian-simms/
Selecting and Describing Your Research Instruments 1st

Edition Kelly S. Mcclure Phd
https://ebookmeta.com/product/selecting-and-describing-your-
research-instruments-1st-edition-kelly-s-mcclure-phd/
Equations of Mathematical Physics 1st Edition Marian

Apostol
https://ebookmeta.com/product/equations-of-mathematical-
physics-1st-edition-marian-apostol/
IMPETUS: Brotherhood of Saints 1st Edition Marian

Andrew
https://ebookmeta.com/product/impetus-brotherhood-of-saints-1st-
edition-marian-andrew/
The Realities of Completing a PhD How to Plan for

Success Routledge Research in Education 1st Edition
Nicholas Rowe
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-realities-of-completing-a-phd-
how-to-plan-for-success-routledge-research-in-education-1st-
edition-nicholas-rowe/
The Unwritten Rules of
PhD Research
Third Edition
Gordon Rugg and Marian Petre

The Unwritten Rules of PhD
Research
The Unwritten Rules
of PhD Research
Third edition
Gordon Rugg and Marian Petre

Open University Press
McGraw-Hill Education
8th Floor, 338 Euston Road
London
England
NW1 3BH
and Two Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10121-2289, USA
First published 2020
Copyright © Open International Publishing Ltd, 2020
All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the
purposes of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence from the
Copyright Licensing Agency Limited. Details of such licences (for
reprographic reproduction) may be obtained from the Copyright Licensing
Agency Ltd of Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
Commissioning Editor: Vivien Antwi

Editorial Assistant: Karen Harris
Content Product Manager: Ali Davis
A catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library
ISBN-13: 9780335262120
ISBN-10: 0335262120
eISBN: 9780335262137
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

CIP data applied for
Typeset by Transforma Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, India
Fictitious names of companies, products, people, characters and/or data that

may be used herein (in case studies or in examples) are not intended to
represent any real individual, company, product or event.
Contents
Preface to the first edition ix

What’s new in this edition x
Acknowledgements xi
1 SO, WHAT IS A PhD? 1

How to get the best from this book 2
What is a PhD? 4
Cabinet-making – the PhD as a ‘master piece’ 6
Cabinet-making skills 7
Instrumental and expressive behaviour 9
Necessary skills 10
Criteria for a PhD: some reassurance 13
2 THE MANY SHAPES OF THE PhD 18

Phases18
Waypoints19
Different models of study 21
Different models of supervision 24
Different models of theses 26
The student contract 27
3 PhDs AS MASTER PIECES 31

The dissertation (and viva) as master piece 31
Independence does not mean isolation 33
How skills are embodied in the research programme
and dissertation 33
Developing and documenting skills 34
How to become an international researcher 35
4 SUPERVISION AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT 40

The role of the supervisor 42
The role of the student, or managing expectations 44
Getting the most from supervisory meetings 45
Effective debate 46
Establishing a good relationship 47
Prevention is better than cure 50
Cardinal rules 51
vi Contents
Strategies for when things go wrong 52

Project management 53
5 NETWORKS AND NETWORKING 58

Building a network 58
Tools for networking 60
First contact – cold calls 61
Social media 63
Opportunities via social media 67
People you should remember to include in your network 68
6 READING AND SENSE-MAKING 71

Why read? 72
The need to read critically 73
Finding the right references: where do I start? 77
Review articles 78
Not all resources are created equal 79
Online searching 80
Other sources of information 82
‘Sniffing’ a paper 82
When have I read enough? 83
Organising the literature 85
Using material from the literature 86
Keeping an annotated bibliography 87
Enjoy reading 89
7 PAPER TYPES 91
Data-driven papers 92
Methods papers 94
Theoretical papers 95
Consciousness-raising papers 95
Agenda-setting papers 96
Review papers 97
Position papers 97
Paper types: conclusion 98
8 RESEARCH DESIGN 99
Designing empirical studies: three key steps 100
Methodology103
Types of research and research focus: machetes
and magnifying glasses 104
Ethics108
Tales of horror and how to avoid them 111
The three ignoble truths (with apologies to the three noble truths) 114
Contents vii
9 CRITICAL THINKING 116

Research as a discourse 116
The nature of critical thinking 118
The role of theory 118
Style, epistemology and rigour 120
More about evidence 122
Giving structure to thinking 126
10 WRITING STRUCTURE AND STYLE 130

Finding the plot 130
Structural components of a dissertation 132
Academic style: an example 137
Academic style: sending signals 138
Avoiding the wrong signals 140
Dissertation FAQs 144
Academic style: summary 145
11 THE PROCESS OF WRITING 148

Removing distractions 149
Getting started on writing 149
Surprising yourself 150
Finding a focus 150
Keeping going 151
Obstacles151
Allow time for reflection, review and housekeeping 155
12 WRITING FOR PUBLICATION 156

Different forms of writing 156
Journal papers as an example 157
The submission and review process 157
Authorship agreements 162
13 PRESENTATIONS 166
Content167
Form169
First impressions 169
Other handy tips 173
14 CONFERENCES 178
The conference process: a novice’s perspective 179
The organisers’ viewpoint 181
Miscellaneous good advice 182
Getting the most out of networking at a conference 184
viii Contents
15 THE VIVA 186

Stories of nasty surprises 187
Behind the scenes 189
The day of the viva 190
Preparing yourself 195
Handling revisions 198
The viva: hints, lists and things to remember 199
16 SABOTAGE AND SALVATION: OR, DEVELOPING HABITS FOR SUCCESS 206

Reputations206
Destructive habits 207
Time, sensible planning and useful displacement activities 210
Constructive habits 212
Professional etiquette: respecting working relationships 214
17 WHAT NEXT? 217

Career goals 217
Academia or elsewhere? 219
Academic career types 220
Various other things 222
Identifying opportunities 223
Writing a CV 224
Applications and cover letters 226
Job interviews 227
18 CLOSING THOUGHTS 236
Some useful terms 237

Some further reading 243
Index 249
Preface to the first edition
One of the most frequent laments of the postgraduate researcher is: ‘Why didn’t
someone tell me that earlier?’ There are innumerable things which nobody
bothered to tell you, or to write in the books, and which could have saved you
from large amounts of confusion, depression, wasted effort and general tears
and misery if only you had been told them earlier.
The authors have spent more than their fair share of time with desperate
beginners, explaining the basic principles of research over cups of coffee. This
book is an attempt to cut down their caffeine overload. It explains the basic
craft skills and ground rules of the academic world in general, and research in
particular. Its focus is the vitally important things that the standard textbooks
don’t bother to mention on the sweet assumption that they can be left to the
readers’ lecturers and supervisors.
If you are doing a PhD or an MPhil, then this book is intended to help you to
do the best research possible with the minimum of wasted effort. It is also
intended to help you use your research as part of your career development and
self-development so that you don’t end up on graduation day, certificate in
hand, wondering just what the hell to do next and realising that you’ve just
spent several years moving painfully in the wrong direction.
The authors’ backgrounds are varied. Their academic credentials include
PhDs, publication of various journal papers and encyclopaedia articles,
advanced research fellowships, a couple of journal editorships, refereeing for
major journals and fund-giving bodies, and raising between them over a million
pounds of research funding. Their students still talk to them, and sometimes
say nice things about them.
What’s new in this edition?
In order to reflect developments in academia since the last edition was pub-
lished, the new edition has been refreshed and updated, and includes:
• A new section on social media. This focuses on the underlying principles and
issues, to future-proof it against changes in technologies and platforms,
whilst providing enough contemporary examples to reflect the use of social
media both within research practice and other aspects of people’s lives.
• A new section on literature reviews, including Systematic Literature Reviews
(SLRs), in the ‘The need to read critically’ section in Chapter 6. This section
includes a critical description of recent developments in research, in partic-
ular the replication crisis, and of their implications for traditional wisdom
about literature reviews in general, and SLRs in particular.
• More material on ethics and their implications for research in practice.
• More material on managing the PhD as a project, describing essential skills
for managing the many competing activities of the PhD process.
Although some aspects of the research landscape may have changed since the
previous edition was published, many of the book’s central tenets are as rele-
vant as ever. Therefore, the book retains its key strengths:
• An informal style which aims to give the reader precise, clear, no-nonsense
advice about doing a PhD
• A commitment to explaining the reasons behind certain academic practices –
for example, why citations are provided and why certain styles are prefera-
ble, what a conference is and what it is for, and why academic language has
evolved in the way it has
• Coverage of the viva, which is considered to be one of the distinguishing
features of this text and one that is often commented upon by students as a
‘life-saver’
• The overarching structure and content which carries the student through the
creation of the PhD ‘master piece’ without losing sight of the original moti-
vations for undertaking it in the first place.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all the people who helped us with the writing and pub-
lishing of this book – they know who they are.
We thank John Oates for permitting us to use his material on ethics. The
book draws on material we have been amassing and rehearsing over time in a
variety of contexts, and so inevitably parts resemble material presented or
published in other contexts. We have done our best to indicate cases where this
is so and to seek permission in good faith.
We would also like to acknowledge our gratitude to our own PhD supervi-
sors, from whom we learned much, much more than we realised at the time.
Our remaining sins are our own faults, not theirs. Finally, we would like to
acknowledge the students who have, directly and indirectly, brought colour
to our lives, and wealth to coffee manufacturers round the world . . . without
them, this book would never have been written, and our lives would have been
much less fun.
Chapter 1
So, what is a PhD?
• How to get the best from this book • What is a PhD? • Cabinet-making –
the PhD as a ‘master piece’ • Cabinet-making skills • Instrumental and
expressive behaviour • Necessary skills • Criteria for a PhD: some
reassurance
The core concept of the PhD is simple: it’s a demonstration that you have the
skills to conduct research independently. The process is equally simple in con-
cept: you do a body of research that acts as a showcase for your research knowl-
edge and skills, you write it up, and you then have a critical discussion about it
(i.e. a viva voce examination) with professional researchers who decide whether
you should be awarded a PhD. The concept is simple, but students find it daunt-
ing, because it is not specified and structured the way lower degrees are; because
it relies on the student bringing intelligence and intellectual discipline to bear in
‘the discovery of knowledge’, a goal that is open-ended and not easily quanti-
fied; and because so much rests on the final assessment. Students often ask:
‘How will I know that my work is good enough? That I’m good enough?’
Why do people bother? There are different reasons for undertaking a PhD,
ranging from the pragmatic (e.g. acquiring a research credential for academia
or for industry) to the idealistic (e.g. aspiring to deep scholarship). Students
have many reasons in between, including things like curiosity, a drive to chase
a long-held question, an avoidance of abject drudgery or the need to prove
oneself. More important still are the reasons for finishing a PhD, the drivers
that keep students going when the going gets tough. Students often don’t admit
those reasons readily, but when they do they’re usually personal and potent:
doing something your big brother didn’t manage, laughing in the face of that
disparaging infant school teacher, avoiding conscription, escaping the family
business, getting a dreamed-for job. Your reason for finishing is important to
your success, and you need a reason compelling enough to take you through
the obstacles and frustrations of the process.
2 The Unwritten Rules of PhD Research
This book is written to help students who have read books about doing a
PhD, and been on their university’s courses, and turned up conscientiously to
meetings with their supervisors, but who still feel lost and confused and hope-
less. We’ve seen a lot of good students in that situation. Usually, they haven’t hit
problems because of themselves or what was in the books or courses or super-
vision. (Indeed, we recommend that you engage with the opportunities avail-
able to you.) Instead, they’ve hit problems because of what wasn’t in themselves
or in the books, courses or supervision. There are often significant gaps and
omissions in how ‘the pursuit of knowledge’ is conveyed.
That’s why this book’s title includes the word ‘unwritten’. It’s about the
things which you need to know, but which usually aren’t written down any-
where. Most of this book is about the knowledge that the university system
assumes that you already have. We also describe ways of getting at the
non-verbal skills that can’t be translated into words, and finding out about
taboo topics. Most of these ways are variants on having an informal cup of
coffee with someone wise and supportive, which is why each edition of this
book has had a cover illustration showing cups of coffee and repeated refer-
ences to those informal conversations. The ‘I can’t put it into words’ and the
‘won’t talk about it’ types of knowledge really are that important.
This book is also written to help students who have deeper doubts, which
appear as themes such as: ‘people like me can’t do PhDs’ or ‘I need to be realistic
in my aspirations’. We’ve seen a lot of students from challenging or atypical back-
grounds or with low self-esteem who did brilliantly in PhDs, and achieved things
that they didn’t believe were possible. This book is written to help students whose
lives could be transformed by a supportive nudge at the right moment.
We emphasise that most of the big challenges that face PhD students cut
across backgrounds and personalities. International students must understand
and adjust to the local culture, yes – but similarly part-time students must
adjust to the academic culture. The insights about learning to engage with your
specific research community cut across all categories of students, just as the
insights about critical thinking, project management, and managing supervi-
sory relationships do, and so we typically don’t address specific categories of
student, but rather compile what we’ve learned from all of them.
That’s the background to this book. In our experience, PhDs transform peo-
ple’s lives for the better, in ways that they had never believed would be possible
for them. That doesn’t mean they are easy. The rest of this book is about han-
dling the challenge.
How to get the best from this book

The best way to use this book is as follows:
1 First, skim through it, so you get an overview of the key concepts.
2 Then, re-read it more slowly, starting at the end, and working backward.
Working backward makes it much easier to see how to get to your destination,
So, what is a PhD? 3
and to identify the points that are important for you, rather than getting hung
up on the problems immediately in front of you and losing sight of the Big
Picture. That’s also the best way to think about the PhD itself.
3 Finally, use individual chapters from this book when you need them. We’ve
organised the chapters to map onto key points in the PhD journey, and onto
key issues that you’re likely to encounter.
The key points in the journey are easy to identify, such as the viva. The key
issues are usually less easy to identify when you’re a student in the middle
of a PhD.
They fall into two main categories. One is ‘big picture’ knowledge about how
the academic system works, and why it works that way. For instance, what are
some classic career paths in academia? Why is academic writing deliberately
dull? Why do some people get lectureships in good departments before they’ve
finished their PhD, whereas others are still struggling to find any job ten years
after their doctorate? What counts as a ‘good’ department, and why? Many stu-
dents are too embarrassed to show their ignorance by asking questions like
these; more students are too focused on the immediate problems of the PhD to
think of asking them until it’s too late.
The second category involves what are known as ‘craft skills’. These are
usually hands-on skills, and are normally viewed as not sufficiently import-
ant to be worth mentioning in textbooks, and treated as minor details to be
taught informally by supervisors or other mentors. These range from quite
specific information (e.g. ‘How many references should I have in the first
paragraph of something I write?’) to broader skills (e.g. ‘How can I get a rea-
sonable brief overview of this topic that my supervisor’s advised me to read
about, without spending six months wading through the literature?’) The
skills, and the answers, and the reasons for them, vary across disciplines;
however, once you’re aware of the basic concept of craft skills, you can then
find out what the craft skills are in your chosen area, and learn them.
So, each chapter of this book deals with an area of knowledge which is
important to PhD students. Some, such as how to handle criticism, are rele-
vant in more than one place (for instance, handling criticism is relevant to
writing, to presentations and to the viva). Others, such as writing, manifest
themselves in different ways at different stages of your PhD (which is why this
book is structured around both topics and the chronological process). Each
chapter describes and discusses its topic, and is illustrated with examples and
anecdotes. Where an anecdote is dubious or apocryphal, we’ve said so; the
others are true, even when improbable. The descriptions are intended to help
you understand what the issues are, and why things are the way they are; the
anecdotes are there to illustrate the underlying points and to help you remem-
ber them.
Many of the chapters end with a table that summarises some useful tips. The
tables are offered as additional aides-mémoire – guides you can photocopy
and stick on your wall; they are not chapter summaries.
An important thing to keep in mind when reading this book is that disci-
plines vary. This is why we use words such as ‘usually’. For example, the
precise indications of quality in a journal paper will be different between, say,

history and geology, but the underlying deep-structure concepts usually
remain the same – for instance, the concept of a strong paper as opposed to a
weak one. This book is intended to help you understand what these underly-
ing concepts are, so that you can find out what form they take in your disci-
pline, and then make sure that you have the right indicators of quality in your
written work, in your presentations and in your CV.
On the subject of informality, we have deliberately used an informal style
throughout this book – the style we’d use in a conversation over coffee, not the
style we’d use in journal articles or dissertations.
We’ve deliberately omitted a variety of other research-related topics, such as
how to use statistics, on the grounds that these are well covered in other books,
and this one is quite long enough already . . .
What is a PhD?
Entering students often think of a PhD as a ‘magnum opus’, a brilliant research
project culminating in a great work. This is an unrealistically demanding model;
nobody expects their students to win Nobel Prizes for their doctoral research.
As one colleague phrased it, a PhD is less like hacking through the jungle with
a machete, and more like crawling around on the ground with a magnifying
glass – less major discovery of new lands, more painstakingly detailed investi-
gation of familiar ones.
More realistically, a PhD is a demonstration of research competence –
like a driving licence, which shows that you’re able to make your way inde-
pendently, without an instructor next to you on each journey. So, a PhD is a
process leading to a professional research qualification. There is no implica-
tion that it is the end of your education or training, but it’s a significant – and
for many the last – formally assessed point on the journey. It involves doing
a substantial chunk of research, writing it up, and then discussing it in a viva
with examiners who have expertise in the field. You have supervisors to help
and advise you, but in theory at least the PhD is something for which you
take the initiative, and so it is a demonstration of your ability to do proper
research independently. The process is rarely smooth; along the way you
will learn a great deal about how not to do research as well as about how to
do it well.
At a sordidly practical level, the PhD suggests that you are good enough at
research to be appointable to a university post. A PhD is highly advisable for a
career as an academic, and helpful for a career as a researcher in industry.
PhDs are recognised around the world and tend to have pretty good quality
control, so a PhD from one country will be recognised in another without too
much snobbery. Still at the practical level, if you have a PhD, you usually go
onto a higher pay scale.
There are also other views of a PhD. It can be viewed as an initiation rite, in
which you undergo an ordeal and, if you come through the ordeal in a creditable
manner, are admitted to membership of the academic clan. Continuing the anal-
ogy, having a PhD will not be enough to make you a clan elder, but it will mark
the transition to full adulthood. You are treated differently if you have a PhD –
there is a distinct feeling of having become ‘one of us’.
The ‘rite of passage’ is not just a snobbery thing; the ordeal (and the educa-
tion) give you a different way of thinking. A PhD can be viewed as one’s entry
into the research discourse (which equates roughly to the research communi-
ty’s dialogue about what it believes it knows and has a good basis for know-
ing). What it should do is prepare you to consider and debate what you know
and how you know it. This means that you’ll have developed your critical
thinking, that you’ll have learned about weighing evidence and questioning
assumptions. You will gradually notice a different way of thinking about
things, such as when you start making administrative decisions in your subse-
quent career. A good example of this is undergraduate student projects: in
many departments, staff with PhDs typically want to use the projects as a way
of teaching the students how to conduct research, and staff without PhDs typ-
ically want to use the projects as a chance to give the students an industrial
placement. The PhDs’ view is that the students need to learn critical thinking
skills valuable for later life; the other view is that the students need to be
equipped to find jobs. Which is right? This is a good question, and one which
would take us on a lengthy diversion. The main point is that doing a PhD does
change you.
So, a PhD can be many things: research training, springboard for special-
ist expertise, rite of passage, job credential . . . what it means for you depends
on which opportunities you seize, whether you keep an eye on ‘the Big Pic-
ture’, what sorts of relationships you form, and so on. So, how can you make
it into what you need it to be?
The next sections describe some concepts which we have found invaluable,
but which don’t usually appear in other books. These provide a useful structure
for (a) what you are trying to do in a PhD and (b) understanding how things
work in the Big Picture. The first of these is the cabinet-making metaphor; the
second is the distinction between instrumental and expressive behaviour.
Terminology: a brief digression

There are various types of research degree; what they have in common is that,
as a core component, they involve research by the student. This is different
from a taught degree where there may be a research project (for instance, an
MSc project), but where this research project is only one component among
many on the course.
Strictly speaking, a research degree involves a thesis, which is the argument
that you propose as a result of your research. Again, strictly speaking, the disser-
tation is the written document which describes your thesis. In common usage,
the dissertation is often referred to as ‘the thesis’. It’s worth knowing about the
distinction in case you have a particularly pedantic external examiner – it helps
you get off to a better start.
Cabinet-making – the PhD as a ‘master piece’

Doing a PhD has a lot in common with traditional cabinet-making. Back in The
Past, the apprentice cabinet-maker would finish the apprenticeship by making
a cabinet which demonstrated all the skills needed to be a master cabinet-maker.
This piece of work was known as the ‘master piece’. A successfully defended
PhD dissertation fulfils a similar role. It demonstrates that you have all the
skills needed to be a researcher in your own right. The issue of demonstration
is essential. The basis of the PhD examination is the dissertation, together with
the subsequent viva voce examination. You need to have produced a good
enough piece of work, and you need to show your understanding of why it
was good.
You therefore need to know what the required skills are for your branch of
academia (since different disciplines require different skills) and make sure that
you demonstrate mastery of each of these somewhere in your thesis. If you’re
methodically inclined, you can draw up a list of the skills and tick off each one
as it is covered in your thesis. For a cabinet-maker, the skills required would
include things like making various complex joints, fitting hinges neatly, apply-
ing veneer, and so forth. For an academic, the skills are things like mastery of
formal academic language, familiarity with the relevant literature in the disci-
pline, knowledge of the main data collection techniques, adherence to the stan-
dards of rigour, and so on. (We talk more about research skills in Chapter 3.)
Things which do not normally appear on the list include personal interest in
the area and the ethical importance of the topic. There is no point in going on
about these at length in your thesis – you are awarded a PhD as an acknowl-
edgement that you can make cabinets at master cabinet-maker level, not an
acknowledgement that you find cabinet-making fascinating, or that cabinets
make the world a better place. In practice, few people would spend several
years of their life doing a PhD on a topic which held no interest for them, so
personal interest is usually taken for granted by examiners. Ethics is a more
interesting question. One reason why examiners tend not to take account of
claims about the ethical importance of a question (e.g. finding a cure for can-
cer) as a criterion for assessing a PhD is that bad research can actually impede
the search for an answer to the problem by leading other researchers in the
wrong direction. Bad research into a highly ethical question is still bad research.
Back to the main theme.
Different disciplines have different required skills. Most experienced
researchers are so familiar with these that they take them for granted, and
would be hard pressed to produce a list from memory over a physical or meta-
phorical cup of coffee. However, other experienced researchers (especially
those who teach research methods courses) will be able to give you some
answers. In addition, it is worth having a look at the contents section of
research methods books in your discipline, which will cover most of the main
topics. The PhD regulations for your institution should also help.
An illustrative list of typical skills is given below. It’s illustrative rather than
definitive – your discipline will almost certainly have a different list. However,
many of the skills will be the same, and the list will give you the general idea. A
pragmatic recap of our top tips is gathered in Table 1.1 at the end of the chapter.
Most of the skills below assume that your work will be located within a sin-
gle discipline. There is a reason for this. Interdisciplinary PhDs can be extremely
interesting and useful. However, they need to be handled with care, since oth-
erwise there is the risk that they will ‘fall between two stools’. This can be a
problem in terms of practical matters such as finding an external examiner,
and in terms of theoretical issues such as deciding which approach to follow
when the different disciplines involved have very different ways of doing
things. It is usually much wiser to decide on a ‘host’ discipline, locate the inter-
disciplinary PhD within that, and then import the concepts from the other dis-
cipline into the host discipline.
Cabinet-making skills
Most disciplines require most of the following skills, although individual cases
will vary.
Framing an appropriate and useful research question

At the heart of any research is the research question. The quality of output
hinges on the quality of the question: why it is asked, how it is asked, how it
relates to other questions and knowledge, and what might constitute an
answer. Hence, one key skill is the demonstration of the ability to develop a
well-formulated question. You’ll need to provide evidence of:
• Articulation of the motivation and significance of the question

• Situation in existing literature: coverage and limitations of existing and
competing research, awareness of where your work fits in relation to the
discipline and what it contributes to the discipline
• Identification and critique of alternative approaches.
Use of academic language

An important part of research is engaging in the discourse: communicating
research ideas, processes and results so that they may be scrutinised and dis-
cussed. Good communication relies on understanding the conventions of the
community. Hence, one key skill is the demonstration of competent academic
language. This includes:
• Correct use of technical terms

• Attention to detail in punctuation, grammar, etc.
• Attention to use of typographic design (white space, layout, headings styles)
to make the text accessible
• An ability to structure and convey a clear and coherent argument, including

attention to the use of ‘signposting’ devices such as headings to make the
structure accessible
• Writing in a suitable academic ‘voice’.
Knowledge of background literature

Research is not conducted in isolation; it happens in a context of prior thinking,
prior knowledge, prior evidence, prior practice. One key skill is the demonstra-
tion of an awareness of that context and of how it shapes your own research.
This includes:
• Seminal texts correctly cited, with evidence that you have read them and
evaluated them critically
• References accurately reflecting the growth of the literature from the semi-
nal texts to the present day
• Identification of key recent texts on which your own PhD is based, showing
both how these contribute to your thesis and how your thesis is different
from them
• Relevant texts and concepts from other disciplines cited
• Organisation of all of the cited literature into a coherent, critical struc-
ture, showing both that you can make sense of the literature – identifying
conceptual relationships and themes, recognising gaps – and that you
understand what is important.
Research methods
Any established discipline has a tradition of practice, in the sense of how
things are done. Many disciplines have established methodologies which
prescribe the selection, combination and sequencing of the methods and
techniques to be employed. Others select methods and techniques less
prescriptively and borrow more broadly across domain boundaries. All
disciplines require an appropriate application of methods in order to
ensure rigour. Hence, one key skill is the demonstration of appropriate
knowledge and competence in choosing and using research methods. This
skill includes:
• Knowledge of the main research methods used in your discipline, including

data collection, record-keeping and data analysis
• Knowledge of what constitutes ‘evidence’ in your discipline, and of what is
acceptable as a knowledge claim
• Detailed knowledge – and competent application – of at least one method
• Critical analysis of one of the standard methods in your discipline, showing
that you understand both its strengths and its limitations.
Theory
Again, research is conducted in a context of existing ideas, evidence and think-
ing. One key skill is the demonstration of cognisance of the theoretical context
and of how it shapes your own research, including:
• Understanding of key theoretical strands and theoretical concepts in your

discipline
• Understanding how theory shapes your research question
• Ability to contribute something useful to the theoretical debate in
your area.
Researcher maturity
Part of a PhD is confirming your ‘research independence’. You need to demon-
strate your:
• Ability to do all the above yourself, rather than simply doing what your
supervisor tells you
• Awareness of where your work fits in relation to the discipline, and what it
contributes to the discipline
• Mature overview of the discipline.
Instrumental and expressive behaviour

Instrumental and expressive behaviour are invaluable concepts that Gordon
bumped into a couple of times, in situations where he had no need to note the
full bibliographic reference for the texts involved. They later turned out to be
very useful indeed, but he wasn’t able to track down those original texts. This
was embarrassing for him when students asked him for the source of these
concepts (though he did later track down the literature from which they came).
This is (a) why we go on at such length about the need for proper bibliographic
references for everything you read, and (b) the principal reason for the lack of
a proper bibliographic reference for the work discussed below.
The author of the chapter was a sociologist who was studying the de
Leonists. Some of their behaviour made little sense to him. For instance, they
once spent a lot of time putting up posters around the city advertising a talk
which had already taken place. Eventually he realised that they were engaging
in what he called expressive, rather than instrumental, behaviour. Instrumen-
tal behaviour consists of actions leading towards a stated goal; for instance,
the goal of learning to drive a car might involve the instrumental behaviours of
booking driving lessons, buying a copy of the Highway Code, and so on. Mea-
sured against this criterion, the de Leonists’ behaviour appeared senseless.
Expressive behaviour, on the other hand, consists of actions demonstrating to
other people what sort of person you are; for instance, sitting in the front of a
lecture theatre and taking copious notes in a very visible manner to show that
you take your studies very seriously. Against this criterion, the de Leonists’
behaviour made a lot more sense; much of it was intended to demonstrate
group loyalty, and was intended for other members of the group to see. Stick-
ing up large numbers of posters publicising an event which had already hap-
pened could therefore be a good way of demonstrating that you were a
committed member of the group and, in consequence, of increasing your stand-
ing within the group.
Instrumental behaviour and expressive behaviour are both important. In
our experience, students are normally good at some types of instrumental
behaviour and woefully bad at various sorts of expressive behaviour, usually
because nobody has explained to them which signals they need to send out.
An example of this is the use of bibliographic referencing. At an instrumen-
tal level this is important, because inadequate referencing can lead to your
being unable to relocate a key text which you read earlier; it is also important
for other people who might want to follow up one of your points, or to check
one of your assertions (external examiners for PhDs, for instance, often want
to do this). At an expressive level, good referencing is also important: it sends
out signals saying that you take core academic values seriously, that you are
familiar with the core craft skills, that you are thorough and professional, and
so forth.
More often, however, students engage in expressive behaviours which send
out signals such as ‘look how hard I’m trying’ – spending all day every day in
the library, for example, regardless of whether what they are reading is partic-
ularly useful or not. The usual sequence of events is that the supervisor sooner
or later notices that the student is not making any progress, and points this out;
the student reacts by even more expressive behaviour sending out the same
signal; the supervisor notices continuing lack of progress; and so on, until what
is, usually, an unhappy ending. What students in this situation need to realise is
that the problem is not how hard they are trying, but what they are omitting to
do. One large part of this book is about the instrumental skills which are needed
to do a good PhD, and another large part is about the signals of skilled profes-
sionalism which you need to send out via the right sort of expressive behaviour.
(There is also yet another large part, which is about identifying the wrong sorts
of expressive behaviour, and about what to do to rectify them.)
Necessary skills
Those readers who are familiar with 1066 and All That will be pleased to know
that skills are currently viewed as a Good Thing. This is especially the case
with skills that can be described as ‘transferable skills’. You can therefore treat
them as a positive asset, to be added to your CV, rather than as another cheer-
less obligation. Your institutional training course will probably wax eloquent on
skills of various sorts – transferable, generic, project-based, and doubtless
many others. Transferable skills are particularly favoured by The System

because they are allegedly usable in areas other than just academia. They
include (depending on whose versions you receive) writing, public speaking
and coping with prejudice.
We’ll talk more about the wonderful world of research skills in Chapter 3; the
rest of this section describes skills which may not be included on your institu-
tion’s training programme.
Tact and diplomacy

As a PhD student, you need to accept that you are not exactly at the top of the
academic pecking order; as a new PhD student, you are also the new kid on
the block. There is therefore a time for being right and a time for using the quiet
word that gets you what you want. PhD students tend to do a lot of complaining
about how The System treats them (often with some justice on their side), but
tend to forget that they are in a system which dates back to the Dark Ages, and
which has learnt a thing or two about dealing with complaints. An important
skill is to learn when to let something pass and when to stand up (tactfully and
politely, but firmly) for an issue. Otherwise, you are likely to find yourself win-
ning the battles and losing the war. For instance, you will probably have com-
plaints about the shortcomings of the library; PhD students almost everywhere
have complaints about the library – usually ill-founded – so if you get stroppy
about this issue, you are unlikely to get a huge amount of sympathy. (‘The
library doesn’t have many books on my area of interest’ usually translates into:
‘I haven’t learnt yet that I should be reading journal articles at this stage’ – not
the strongest position for winning an argument.) A second example: you may
have grave reservations about the quality of the research methods training
course that your institution puts on for PhD students. Bear in mind that PhD
training courses are still in their early days, and that a tactless confrontation
with the professor responsible for the course is unlikely to produce the result
that you need; some suggestions, phrased in a face-saving manner, are more
likely to achieve this. Remember also that most PhD students know what they
want, not what they need; there is sometimes an enormous difference between
the two. This leads on to another important skill.
Having the right cup of coffee

Probably the most important research tool you will encounter is the cup of
coffee. Successful students know this; unsuccessful ones tend to wonder why
we’re wasting time with jokes, and then wonder why the world is so unfair to
them. Knowledge is power; rare knowledge is greater power. The best way of
finding out what you really need to know is usually to have a cup of coffee with
the right person, and to ask that person’s advice (tactfully and diplomatically).
Who is the right person? Someone with the knowledge, which in most situations
means someone who is not another PhD student. If someone is still a student,
then you can’t be sure whether the advice is sincere and right, or sincere and
mistaken, since (no matter how helpful and friendly) that student has not yet
completed a PhD successfully. There are a lot of folk myths in circulation among
PhD students. Fellow students are a good source of social support, and of help
with skills such as statistical methods, and with tasks like independent judging
for data analysis, or with babysitting; they’re not a good source of advice about
what your thesis should look like, or where to find the equipment you need for
your next bit of fieldwork. The right person is someone who has a successful
track record in the relevant topic, such as supervisors whose students usually
have happy endings, chief technicians with a reputation for producing the right
bit of kit when all hope seemed gone, and librarians who have helped your
friends to find obscure but essential references. Show them due appreciation
and treat their advice as confidential unless they specify otherwise. The most
useful knowledge is often the sort that people will not want to be quoted on.
Asking the right research question

Once you learn this skill, life becomes very different. We have an entire section on
this elsewhere because it’s so important; we mention it here because it’s well
worth mentioning twice. So is the skill of asking the next question. The real
insights often come in the follow-up and validation – by not being satisfied with
the first result, but by investigating its implications and limitations.
Academic writing
Writing is indeed a transferable skill; you can transfer academic writing skills
from one academic setting to another, and you can transfer business writing
skills from one business setting to another. It is quite possible that there are
areas where you can even transfer academic writing skills appropriately to
industry or vice versa.
Most students know that a PhD requires good science, or good archival
research, or good engineering or good disciplinary research of whatever fla-
vour. Many forget that it also requires good ‘story-telling’. Getting the form and
voice of the dissertation right is just as important as getting the content right in
showing mastery, rigour and insight; indeed, they are essential to conveying
the content. The dissertation is the ‘highest form’ of academic writing, requir-
ing content, precision, substantiation and mastery of context beyond what is
normally required in individual published papers. It is a ‘master piece’, not in
the sense of an ‘ultimate work’, but in the sense of a piece that qualifies an
apprentice to be called a master through its demonstration of techniques, skills,
form and function.
Filling in forms
Forms are a sort of tax you pay for belonging to (and being supported by) an
organisation. Academia has an insatiable appetite for forms, which it associ-
ates with quality control and due process (and which students associate with
racks and thumbscrews). ‘Doing’ forms well and promptly can make you many
friends – the sort of friends (administrators, budget-holders, tutors and deans)
who can smooth your way when it comes to really getting things done. So come
to terms with forms as an easy way to show goodwill, and learn to deal with
them with dispatch.
Some useful habits, in no particular order:
• Read every form through to the end before starting to fill it in.
• Know the audience – knowing who is going to read the form and with what
purpose can help you complete it efficiently and avoid pitfalls.
• If the form is important and you only have one copy, photocopy it, and fill in
the copy as a practice run before filling in the final version. If the form is
online, it might be wise to draft your answers elsewhere to ensure you’re
happy with them before submitting them online.
• If you’re not sure what a particular section means, then refer to the notes –
most forms have accompanying notes which most people don’t bother
to read.
• If you’re not sure what sorts of answers are required, then see if you can
source an example of a successfully completed form to use as a model (e.g.
from another student).
• Complete internal administrative forms as minimally as possible – imagine
someone reading 50 of them and you’ll understand why concise bullet lists
are generally preferable to wordy narratives for standard forms like
expenses claims, stationery requests, progress reports and travel reports.
• Know the exceptions to the previous tip (such as grant proposals, fellowship
applications and cases for awards) – but keep narratives concise.
• Read over the completed form (you’ll be surprised how many stupid slips
you can make); if it is an online form, check your entries carefully before
pressing ‘submit’.
• If you find forms terrifying, ask someone to help you; if your fear is intense,
then consider asking for help from someone who deals with phobias – the
process is usually fast and surprisingly pleasant.
• Photocopy or save a PDF of every form that you fill in, after you have com-
pleted it, and keep the copies filed neatly – they can be useful reminders for
how to fill in the forms, as well as a record of what you claimed last time.
Criteria for a PhD: some reassurance

PhD students often worry about whether their research will be good enough for
a PhD. It’s useful to remember the criteria which most universities have at the
core of their PhD assessment: ‘original work’ that makes ‘a significant contribu-
tion to knowledge’. It is no coincidence that most refereed journals and confer-
ences use similar criteria – such publications are notionally how the research
community communicates and continues to build knowledge. Therefore, you

can provide evidence of ‘significance’, ‘originality’ and ‘contribution to knowl-
edge’ in advance of submission of your thesis by publishing your work in refer-
eed journals or conferences. There is more on this at various places later in this
book. You don’t need to make a major discovery to get a PhD – you just need to
show that you’re able to do good enough research independently.
Key dissertation ingredients

A number of ingredients are essential for a satisfactory dissertation:
• A thesis: one coherent overriding ‘story’ or argument that embodies a

research insight
• Situation in existing knowledge: a critical review of prior research which
motivates and justifies the research question
• Contribution of something new: the ‘significant contribution to knowledge’
• Appropriate voice and argument: the provision of clear and explicit evi-
dence, substantiation, and chain of inference.
More hangs on the student’s ability to demonstrate intellectual maturity and

critical depth – and through them to provide insight – than on the scale or scope
of the research findings. A good PhD is based on an honest report of research
that reflects sound practice and well-articulated critical thinking.
What is a ‘significant’ contribution?

Most students, when they hear the phrase ‘significant contribution’, think in
terms of a new theory, crucial experiments, technological breakthroughs.
For a PhD, the truth is that ‘significant’ need not mean ‘revolutionary’ or ‘major’
or even ‘large’. The phrase might be more accurately read as ‘significant – albeit
modest – contribution’.
Characterising your contribution means answering ‘So what?’, which means
articulating:
• The importance of the question (Why is it worth asking?)

• The significance of the findings (Why do they matter? So what?)
• Their implications for theory
• The limitations to generalisation.
Making a ‘significant contribution’ means ‘adding to knowledge’ or ‘contrib-

uting to the discourse’ – that is, providing evidence to substantiate a conclusion
that’s worth making. Research is not something done in isolation; it is a dis-
course among many researchers, each providing evidence and argument that
contributes to knowledge and understanding, each critiquing the available evi-
dence. Research is about the articulation and analysis of phenomena observed
and investigated through a variety of techniques. It’s about ‘making sense’ of

the world: not just describing it, but also analysing and explaining it. As more
evidence is presented, the analysis and explanations are re-evaluated. Knowl-
edge claims can be small and still have a role in the discourse.
What sorts of contribution are typically made in dissertations?
• Re-contextualisation of an existing technique, theory, or model (applying a

technique in a new context, testing a theory in a new setting, showing the
applicability of a model to a new situation): showing it works – or that it
doesn’t – and why
• Corroboration and elaboration of an existing model (e.g. evaluating the
effects of a change of condition; experimental assessment of one aspect of
a model)
• Falsification or contradiction of an existing model, or part of one
• Drawing together two or more existing ideas and showing that their combi-
nation reveals something new and useful
• Demonstration of a concept: showing that something is feasible and has util-
ity (or showing that something is infeasible and explaining why it fails)
• Implementation of theoretical principle: showing how it can be applied in
practice; making concrete someone else’s idea, and hence showing how it
works in practice and what its limitations are
• Codification of the ‘obvious’: providing evidence about what ‘everyone
knows’ (possibly providing evidence that received wisdom is incorrect)
• Empirically based characterisation of a phenomenon of interest (e.g. detailed,
critical, analytic account of the evolution of an idea; detailed analytic
characterisation of a crucial case study or a novel chemical compound, or
a new planet)
• Providing a taxonomy of observed phenomena
• Well-founded critique of existing theory, or evidence (e.g. correlating the
results of a number of existing studies to show patterns, omissions,
biases, etc.)
• Providing a new solution to a known problem (and demonstrating its effi-
cacy) – even an obscure one; conceiving and justifying a new explanation
for a problematic phenomenon
• Filling a small technical gap (e.g. showing that a ‘tweak’ to an algorithm or
technique is more effective or developing a novel methodology).
The key is that, although the dissertation must stand alone in presenting your
research, the research doesn’t exist in isolation. Doing research means contrib-
uting to the discourse – adding knowledge that moves the discourse along. We
say that ‘research proceeds by baby steps’ and that ‘researchers stand on each
other’s shoulders’. A ‘significant contribution’ is a baby step, one that combines
with the baby steps of others to produce progress. As a rule of thumb, a decent
PhD should yield at least one sound paper in a strong, peer-reviewed journal.
Table 1.1 Ten top tips for research students
Read, read, read Seasoned researchers typically have an evolving

‘reference set’ of around 100–150 papers which forms
the core of the relevant literature in their specialty, and
with which they are conversant. Students need to read
enough to form an initial reference set.
Write, write, write • Writing needs practice: the more you write, the easier
it gets.
• Write up as you go; this will both make it easier at the
end (when you rewrite it all) and give you something
to show people who are interested in your work.
• Don’t throw writing away or delete drafts; date it and
save it in an ‘out-takes’ file – that material can be useful.
• Revising is often easier than writing new.
Keep an annotated This is the single most powerful research tool you can
bibliography give yourself. It should be a personal tool, including all
the usual bibliographic information, the date when you
read the paper and notes on what you found interest-
ing/seminal/infuriating about it. Consider using one of
the many labour-saving software packages available to
you for storing citations and creating digital biblio-
graphic records.
Form an ‘informal Find some reliable, interested people who are willing to
committee’ read for you, comment on ideas, bring literature to
your attention, introduce you to other researchers, and
so on. They may be specialists who can provide
expertise on which you can draw, or generalists who
ask tough questions.
Expose your work Make your work public in technical reports, research
seminars and conference papers. The best way to get
information is to share information; if people understand
what your ideas are, they can respond to them. Making
your work public exposes you to questions and criticism
early (when it can do you some good), helps you to
network and gather leads, and gives you practice articulat-
ing your reasoning. Add links to your peer-reviewed
published work to your university’s online repository and
your department’s homepage (if they have them), and
to your professional profiles on social media.
So what? Learn to ask Students often get a result and forget to take the next
the other questions step. ‘Look, I got a correlation!’ ‘So what?’ Learn to go
beyond your initial question, learn to invert the question
in order to expose other perspectives, and learn to look
for alternative explanations.
(continued)
Table 1.1 (continued)
Never hide from your ‘Hiding’ is a pathological behaviour in which most

supervisor research students indulge at some point. Communicat-
ing with your supervisor[s] is a prerequisite to getting
the most out of them.
Always make backups More than one student has had to re-start writing
(and keep a set from scratch or to repeat empirical work because of
off-site) not making backups. Ensure that your work is saved
on more than one device and in more than one
physical location.
Read at least one Reading something that has ‘passed’ is an excellent
completed disserta- way to reflect on dissertation structure, content, and
tion cover-to-cover style – and on ‘what it takes’.
A doctorate is Part of the process is learning when to stop.
pass/fail
Chapter 2
The many shapes of the PhD
• Phases • Waypoints • Different models of study • Different models of
supervision • Different models of theses • The student contract
PhDs are like journeys: each journey is different, even if the intended desti-
nation is the same. Below the surface variations, though, there are common-
alities. This chapter is about these similarities and differences: different
models of PhD study, different models of supervision and different models
of theses – and about the commonalities behind these. We’ll begin with phases
and waypoints.
Phases
A modern PhD can be viewed as having three key phases, each of which con-
tributes a necessary element of mastery.
1. Orientation: working out where you are, and where you

want to be
The first phase, ‘orientation’, concerns mastering the literature (including
existing theory and existing evidence), formulating your research problem
(and relating it to existing theory and evidence), identifying an appropriate
approach for addressing the problem and specifying a plan of work, including
a clarification of how ‘success’ is recognised. In some cases, your research
question may have already been specified in a proposal drawn up by your
supervisor to secure funding for you. But, even if this is the case, you must
become familiar with the literature and able to discuss the relevance of your
research question within the context of your discipline.
The many shapes of the PhD 19
2. Footslogging
The second phase, ‘intensive research’, is concerned with conducting a pro-
gramme of research (whether evidence-gathering or theory development), rea-
soning accountably and explicitly to reach conclusions, critiquing, iterating
and validating your work, and reasoning about generalisation and limitations.
3. Talking to other travellers

The third phase, ‘entering the discourse’, involves exposing your work to dis-
cussion and scrutiny, which means presenting and defending your work both
orally and in writing. This takes the form of making paper submissions to con-
ferences and journals, giving research seminars and conference presentations,
responding to referees’ comments, and ultimately producing, submitting, and
defending your dissertation.
Strangely enough, the three phases correspond to three key requirements
for a PhD:
• Mastering the discipline – knowing what’s already out there

• Planning and conducting sound, informative research
• Communicating research.
You need all three elements in order to earn a PhD, because all three are neces-
sary to making significant contributions.
Waypoints
In addition to the intellectual phases, PhD programmes have a number of
administrative steps, basic points along the way that are common in some form
to just about all programmes. We use the term ‘waypoints’ because the more
common term ‘milestones’ is now often used by bureaucracies to refer to spe-
cific stages within their own processes.
Induction
When you sign on as a prospective PhD student, the whole process is phrased
in terms of your having to make active moves from one stage to another,
rather than a default assumption that once you have started a PhD you will
automatically end up being examined for one. The earliest phase of a PhD is
figuring out the ground rules: orientation to the literature, introduction to
expectations and norms, training in basic research methods, figuring out who
makes which decisions, coming to terms with The System – the politics, proce-
dures and structures of the institution. Some institutions have a formal induc-
tion period, others leave students to work it out for themselves. Students who
arrive thinking they know it all are always surprised – either because they pay
attention at induction and ask lots of questions of students who have been
around a while, or much later, when they discover the cost of their arrogance
(and ignorance).
Research proposal
At some point in the process, you’ll have to convince your supervisors, depart-
ment and institution that you have identified a topic worth pursuing. You’ll have
to formulate your research proposal: specify a research question to answer or
a research problem to solve, justify why it’s important enough to bother with,
set it in the context of what’s already known, and propose a specific method for
addressing it. The research proposal is likely to change over time – research
rarely goes strictly to plan (otherwise it wouldn’t be research). The significance
of the research proposal is showing that you know how to pose research ques-
tions and propose rigorous ways of answering them.
Transfer/upgrade, or passing probation

Passing probation and transferring or upgrading to registration as a PhD stu-
dent is an important step, both academically and administratively. Contrary to
pessimistic folklore among students, institutions do care about whether their
PhD students survive or fail, if only because their completion rate (the propor-
tion of students who actually complete PhDs on time) reflects on the institution
and can affect its funding. One simple and effective way of reducing the num-
ber of students who fail at the submission and viva stage is to re-route the
problem cases before they reach that stage – if they don’t reach it, then they
can’t fail it. The point at which this is done is ‘transfer’ or ‘upgrade’, somewhere
between the end of your first year and halfway through the PhD, when you
should have done enough work for The System to have a fair idea of your abil-
ity. (If you haven’t done enough work, or it doesn’t give a fair idea of your
ability, then this suggests that you should be re-routed.) Transfer/upgrade is
considered an active process, not a ‘rubber stamp’; students need to demon-
strate their suitability and earn the approval to continue.
Transfer/upgrade normally involves genuine academic assessment of how
you are doing, rather than an administrative convenience. It can take the form
of ‘qualifying exams’ or other formal assessment, a substantial document such
as a ‘research proposal’ or ‘probation report’, a live performance such as a
department seminar or oral examination, a practical demonstration of research
skills – or some combination of these or other elements. By amazing coinci-
dence, these things can be viewed as useful practice for proposing and con-
ducting research, writing the dissertation and undertaking the viva. The
purpose is to demonstrate your competence – not to demonstrate perfection,
nor to set your research plan in concrete.
Some students decide, around transfer or probation assessment, that doing
a PhD is not for them. An honourable withdrawal, or an informed choice to
undertake an MPhil, is actually a success for the student, the supervisors and
The System. It’s a much happier option for everyone than years of anxious and
often unsuccessful toil.
Annual report
Each year during your doctoral studies, most institutions require your faculty,
department, postgraduate tutor or supervisors to submit a report outlining
your progress during the year, assessing your continuing potential for PhD
completion and making a recommendation about whether or not to continue
your registration. The process can be more or less formal, but it involves docu-
mentation that Goes On File. A sensible strategy is to view the annual report as
a chance to reflect constructively on your progress, not just as an administra-
tive hurdle. In a process that tends to emphasise ‘to do’ lists, a regular review of
the ‘done’ list can be reassuring and helpful.
Candidate declaration form

Before you can submit your dissertation, you will have to notify your institu-
tion formally that you are ready to do so, using a form called something like the
‘candidate declaration form’. This form has two major purposes:
1 It requires your supervisors to vouch for the quality of the work, because in
signing the form they must declare both that they have read a complete draft
and that the work is worthy of examination.
2 It sets the machinery in motion to appoint your examiners, a process which
may take some time, because it requires the provision of CVs, completion of
forms and approval by relevant committees.
Submission and viva

The PhD is a long process that culminates in one document and one discus-
sion. The document is your dissertation; the discussion is the viva voce exam-
ination, when you are asked penetrating questions by a panel of bright and
knowledgeable examiners. When the academic system decides whether or not
you should have a PhD, it does this only by assessing your performance in the
dissertation and viva; any other work not represented in them is irrelevant.
Different models of study

Back in The Past, a typical PhD went something like this. You sought out a
potential supervisor, introduced your brilliant ideas and then, if the academic
thought you were worth taking on, you would start a PhD, quite probably on a
totally different topic from the one you originally proposed. You would potter
around with whatever level of supervision your supervisor felt like providing
and be left pretty much in peace until you either submitted your dissertation
(quite probably on a topic different both from your original brilliant idea and
from the one you changed to) or gave up and did something else instead, like
becoming a mushroom farmer in Devon. An alternative model was for the
department to show a student into a closely packed office, shut the door, open
it in three years and demand: ‘Are you finished yet?’
Days long past; times long changed. PhD programmes have become far
more codified. The models are shaped by the expected place of study (e.g. in an
ivory tower, on a university campus, in an industry laboratory, at the kitchen
table), by the intensity of study and focus (e.g. full-time, part-time), by the num-
ber of influences on the research (e.g. student-directed, part of a larger research
project, part of an industry research programme), by the level of intended guid-
ance (e.g. taught introduction, supervision-as-collaboration, largely indepen-
dent working with infrequent supervision), and by who takes responsibility for
skills training (e.g. research-only focus, taught component). We’ll discuss some
of the most common models.
The essential PhD

The essential PhD – focused on the PhD research, shaped largely, if not exclu-
sively, by the supervisory relationship, with minimal structure and judged only
by the final output – is at the core of every PhD, because every PhD student
ultimately needs to find their own path up the research mountain. In some
places (such as the UK), this is the dominant PhD model, making the supervi-
sory relationship the most important feature of the programme. It is the least
specified, and certainly the least structured, of any of the models, but neverthe-
less includes the basic procedures and waypoints common in some form to all.
Some institutions, unwilling to just ‘throw them in the deep end’, augment the
essential PhD with training and development programmes: group supervision
and research groups, seminars, courses on research methods and specialist
topics, and so on.
Project-based PhD
One of the ways to fund PhDs is to embed them in funded research projects.
This has advantages and disadvantages. It has the advantage of creating stu-
dentships. It has the disadvantage of tying the PhD into the project goals, and
into project politics. It has the advantage of giving the studentship structure
and focus. It has the disadvantage that the student has to shape his or her inter-
ests to the project specification. It has the advantage of providing the support
of a project team and project management. It has the disadvantage of making
the PhD one of the project deliverables – and possibly of making the PhD sub-
ordinate to the priorities of the project. It has the advantage of providing momen-
tum and accountability. It has the disadvantage of reducing flexibility for the
student. And so on. The biggest challenge for a project-based PhD is to maintain a
clear sense of identity within the project. Students undertaking project-based
PhDs must constantly ask: ‘What is my PhD research and how is it distinguished
from the project as a whole? Can I specify clearly where my individual contri-
butions lie?’
PhD with taught components, or masters plus PhD

This model is commonplace in North America, where students spend a year or
two ‘qualifying’ for PhD study by demonstrating mastery of their discipline.
This initial period is structured by advanced courses in their specialist topics
and punctuated by advanced examinations. Some institutions make this phase
explicit through the award of a masters degree; however, some only award the
masters degree as a sort of consolation prize to those who do not continue into
PhD study. The taught component can be very useful, ensuring that all PhD
students demonstrate a comparable degree of competence and sophistication
in their discipline before they are sent off into the wilds of research, and reas-
suring students that they indeed have that competence.
In other formulations – evident, for example, in recent practice in Europe –
students spend a year or two earning a taught masters degree as a pre-requisite
to a PhD programme, sometimes before they even apply for a PhD. The masters
provides either specific research training or advanced study in a topic relevant
to the proposed PhD. The subsequent PhD programme can then focus on inde-
pendent research.
Professional doctorate
Designed for people who wish to combine research with professional practice,
these degrees recognise that domain expertise can contribute to research
expertise, and that professional practice itself provides a relevant (although
perhaps not sufficient) skill set and a context for research in that domain. The
degrees are structured to incorporate and exploit that professional activity.
They typically include a taught (and assessed) component – filling in the
research perspectives and research skills that are not part of the profession –
and draw explicitly on the professional practice for examples and data.
Although professional PhDs typically rely on the dissertation and oral exam-
ination as the summative assessment, they are often satisfied with a shorter,
more specific thesis, that links to professional experience.
Industry-based study
These schemes are designed as an academe-industry handshake: academics
get to collaborate with non-academic organisations that do cutting-edge
research, and organisations that cannot themselves award degrees get aca-
demic recognition for their personnel. The students work and research in the
organisation and draw on its resources, and their doctoral research is embed-
ded in or associated with the organisation’s research. The organisation directs
the work, but the university sets the academic standards. There is usually an
industry-based supervisor as well as a university-based supervisor. The two
perspectives can create conflicts in terms of practical matters such as priori-

ties, deadlines and intellectual property, and the student can feel isolated, but
the richness of the environment and the opportunities it holds can be compel-
ling advantages.
PhDs by publication
This is an umbrella for many different practices. It can be a mechanism for giving
academic recognition for a body of published professional work, such as a series
of scholarly biographies, or a series of patented or published technological
advances, or an implemented, innovative pedagogy. In that case, the dissertation
makes the overall case for the significance of the body of work and its contribu-
tion to knowledge. The PhD by publication can be a mechanism for exposing
doctoral research to peer review before examination, by requiring that the disser-
tation consist largely of material accepted for publication by high-quality, peer-re-
viewed journals or conferences. In that case, the dissertation binds the published
papers together with a narrative that draws out the resonances and overarching
themes between them and locates them in existing knowledge and theory. The
PhD by publication can be a minor variant of the monograph dissertation. In
many disciplines, it is normal to publish conference and journal papers during
PhD study, and the resulting dissertation chapters may owe a great deal to those
publications. The PhD by publication just uses the papers explicitly (rather than
rewriting them as chapters), weaving them together with an overriding narrative.
Part-time PhDs
Part-time PhDs are a lot like full-time PhDs, only harder, because they must
compete with ‘the day job’, and they typically receive less support. At best, there
is a fit between the day job and the PhD, so each can benefit from the other. Such
examples may bear some resemblance to professional doctorates or indus-
try-based PhDs. But even in this case there are two masters – the market and
academe – with different characters, different languages and different priori-
ties. At worst, the day job and the PhD compete for the same resource: you.
Whatever the model of study, the culmination is always the dissertation and
defence, and the outcomes are arguably comparable. Models of study are influ-
enced by national and institutional culture.
Different models of supervision

Supervision is utterly individual and varied. Every supervisory relationship is
unique. Students of a given supervisor may have very different views of the
person and very different experiences of supervision, just as different children
in a given family can sound as though they were raised in quite different house-
holds. And yet, there are some common models.
The sole supervisor

In The Past, the supervisory relationship was a closed world. One supervisor
‘owned’ a student, and others dared not intrude or interfere. This worked very
well when the supervisor was excellent. Unfortunately, supervisors were not
always excellent, with predictable results. There are still many cases when there
is a ‘lead’ supervisor who oversees day-to-day work and is the primary mentor
and contact for the student. However, these relationships are rarely exclusive, and
nowadays supervisors are typically accountable to other supervisors or other
forms of oversight – and can draw on other experience and expertise.
Joint supervision and its variants

Along the way, The System recognised that supervisors are only human
(although some appeared to have come straight out of a horror movie), and
that joint supervision can be a good way to compensate for variation among
supervisors, distribute responsibility and provide some accountability. Joint
supervision can take a variety of forms.
• 1 + 1: in effect, there are two (or more) supervisors who act independently,
meet the student separately, and leave the student to negotiate between
them. The student potentially receives twice as much input. This has all
the hazards of sole supervision, multiplied by the number of supervisors. The
more often the student can negotiate the supervisors into the same room for
a joint discussion, the better. A degraded form of this variant is the ‘absentee
supervisor’. In effect, there are two supervisors on paper only, and the stu-
dent experiences sole supervision.
• Specialists: the supervisors take particular roles relating to their expertise
and availability. One may be the generalist and the other the domain expert.
One may handle experiment design and the other statistical analysis. One may
be the theorist and the other the pragmatist. And so on. This can work well, as
long as the roles and decision-making processes are agreed by all, and commu-
nication is effective. It helps if all parties meet together at regular intervals.
• Lead and support: one supervisor may act as lead supervisor, with other
supervisors in supporting roles – for example, providing specialist expertise
or acting as readers/reviewers. This can provide clarity for the student: the
lead supervisor has the greater voice. But supporting supervisors can
become detached and disaffected, leaving things to the lead supervisor even
when they might have contributions to make.
Supervisory panels or committees

Supervisory panels or committees can be thought of as combining sole and
joint supervision. Most supervision is layered in formal and informal interactions;
supervisory committees tend to embody this layering. A committee of experts
oversees the research, with the big decisions (the design and direction of the
research) made or ratified in formal meetings with the committee. The day-to-day
supervision, however, is provided by an adviser, who tends to manage the

activity more informally. This model is common in North America. The advan-
tage is the assembly of expertise – as is the disadvantage. Lots of input may
mean lots of opinions, some of which are likely to compete. On the other hand,
when the whole committee signs off on something, the student can feel well-
founded confidence.
The key to all supervision is communication, assisted by clear lines of
responsibility and decision-making. At its best, joint supervision is a profound
advantage: the assemblage of supervisors provides a more complete portfolio
of expertise and talents, and the redundancy takes the pressure off any indi-
vidual supervisor, compensating for absences and distractions. The student
may appreciate the educational dialogues between supervisors, especially
when they argue different perspectives. Clever students can manage the
supervisory relationship, using supervisors for what they’re best at and enlist-
ing one to help resolve issues with another. We talk more about managing
supervisors in Chapter 4. Sinful students try to play off one supervisor against
another, and then blame everyone but themselves when the PhD goes horribly
wrong. Joint supervision can work very well, but only if you allow it to work
and help it to work when it hits problems.
Different models of theses

There are various models of theses, in terms both of the structure of the docu-
ment and its content, for example:
• The scholarly book, drawing on a host of existing or discovered evidence,

discussed thoroughly and woven into a pattern of insights in a compelling
narrative
• The collection of publications, threaded together by a unifying discussion
• The engineering model, which solves a problem, often by building a tool, imple-
menting a solution, creating an algorithm or designing a process or method
• The empirically driven model, in which the thesis is justified through (or may
emerge from) a series of empirical studies
• The science model, in which a research question is addressed via the appli-
cation or generation of theory supported by experimental evidence
• The theory-driven model, which presents a new theory, or extends an exist-
ing one, and may rely on argument, analysis and illustrative examples, or
may draw on empirical evidence
• The mathematical proof, which rests on the importance of the insight and
the correctness of the proof.
Clearly, this list is neither definitive nor complete.

Different models are normally associated with different disciplines, with
different expectations in, say, mathematics and fine arts, biology and history,
archaeology and computing. The differences lie, not just in the length and structure
of the dissertation, but more importantly in the expectations about what sorts of
knowledge claims are permitted and what counts as evidence. Differences are
reflected in how existing knowledge is presented and discussed, in what sorts
of arguments are made, in the balance of theory and evidence, in the nature of
evidence presented, and in the scope of the thesis. All of these parameters
have different disciplinary interpretations – so, know your discipline.
The student contract

Whether it’s explicit or not, accepting a PhD studentship is a form of con-
tract. Just as you have expectations about what will be provided to you as a
student (such as supervision and access to library facilities), the university
will have expectations about what you will provide (such as your presence,
adherence to regulations, and observance of processes and procedures). It
behooves you to understand the terms of that ‘contract’, to engage with
the regulations and guidance, and to behave professionally – even when the
rules may seem silly, or others may behave to a lesser standard. Three key
elements of the student contract are Intellectual Property, regulations, and
processes and procedures.
Intellectual Property (IP)

In brief, if you invent or create something, then it is Intellectual Property. Dif-
ferent countries have different laws about what counts as IP. Different forms of
IP may be covered by different rights and laws (e.g. patents cover inventions;
copyright covers physical expression of ideas). IP can be worth money, so
when you sign up for a PhD, there will be something in the paperwork about
who owns any IP that you produce.
If you’re doing a standard PhD, a common pattern assigns the IP to the uni-
versity, but income arising from that IP will be shared with you. Usually, the
arrangement applies only to inventions that relate to the PhD. So, for instance,
if you’re doing a PhD in biochemistry and you invent a new musical instrument
unrelated to the PhD, the IP will probably belong to you. If you’re doing a PhD
sponsored by a commercial company, then there will be a separate agreement
(because the company’s contract with the university may assign the IP to the
company). If you’re doing a PhD funded by a grant, then again there will be a
separate agreement with the funding agency. Whatever the case, you need to
read the paperwork and understand the terms.
Copyright is a particular form of IP right, giving the owner of a created
work – such as a paper, book, picture, website, song, poem – control over how
it can be used. Student contracts vary in their handling of copyright: some
require students to assign copyright to the university; others leave it with the
student. Therefore, before you can publish your research, you need to know
whether you have the right to sign a copyright agreement.
That’s the short version; the full version is much longer. If there’s any likeli-
hood of your creating IP in your PhD, you should sort out the arrangements for
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Palm-bark, represented by Ninevite sculptors, i. 202.
Palmyra, i. 349; ii. 374.
Pamir, i. 21.
Paradise (or Park), ii. 51.
Parasol, ii. 203.
Parthians, succeeded by the Sassanids, i. 57.
Paving, three systems of, i. 238.
Pediment, i. 394.
Péretié, his bronze plaque, i. 349.
Percy, Dr., ii. 312.
Pergamus, ii. 286.
Pericles, ii. 382.
Περὶ φύσεως, the Greek philosophic poems of the sixth century,
ii. 397.
Perrot and Chipiez, Art in Ancient Egypt quoted, i. 13, 23, 61,
86, 208, 213, 222, 234, 246, 248, 268, 322; ii. 131–135.
Persepolis, i. 88.
Phidias, i. 58; ii. 286.
Philostratus quoted, i. 299, 379.
Phœnicia, ii. 172.
Phœnicians, their invention of the alphabet, i. 23.
Pictography, i. 31.
Piers, their restricted use, i. 132.
Pigments, ii. 294.
Pilasters, i. 216.
Pinches, T. G., i. 195;
quoted, ii. 213.
Pivots (door-pivots), i. 240.
Place, Victor, quoted, i. 116, 118, 138;
his discovery of a cedar beam at Khorsabad, 140, 148;
his opinion on the roofing question, 163;
statement as to the timber found in the excavations, 164;
his discovery of fragmentary vaulted ceilings among the ruins,
165, 173, 183, 186–189, 191, 192, 202, 208, 224, 243,
248, 266;
loss of his collections in the Tigris, 285;
on the plan of Sargon’s palace at Khorsabad, ii. 32;
his description of the French consulate at Mossoul, ii. 71;
his opinion as to the use of colour in Assyrian architecture,
246.
Planisphere, fragments found at Kouyundjik, i. 72.
Plans, peculiarities of Mesopotamian, i. 328.
Plato, ii. 397.
Plautus, ii. 364.
Plinth, painted black at Khorsabad, i. 272, 291.
Pliny, quoted by Rawlinson, i. 4;
calls the whole of Mesopotamia Assyria, 5, 71;
quoted, ii. 364.
Plutarch (pseudo), treatise on Isis and Osiris, i. 58.
Polychromy, ii. 243;
traces of colour still perceptible on the sculptures in the
Louvre and the British Museum, 248;
“natural polychromy,” 249.
Polydemonism, i. 62.
Polytheism, a development from the worship of stars and
planets, i. 75.
Pompeii, i. 139.
Pongnon, ii. 61, 226.
Population, elements of the P. in Mesopotamia, i. 13.
Porches, i. 218.
Porphyrius, i. 71.
Portes ornées, Khorsabad, i. 217, 227.
Pottery, ii. 298.
Praxiteles, i. 58; ii. 286.
Prisse d’Avennes quoted, i. 305.
Proportions of early Assyrian figures, ii. 203.
Prostitutions, religious, at Babylon, i. 89, 377.
Ptah, i. 78, 79.
Ptolemy, quoted by Rawlinson, i. 4;
his astronomical canon, i. 71.
Pyrgoteles, ii. 263.
R
Racine, ii. 71.
Raman, i. 75; ii. 89.
Rassam, H., his discovery of a metal threshold at Borsippa, i.
241, 256;
his explorations under Sir H. Rawlinson’s surveillance, ii. 7;
excavations at Kouyundjik, 48, 118.
Rawlinson, Prof., his description of the physical characteristics
of Chaldæa, i. 2, 47, 71, 80, 211, 277;
quoted, ii. 1;
quoted in connection with Semiramis, and her possible
identification with Sammouramit, 218;
on the question of polychromy, 247.
Rawlinson, Sir Henry, quoted, i. 22, 156;
his explorations, ii. 7.
Rehoboth, i. 14.
Rennell, his Herodotus quoted, i. 281.
Repoussé work, ii. 116.
Resen, i. 14, 122.
Rhea, i. 374.
Rhind, H., i. 279.
Rhodes, ii. 286.
Rich, his observations, on the construction of vaults by the
native builders of Mesopotamia, i. 167, 261;
colours used in decoration, 280.
Roads, for military purposes, ii. 74;
used by Mesopotamian commerce, 374.
Rollin, i. 33.
Rome, ii. 286.
Roofs, discussion as to how Mesopotamian buildings were
roofed, i. 160.
Ross, his geological explorations, i. 4, n2.
Rouet, M., ii. 225.
Ruelle, Ch. E., i. 58.
Ruth quoted, ii. 70.
S
Sacred tree, i. 212.
Sacrifices, human, asserted allusions to them on the cylinders,
ii. 268.
Sagaraktyas, i. 315.
Saïd-Hassan, ii. 174.
Samarah, i. 3.
Samas, i. 83;
tablet of Sippara, 200; ii. 90, 193, 266.
Samas-Vul II., stele of, ii. 209, 354.
Sammouramit (? Semiramis), ii. 217.
Samsibin, i. 39.
Sandals, in the reliefs, ii. 247.
Sarbistan, i. 169, 186.
Sardanapalus, i. 43;
the Greek myth, 52, 187; ii. 59.
Sargon, i. 43, 105;
stele of, found near Larnaca, ii. 219.
Saryoukin, see Sargon.
Sarzec, M. de, his discoveries at Tello, i. 24, 279;
quoted, 382; ii. 33, 141.
Sassanids, successors of the Parthians, i. 57.
Sayce, A. H., quoted, i. 33, 69; ii. 263, 346.
Scabbard, ii. 164, 345.
Sceptres, how coloured in the reliefs, ii. 247.
Schenafieh, ii. 176.
Schlumberger, G., his fragments of the Balawat gates, i. 242; ii.
213.
Schulze, ii. 232.
Screw of Archimedes, its asserted use at Babylon, ii. 31.
Sculpture, absence of women from the reliefs, i. 111;
practically confined to war and hunting, 111;
its principal themes, ii. 78;
its fondness for fantastic animals, 79;
treatment of the nude, 92;
the absence of nude figures from the reliefs, 98;
documentary character of Assyrian sculpture, 101;
epic or newspaper? 103;
want of variety in the composition of the reliefs, 104;
its appearance of improvisation, 104;
materials used, 109;
use of clay, 113;
terra-cotta statuettes, 114;
its principal conventions, 125;
statue of Nebo, 126;
of Assurnazirpal, 126;
the principles of the bas-reliefs, 128;
peculiarities of Assyrian statues and figures in relief, 130;
the Assyrian type, 135;
are the Assyrian statues Iconic? 138;
representations of animals, 142;
proportions of early Assyrian figures, 203;
its power of selection, 207;
in the reign of Sargon, 219;
picturesque details introduced in the time of Sennacherib,
223;
Egyptian and Assyrian contrasted, 281;
do. 385.
Scythians, their invasion of Western Asia, i. 49.
Seal, in universal use in Babylonia, ii. 251.
Seistan, i. 2.
Sekhet, i. 78.
Seleucia, i. 54, 93, 223.
Seleucidæ, i. 5, 157.
Seleucus Nicator, i. 54.
Seljukian period, carved lions from, i. 262.
Semi-domes, i. 173.
Semiramis, i. 33;
represented on the walls of Babylon according to Ctesias,
283, 361;
her palaces, ii. 34, 217.
Semnat, ii. 394.
Senkereh (or Larsam), i. 38.
Sennacherib, i. 43;
his death, 103, 105;
state of sculpture during his reign, ii. 223;
his appearance in the Bavian sculptures, ii. 229.
Seraglio, at Khorsabad, ii. 16.
Serdabs, i. 139, 383.
Sesostris, i. 33.
Seti, ii. 395.
Sewers, system of, in palaces, i. 227.
Sexagesimal system, the, of the Babylonians, ii. 398.
Shah-Nameh, the, i. 20.
Shalmaneser II., i. 43, 105;
the gates made for him, 242; ii. 40;
his obelisk, ii. 110.
Sharezer, i. 103.
Shat-el-Arab, i. 7.
Shat-el-Hai, ii. 174.
Shem, i. 15.
Shield, votive, from Lake Van, ii. 347.
Shinar, i. 14, 18.
Sidon, i. 16.
Silius Italicus, ii. 364.
Sills, i. 239.
Silver, i. 299.
Simplicius, his statement as to Babylonian astronomy, i. 71.
Sin, Assyrian god, i. 201.
Sinjar, i. 178; ii. 110.
Sippara, i. 38, 53, 200; ii. 90.
Sirtella, see Tello.
Sittacenia, i. 177.
Smith, George, quoted, i. 36;
his recognition of the true characters of the Cypriot alphabet,
44;
translator of texts from Assurbanipal’s library, 48, 71;
his discovery of limestone bases in the palace of
Assurbanipal, 220, 237, 276;
enamelled brick found by him at Nimroud, 293;
his discovery of an account of Istar’s descent into limbo, 344;
his explorations, ii. 7;
résumé of the monumental history of Calah (Nimroud), 37;
his description of the site of Arbela, 48;
his discovery of a small model bull at Nimroud, 115.
Sockets, granite, &c., for the door-pivots, i. 242;
from Balawat, 243.
Sodom, i. 199.
Soldi, E., ii. 253;
his description of the process of gem engraving quoted, 259.
Somalis, ii. 373.
Sorcery, Chaldæan belief in, i. 65.
Soury, ii. 397.
Spoons, metal, ii. 351.
Staged-towers, difficulty of restoring them accurately, i. 364;
their monotonous appearance, 366;
their resemblance to a stepped pyramid, 366;
description of temple of Bel by Herodotus, 366;
their various types restored, 370–382;
their ruins discussed, 382–391.
Staircases, i. 189–192.
Steatite, ii. 190.
Steles, their characteristic forms, i. 236;
fluted S. with palmette, 258;
rock-cut S. at Kouyundjik, 259.
Stone, no dressed S. to be found at Babylon, i. 120;
bridge at B. said to have been built of stone, 120.
Strabo, quoted by Rawlinson, i. 4;
carries western frontier of Assyria up to Syria, 5, 54;
height of temple of Bel, 130;
ruined state of the temple in his time, 137;
his statement as to the prevalence of vaults in Babylon, 169,
176; ii. 251.
Stylus, for cutting the wedges, i. 28.
Styx, i. 354.
Sully-Prudhomme, his lines to the Venus of Milo quoted, ii. 249.
Sumer, i. 21, 59.
Sumerian system, the, i. 29.
Surface decoration in Chaldæa, i. 245.
Susa, date of its capture by Assurbanipal, i. 36, 52;
its palace intrigues, 96.
Susiana, i. 17.
Sybel, L. von, ii. 285.
Syene, i. 94.
Syllabaries, Assyrian, i. 23.
Syncellus, Georgius, i. 51.
Syria, ii. 172.
Syriac, the dominant language in the early centuries of our era,
i. 18.
Tablets of gold, silver, antimony, copper, and lead, found at

Khorsabad, i. 319.
Tacitus, i. 5.
Tadmor, see Palmyra.
Takht-i-Khosro, i. 170, 185.
Tammouz, i. 344.
Tardieu, Amédée, i. 177.
Tartan, or Grand Vizer, i. 96.
Tauthé, i. 83.
Taylor, J. E., quoted, i. 39, 118, 155;
his explorations of the mounds near the Persian Gulf, 158,
200, 222, 279, 281;
his explorations at Abou-Sharein, 371; ii. 256.
Teheran, i. 289.
Tell-Amran (or, Tell-Amran-ibn-Ali), ii. 35.
Tello, i. 24, 279, 312;
angle-stones and foundation talismans found at T., i. 316,
383; ii. 33, 163;
the discoveries made by M. de Sarzec described, 174;
subjects of the reliefs, 177.
Temenos, i. 128.
Temple, subordinate types of, i. 391–6.
(see also Staged towers).
Tents, their forms, i. 175.
Teradas, i. 10.
Terah, i. 15.
Terra-cotta statuettes, early Chaldæan, ii. 195.
Tête-de-pont, on the Balawat gates, ii. 214.
Texier quoted, i. 122;
description of the great mosque at Ispahan, 287.
Textiles, ii. 363.
Thapsacus, ii. 374.
Thebes, i. 56.
Thomas, Felix, his opinion on the roofing question, i. 163, 224.
Thothmes III., ii. 284.
Thresholds, i. 239;
sometimes of metal, 241.
Thunderbolt, origin of the classic form of, i. 75.
Tidjaris, ii. 312.
Tiele, his Manuel des Religions quoted, i. 60, 86, 89.
Tiglath-Pileser I., i. 39; ii. 203.
Tiglath-Pileser II., i. 43; ii. 101, 218.
Tigris, its inundations, i. 9.
Tiles, glazed; the manufacture not extinct in India (note by
editor), i. 287;
with central boss, 294.
Toilet, articles of, ii. 349.
Tomb, comparison between the Egyptian and Mesopotamian T.,
i. 336;
absence of funerary inscriptions, 336;
no Assyrian tombs yet discovered, 336;
conjectures as to how the Assyrians disposed of their dead,
337;
Loftus’s explanation perhaps the best, 338;
the principle of the Chaldæan tomb similar to that of the
Mastaba, 355;
its shape, 356–360;
its situation, 360–364.
Transliteration, difficulties of, i. 17.
Trees, how indicated in the reliefs, ii. 207, 223.
Tree of Life, i. 212.
Tripods, ii. 323.
Tunica talaria, ii. 94.
Turanians, said to form part of the early population of Chaldæa,
i. 19;
etymology of the word, 20, 22.
Turkish compared to the tongue of early Chaldæa, i. 19.
Turks, their bad administration, i. 11.
Tyre, i. 16.
Ulbar, temple of, its angle-stone, i. 315.

Unicorn, the, in Assyrian sculpture, ii. 164.
Ur, i. 1, 15, 38, 47; ii. 265.
Uroukh (or Erech), i. 38;
the stones worshipped in its chief temple, 62.
Van, Lake, i. 395; ii. 213;

remains of furniture found there, 314.
Vaults, their common use in Mesopotamia, i. 144;
their construction without centres, 167;
their prevalence in Babylon according to Strabo, 169;
at Firouz-Abad, 169;
at Sarbistan, 169;
of Sargon’s gateways, 224.
Vegetation, marsh, ii. 223.
Ventilating pipes in Chaldæan buildings, i. 157.
Virgil quoted, i. 64.
Vitruvius quoted, i. 116.
Voguë, de M., ii. 314.
Volcanoes in the valley of the Khabour, i. 121.
Volutes, i. 205, 209.
Vulnirari III., ii. 40.
Vulush III., ii. 217.
W
Walls, construction of, i. 147;
height of W. at Khorsabad, 151;
ornamentation of W. at Khorsabad, 151;
of Babylon, as described by Diodorus after Ctesias, 282;
of Dour-Saryoukin, their good preservation, 282;
height of the W. of Babylon, ii. 63.
Warka (the ancient Erech), i. 24, 38, 245, 272;
palace at, ii. 33, 256, 306, 308.
Wedges, the, i. 21;
compared with the hieroglyphs and Chinese characters, 21;
original constitution of, 23;
originally perhaps cut on bark of trees, 27;
terra-cotta peculiarly well adapted for them, 28;
their ideographic origin, 29.
Weights, Mesopotamian, ii. 220.
Wheat, the origin of its cultivation, ii. 399.
Windows, i. 236.
Winged bulls, their height, i. 268;
small model bull from Nimroud, ii. 113.
Wuswas, i. 245, 272, 371; ii. 33.
X
Xenephon, i. 112, 151;

his Anabasis quoted, ii. 59.
Xerxes, ii. 201.
Xisouthros, the Chaldæan Noah, i. 36, 315.
Yang-tse-kiang, ii. 375.

Yezidis, their houses, i. 178;
their religious beliefs, ib.; ii. 71.
Zab, the great, i. 6; ii. 225.

Zagros, i. 6, 39.
Zalalu, i. 345.
Zarpanitu, see Istar.
Zebu, ii. 373.
Zend, the study of, a preparation for deciphering the wedges, ii.
4.
Zephaniah, quoted, i. 302.
Zeus, i. 369, 374.
Zigguratt, see Staged towers.
Zodiac, signs of, origin of, i. 70.
THE END.
LONDON: R. CLAY, SONS, AND TAYLOR, PRINTERS.

FOOTNOTES:
[1] Rawlinson The Five Great Monarchies, &c., (4th edition),
vol. i. p. 278.
[2] Millin, Monuments inedits, vol. i. plates 8 and 9.
[3] Rheinisches Museum, 1829, p. 41. This passage will be
found in a note appended by the illustrious historian to a paper by
Ottfried Müller, entitled Sandon und Sardanapal.
[4] Traces of the excitement caused by these discoveries may
be found in an article written by M. de Longperier in 1845, in
which, before having seen the monuments, he points out the
interest and importance of the discoveries with rare sagacity. The
paper in question is entitled Ninive et Khorsabad. It has lately
been reprinted in the first volume (page 34) of his collected works
(A. de Longperier, Œuvres, 5 vols. 8vo. Leroux). This first
volume bears for sub-title: Archéologie orientale: Monuments
arabes.
[5] Lettre à M. Isidore de Lowenstern sur les Inscriptions
cunéiformes de l’Assyrie (Œuvres, vol. i. p. 109). M. de
Lowenstern had already by a kind of happy intuition hit upon the
name, but without being able to give a reason for his
transliteration.
[6] This latter hypothesis was sustained, with more erudition,
perhaps, than tact or taste, by Dr. Hœfer. A skilful historian of
chemistry, he was by no means an archæologist. He had no
feeling for the differences between one style and another. See the
Memoires sur les Ruines de Ninive, addressés à l’Académie des
Inscriptions, par Ferd. Hœfer [20th February and 24th May,
1850]; see especially the second paper: De l’Âge et du Caractère
des Monuments découverts à Khorsabad, à Nimroud, à
Kouioundjik, à Karamles et à Kaleh-Shergat, Paris, Didot, 1850.
His assertions were refuted by de Longperier in the first part of his
paper entitled: Antiquités assyriénnes, published in 1850, in the
Revue archéologique, (Œuvrcs, vol. i. p. 139).
[7] Art in Ancient Egypt, vol. i. chapter xi. § 2.
[8] Place, Ninive, vol. i. p. 38, Esarhaddon was the chief
offender in this respect.
[9] See G. Perrot, Souvenirs d’un Voyage en Asia Mineure,
p. 50.
[10] This preconceived notion explains the erroneous title he
gave to his great work: Monument de Ninive, découvert et décrit
par P. E. Botta, mesuré et dessiné par E. Flandin, published at
the expense of the state at the Imprimerie nationale, Paris, 1849,
5 vols, folio (1 volume of text, 4 of plates).
[11] The palace platform was not quite in the centre of the
north-western face. The Assyrians were no fonder of a rigid
symmetry than the Egyptians.
[12] Place, Ninive, vol. iii. plate 7.
[13] In this plan the darkest parts are those discovered by M.
Botta; the more lightly shaded lines show the rooms and courts
excavated by his successor.
[14] Place, Ninive, vol. iii. plate 18 bis.
[15] Rawlinson (The Five Great Monarchies, vol. i. p. 286),
and Lenormant (Historie ancienne, vol. ii. p. 196) make the two
parts of the platform—the arms of the T and its shank—different
in height. In doing so they have borrowed a mistake from Botta.
The mistake is easily understood in the case of Rawlinson, whose
fourth edition, although published in 1879, reproduces the plans
compiled by Fergusson after Botta. We are more surprised at
Lenormant falling into the same error, as he gives an excellent
résumé of Place’s discoveries. Botta seems to have thought the
two parts of the palace had different levels in consequence of an
inequality in the distribution of the fallen materials. In the
neighbourhood of the latter buildings, such as the so-called
Observatory, and where the open spaces were fewer and less
ample, there was, of course, a thicker bed of rubbish than where
the buildings were lower and the walls farther apart. But wherever
the original surface of the mound was reached, Place ascertained
that its level never varied. In none of his plans is there the
slightest trace of any slope or staircase leading from one level to
the other, so far as the summit of the platform is concerned.
[16] Layard, Monuments, 2nd series, plates 14 and 15.
[17] Thomas placed this ramp at the south-east rather than at
the south-west because it seemed better to make it lead direct to
H, the forecourt of the sélamlik, than to break in upon the privacy
of the harem at the opposite corner.
[18] This court was about 206 feet wide, by 366 feet long.
[19] The letters on our plan signify courts, or rooms—like
some of those in the harem—that were only partially roofed in.
[20] Place, Ninive, vol. i. p. 57.
[21] Lenormant, Manuel d’Histoire ancienne, vol. ii. p. 197.
[22] See Vol. I. page 392.
[23] Oppert, Expédition scientitique, vol. ii. p. 242.
[24] The doorway beside which these artificial palms are
raised is that which leads from the court U to the hall marked Y on
the plan. As to the elements made use of in our restoration, see
Place, vol. i. pp. 114–127, and vol. ii. p. 35. We have already
noticed the discovery of the metal-sheathed poles (p. 202, and
fig. 72).
[25] Place, Ninive, vol. iii. plate 25, fig. 4.
[26] See the Book of Esther.
[27] This room corresponds to the apartment in the richer
houses of Mossoul and Bagdad, that goes by the name of iwan or
pichkaneh. It is a kind of summer hall, open on one side (Oppert,
Expédition scientifique, vol. i. p. 90).
[28] A minute description of all these offices will be found in
Place (Ninive, vol. iii. pp. 76–105).
[29] Place, Ninive, vol. i. pp. 99 and 274.
[30] Oppert, Les Inscriptions des Sargonides, p. 52.
[31] So far as I know, Place alone has given this problem a
moment’s attention (Ninive, vol. i. p. 279), but nothing could be
more improbable than the hypothesis by which he attempts to
solve it. He suggests that one of the drains of which we have
already spoken may have been a conduit or siphon in
communication with some subterranean reservoir and provided
with pumping apparatus at its summit. We have no evidence
whatever that the principle of the suction-pump was known to the
Assyrians.
[32] Strabo (xvi. i. 5) pretends that the hanging gardens of
Babylon were watered by means of the screw of Archimedes
(κοχλίας or κόχλος). If it be true that this invention was known to
the Chaldæans, it may also have been used to raise water to the
platforms of the Assyrian palaces. The discovery, however, is
usually attributed to the Sicilian mathematician, and Strabo’s
evidence is too isolated and too recent to allow us to accept it
without question.
[33] Place, Ninive, vol. ii. p. 197.
[34] Loftus, Travels and Researches, chapter xvi. and
especially page 179.
[35] Diodorus, ii. viii. 3–4.
[36] Diodorus, ii. viii. 7.
[37] Oppert, Expédition scientifique de Mésopotamie, vol. i. p.
150. See also Layard, Discoveries, p. 508, upon the tradition of
the Arabs relating to the tall tamarisk, the only tree that grows on
the summit of the mound.
[38] J. Ménant, Babylon et la Chaldée (1 vol. 8vo. 1875), p.
181.
[39] Diodorus (ii. 10), speaks of λίθιναι δοκοί, or stone
beams, to which he attributes a length of sixteen feet, and a width
of four; Strabo (xvii. i. 5) makes use of the expression,
ψαλιδώματα καμαρωτά, which means vaulted arcades. Both
writers agree that there were several terraces one above another.
Diodorus says that the whole—as seen from the Euphrates no
doubt—looked like a theatre. Both give the same measurements
to these hanging gardens; they tell us they made a square of from
three to four plethra each way (410 feet). The mound of Tell-
Amran is much larger than this, and if it really be on the site of the
famous gardens, it must include the ruins of other buildings
besides, pleasure houses, chapels and kiosks, like those figured
in the reliefs, to which we have already had frequent occasion to
allude.
[40] Layard believes himself to have ascertained that the
buildings on one part of the Nimroud mound were ruined and
covered with earth, when those upon another part of the platform
were founded. The paved floor of the north-western palace is on a
level with the upper part of the walls of the north-eastern and
central palaces (Nineveh, vol. iii. p. 202).
[41] George Smith, Assyrian Discoveries, (pp. 71–73), gives
the following résumé of the monumental history of Calah, from the
inscriptions found at Nimroud. “A city was built on this spot by
Shalmaneser I., King of Assyria, b.c. 1300, but this afterwards fell
into decay, and was destroyed during the subsequent troubles
which came on the Assyrian Empire. Assurnazirpal, who
ascended the Assyrian throne b.c. 885, resolved to rebuild the
city; and bringing numbers of captives taken during his wars, he
set them to work to rebuild Calah, and then settled there to inhabit
it. The north-west palace and the temples near the tower were the
work of this king, and from these came most of the fine Nimroud
sculptures in the British Museum. Shalmaneser II., King of
Assyria, succeeded his father Assurnazirpal, b.c. 860. He built
the centre palace, and the base at least of the south-eastern
palace. Vulnirari III., his grandson, b.c. 812, built the upper
chambers and the temple of Nebo; and Tiglath-pileser II., b.c.
745, rebuilt the centre palace. Sargon, King of Assyria, b.c. 722,
restored the north-west palace, and his grandson, Esarhaddon,
b.c. 681, built the south-west palace. Lastly the grandson of
Esarhaddon, Assur-ebil-ili, the last King of Assyria, rebuilt the
temple of Nebo just before the destruction of the Assyrian
Empire.” A general description of the platform and the buildings
upon it will be found in Layard, Discoveries, pp. 653–656.
[42] This idea is favoured by Layard (Discoveries, p. 654).
[43] The central palace was partly destroyed even in the days
of the Assyrians, by a king who wished to make use of its
materials. Layard (Nineveh, ii. p. 19) found more than a hundred
sculptured slabs stacked against each other, as if in a warehouse.
The architect of Esarhaddon, the author of this spoliation, had not
finished his work when it was suddenly interrupted. For a full
account of the discoveries in the south-eastern palace, see
Layard, Nineveh, ii. pp. 38–40.
[44] Especially from the central palace (Layard, Discoveries,
p. 656). The small rectangles shown on our plan at each side of
the wall dividing the rooms marked 2 and 3 from each other,
represent slabs lying on the ground at the foot of the wall for
whose decoration they were intended. They were never put in
place. The bases of circular pedestals, standing very slightly
above the ground, are also marked. Sir H. Layard could not divine
their use.
[45] Layard, Nineveh, vol. ii. pp. 25, 26, and 29.
[46] For an account of the excavations see Layard, Nineveh,
vol. i. pp. 34, 39, 46, 59–62, 347–350; vol. ii. pp. 25–36.
[47] Layard, Nineveh, vol. ii. pp. 14–16.
[48] All the passages by ancient writers bearing on the subject
will be found collected in the first of those articles of Hœfer, of
which we have already had occasion to speak. Its title is: Textes
anciens sur l’Histoire et la Position de Ninive. It is certain that
even in the Roman period its site was not positively known.
Lucian, who was born at Samosata, less than a hundred leagues
from Nineveh, says: “Nineveh has perished; no trace of it
remains, and we cannot say where it stood” (Charon, c. xxiii).
[49] Layard, Discoveries, p. 137.
[50] The plan in which Layard shows the results of his two
digging campaigns will be found in the Discoveries, facing page
67. For the excavations at Kouyundjik see also his Nineveh, vol.
ii. chapter xiv, and Discoveries, pp. 67–76, 102–120, 135–161,
228–233, 337–347, 438–463, 582–588, and 645–652. Layard
attempts to give a general idea of the palace and of its
decorations. There is also much detailed information regarding
this building in Rawlinson’s Five Great Monarchies, vol. ii. pp.
178–133.
[51] The only details that have been given, so far as we know,
of the discovery and exhumation of Assurbanipal’s palace, are to
be found in an article by Mr. Rassam entitled: Excavations and
Discoveries in Assyria (Transactions of the Society of Biblical
Archæology, vol. vii. pp. 37–58). This paper contains a plan of the
northern palace (p. 40).
[52] “Ervil is the site of the Assyrian city of Arbela, and in the
plains outside it was fought the great battle between Alexander
and Darius. I had no time to examine the place, but I saw in
passing that there were mounds rivalling in size those of the
Assyrian capital. Over the principal mound a Turkish fortress is
built, which would make it difficult to excavate here; but as Arbela
was a great city, much may be expected here whenever it is
explored.” George Smith, Assyrian Discoveries, p. 67.
[53] See the article by Mr. Rassam quoted on the last page.
The plan (p. 52) he gives does not tell us much.
[54] See Layard, Nineveh, vol. ii. pp. 45–63; and Discoveries,
p. 581.
[55] See Place, Ninive, vol. ii. p. 169.
[56] It is in chapters xi. to xiv. of his second work (Discoveries,
&c.) that Layard tells the story of his discoveries in that valley of
the Chaboras from which the writings of Ezekiel were dated.
[57] See page 145.
[58] We have noticed at pages 176 and 177 of our first volume
the two passages in which Strabo discusses the houses of
Susiana and Chaldæa. As to the villages in the Euphrates valley,
in which domes are still used, see Oppert, Expédition
scientifique, vol. i. p. 46.
[59] Herodotus, i. 180.
[60] Diodorus, ii. viii. 4, 5.
[61] G. Smith, Assyrian Discoveries, pp. 55, 56. M. Oppert
also admits that this is the only city that has left traces that cannot
easily be mistaken. (Expedition scientifique, vol. i. pp. 194, 195.)
[63] Diodorus, ii. vii. 3. The following passage has been
quoted from Aristotle’s Politics (iii. 1), as supporting the
assertion of Diodorus: “It is obvious that a town is not made by a
wall; one might, if that were so, make the Peloponnesus into a
town, Babylon, perhaps, and some other towns belong to this
class, their enceinte inclosing towns rather than cities.” The text of
Aristotle seems to me to prove nothing more than that the
philosopher was acquainted with the descriptions of Diodorus and
Ctesias. He says nothing as to their exactness; he merely
borrows an illustration from them, by which he attempts to make
his thought more clear, and to explain the difference between a
real city with an organic life of its own, and a mere space
surrounded by walls, in which men might live in close
neighbourhood with each other, but with nothing that could be
called civic life. All the texts relating to the ancient boundaries of
Babylon will be found united in M. Oppert’s examination of this
question.
[64] Even now the wall of the Royal City stands up more than
thirty feet above the level of the plain.
[65] Herodotus says nothing of the tunnel; Diodorus alone
mentions it (ii. ix. 2). See Oppert on this subject. He believes in
its existence (Expédition scientifique, vol. i. p. 193).
[66] Herodotus, i. 186; Diodorus, ii. viii. 2. Diodorus,
following Ctesias, greatly exaggerates the length of the bridge
when he puts it at fifty-five stades (3,032 feet). Even if we admit
that the Euphrates, which in ancient times lost less of its waters in
the adjoining marshes than it does now, was then considerably
wider than at present, we can hardly account for such a
difference. On the subject of this bridge see Oppert, Expédition
&c., vol. i. pp. 191–193.
[67] Layard, Discoveries, p. 489.
[68] See Oppert, Expédition &c., vol. i. pp. 184, 185.
Herodotus mentions these quays (ii. 180, 186). Diodorus (ii.
viii. 3), gives them a length of 160 stades (nearly 18½ miles),
which seems a great exaggeration.
[70] And this makes us think that the streets were narrow, a
conjecture confirmed by the words of Herodotus. In speaking of
the doors above mentioned by which the river was reached, he
does not use the word πύλαι, but πυλίδες, its diminutive. If these
doors were so small, the streets must have been lanes.
[71] This we gather from more than one phrase of the historian
(ii. 183 and 196).
[72] Diodorus, ii. viii, 3
[73] All that he says is that it was on the Tigris (i. 193), that it
had a king called Sardanapalus (ii. 150), and that it was taken by
the Medes (i. 103, 106).
[74] Anabasis, iii. 4.
[75] Diodorus, ii. iii. 2, 3.
[76] Line 35 of the Cylinder of Bellino, after Pongnon
(l’Inscription de Bavian, p. 25, in the Bibliothèque de l’École des
Hautes-Études).
[77] M. Oppert also considers the evidence of Ctesias as
worthless (Expédition scientifique, vol. i. p. 292). Sir Henry
Layard on the other hand believes in the great Nineveh of that
writer (Nineveh, vol. ii. p. 243). He is chiefly influenced by the
often quoted verses of the Book of Jonah, in which it is declared:
“Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days’
journey,” and that there were in it “more than six-score thousand
persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left
hand,” which, with the ordinary proportion of children to adults,
would give a total population of about 800,000. We shall not
waste time in explaining that all these expressions are but poetic

The Unwritten Rules of PHD Research 3rd Edition Marian Petre 2024 Scribd Download

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Unwritten Rules of PHD Research 3rd Edition Marian Petre 2024 Scribd Download

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Unwritten Rules of PHD Research 3rd Edition Marian Petre 2024 Scribd Download

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full download test bank at ebookmeta.

The Unwritten Rules of PhD Research 3rd Edition

For dowload this book click LINK or Button below

Download More ebooks from https://ebookmeta.com

Unwritten Rules Filthy Florida Alphas Book 3 1st

The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible 1st Edition

The Practical Grammar Handbook for College Writers 3rd

Unwritten Reinvent Tomorrow 2016th Edition Jack Delosa

Selecting and Describing Your Research Instruments 1st

Equations of Mathematical Physics 1st Edition Marian

IMPETUS: Brotherhood of Saints 1st Edition Marian

The Realities of Completing a PhD How to Plan for

Gordon Rugg and Marian Petre

Gordon Rugg and Marian Petre

and Two Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10121-2289, USA

First published 2020

Copyright © Open International Publishing Ltd, 2020

Commissioning Editor: Vivien Antwi

A catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Typeset by Transforma Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, India

Fictitious names of companies, products, people, characters and/or data that

Preface to the first edition  ix

1 SO, WHAT IS A PhD? 1

2 THE MANY SHAPES OF THE PhD 18

3 PhDs AS MASTER PIECES 31

4 SUPERVISION AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT 40

Strategies for when things go wrong 52

5 NETWORKS AND NETWORKING 58

6 READING AND SENSE-MAKING 71

9 CRITICAL THINKING 116

10 WRITING STRUCTURE AND STYLE 130

11 THE PROCESS OF WRITING 148

12 WRITING FOR PUBLICATION  156

15 THE VIVA 186

16 SABOTAGE AND SALVATION: OR, DEVELOPING HABITS FOR SUCCESS 206

17 WHAT NEXT? 217

18 CLOSING THOUGHTS 236

Some useful terms 237

How to get the best from this book

precise indications of quality in a journal paper will be different between, say,

Terminology: a brief digression

Cabinet-making – the PhD as a ‘master piece’

Framing an appropriate and useful research question

• Articulation of the motivation and significance of the question

Use of academic language

• Correct use of technical terms

• An ability to structure and convey a clear and coherent argument, including

Knowledge of background literature

• Knowledge of the main research methods used in your discipline, including

• Understanding of key theoretical strands and theoretical concepts in your

Instrumental and expressive behaviour

many others. Transferable skills are particularly favoured by The System

Tact and diplomacy

Having the right cup of coffee

Asking the right research question

Criteria for a PhD: some reassurance

community communicates and continues to build knowledge. Therefore, you

Key dissertation ingredients

Preface to the first edition ix

1 SO, WHAT IS A PhD? 1

2 THE MANY SHAPES OF THE PhD 18

3 PhDs AS MASTER PIECES 31

4 SUPERVISION AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT 40

Strategies for when things go wrong 52

5 NETWORKS AND NETWORKING 58

6 READING AND SENSE-MAKING 71

9 CRITICAL THINKING 116

10 WRITING STRUCTURE AND STYLE 130

11 THE PROCESS OF WRITING 148

12 WRITING FOR PUBLICATION 156

15 THE VIVA 186

16 SABOTAGE AND SALVATION: OR, DEVELOPING HABITS FOR SUCCESS 206

17 WHAT NEXT? 217

18 CLOSING THOUGHTS 236

Some useful terms 237