Progress through the Three Years

Beginnings

The First Year

The Middle Stages

The Final Stages

Producing the Thesis

A Final Hiccup

Time Checklist


Beginnings

Back to Top

The relationship between a student and supervisor is a peculiarly close one. They start as master and pupil and ideally end up as almost equal colleagues. In these circumstances it is desirable that the student and supervisor should be carefully matched. Two extreme beginnings quite often occur.  In the first the student intends to do research in the department in which the first degree was obtained and where stimulation by a particular subject and a particular lecturer has dictated the direction in which the student wishes to go. The other extreme occurs when the student comes from another university. In this case there is at best likely to have been only a few days opportunity for talk between various people, and for both sides to make up their minds about each other. Clearly in this latter case there is a particular responsibility on the supervisor to develop the working relationship in the early stages. In any case there is responsibility, usually on the head of the department, to exercise as much care as possible in matching student and supervisor taking into account such facts as whether the student is a team person or a loner, the number of students already being supervised, whether the supervisor easily handles many or few students etc. There may also be different arrangements at different institutions for assigning supervisors to students and these arrangements should be made clear to the student at the time of application/interview.

Once a student has been assigned a particular supervisor, the next matter is the choice of the student's research topic. In some areas the student has no alternative but to accept one of the main on-going lines of research within the department. In other areas the supervisor may have a general idea which it is possible to develop in various directions and here, at least with an able student, it is possible for the student to play a significant role in the final decision on the research topic. This final decision must be reached reasonably early. Delay is only too easy, particularly if a large amount of the first year is devoted to course work and further learning.

In most disciplines, in proposing a particular research topic, the supervisor is well aware that given hard work and reasonable ability, it is pretty certain that the student will bring matters to a satisfactory conclusion. But occasionally an exciting line of research appears in which the outcome is more uncertain and in these cases the supervisor should have a fallback position in case some unexpected difficulty arises.

Decisions about the allocation of students to supervisors are usually taken after the student's final results have come out. At this moment the student is usually feeling somewhat euphoric and it will bring home some idea of the amount of work which will be expected in the next three years if some directed reading is assigned over the summer vacation. The nature of this will, of course, depend upon the general area of research, and the sort of department the student is entering. It can vary from being of a general background nature, required to bring the student to a level at which they can understand what their supervisor is talking about, to say, starting a literature survey on the topic in question.

The First Year

Back to Top

It is in the first year that the existence of an appropriate framework is most important, for it is in this year that a decision will usually be made as to whether the student is to carry on for a PhD or not. An experienced supervisor will probably have little difficulty in making up their mind by the end of the first year, but the student must be able to see the decision as just and fair, as indeed so must others working in the same department. For this to happen it is clearly important that the student should know at various stages how well he or she is getting on, and must feel they are being properly directed and can communicate with the supervisor. While in normal circumstances supervisors are likely to have frequent contacts with their students at this stage, there are virtues in having a regular (say weekly) tutorial, in which the student and supervisor meet to discuss problems. Fixing a time ensures a busy supervisor does not inadvertently find the student has been seen more seldom than appropriate, and also provides easy points in time for the supervisor to insist that certain things have been done. A "progress interview", on a regular basis of say six months, involving the supervisor and others may prove useful in monitoring the progress of the student. This is particularly important where the student and supervisor will spend periods away from the home institution, often at different times, working at a UK or an overseas facility.

As part of the assessment of progress at the end of the first year the student should also have an identifiable piece of work which is written up, independently, and which is examined. This examination should always include viva voce examination carried out by at least two people, so that students are obliged to explain themselves to at least one person other than their supervisor. Ideally, one of the examiners should be a person who is very familiar with the subject area of the work, but not the supervisor, and the other a person who is at most just working in the general area. This arrangement has the virtue that the student can be cross-examined on the details of the work by the expert, but is also likely to be asked simple but fundamental questions by the non-expert. A clear and well-defined process of assessment allows the student to know where he or she stands, makes for a reasonable objective judgment of his or her suitability for further work, and can be of value if things are going wrong.

It is also during the first year that the student should learn the pattern of work that is appropriate to the subject of study and research. The students will need to recognise that if they are going to complete the thesis in the three years they will have to work the hours required, which should be discussed and agreed with the supervisor, and ensure that the time is spent usefully.

The first year is also the period during which the student receives the bulk of the formal training that is considered necessary and desirable in many PhD courses. The form of this will of course vary with the nature of the subject and the department but it is expected that certain "core courses" will be covered. These are expected to cover the subjects specific to the students research area as well as broader skills training such as research methods and ethics, communication/writing/presentation, time management, intellectual property rights, health and safety, data protection etc.  In large departments it is common to put on courses and to examine the students in these courses either by a written test or continuous assessment. In other cases the course work may consist to a greater or lesser degree of directed reading accompanied by tutorials and viva voce examinations. It may be possible for courses in these areas to be run across a number of departments or even institutions. In addition the student should be made aware of external courses in their research and participation in the departmental seminar programme should be seen as essential.

However, the student will not spend the whole of the first year on the formal portion of introductory training, including project work. There are many other things which should be carried out in this period. These will vary enormously according to the nature of the research, and all we can do is list a few examples which will have varying degrees of relevance:

• In some subjects a literature survey forms an important starting portion of the work, and this should be carried out in the early stages. Before the end of the first year the student should have a good idea of relevant work carried out by others, but it will be necessary to keep up with new literature throughout the period, so that the thesis takes account of the latest developments in its subject area.
• For some research projects the development of new techniques or instrumentation will form a significant component, or even the main component of the PhD. However, if new apparatus is required mainly to obtain data, and does not itself require much originality on the part of the student, its construction should be well on the way to completion and should certainly be finished by the end of the first year.
• During this period also the sharpness of the definition of the research topic should increase markedly.
• The student should also have been trained in the virtues of the systematic recording of data or theoretical calculations and the importance of keeping and maintaining a tidy, clear record of everything that has been undertaken. It is difficult to put too much emphasis on the matter of systematic records. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, without systematic records the student will have considerable difficulty when it comes to finally writing up. Secondly, it may not be until later, when further work has been done, that it is possible to obtain a proper grasp of the importance of the earlier work. Once again, this will be very difficult without systematic records. Thirdly, it is perfectly possible that as a result of later work perhaps by other people, a previously abandoned line needs to be re-investigated, and proper records will save time-wasting repetition of earlier work.
• The student should have available and begin to use the word processing software which will ultimately be used to produce the thesis. This will ensure proficiency when producing the thesis.
• Finally, through the assessment of the work which has been written up, the student and the supervisor should know whether the student is capable of writing a coherent, connected account of the work in good English. A weakness in this area will cause the student a lot of trouble later on, and must not, therefore, be ignored.

In short, by the end of the first year the student should:

• have a clear idea of what the end purpose of the research is to be;
• possess the necessary background information of relevant work already carried out;
• possess a systematic record of all that has been accomplished and attempted.

In summary, there should exist in the first year a framework which will enable both the supervisor and the student to recognise whether the student is suitable for research, and also ensure that the latter has adopted appropriate and relevant methods of work so as to guarantee that the remainder of the time is spent fruitfully, with a high probability of completing the task within the allotted span. Such a framework will make that much easier the task of reporting to grant awarding bodies on the progress of students. We believe that the nature of the framework should be made clear to students by departments circulating their own notes. It should include:

• regular tutorials by the supervisor;
• a method of assessing course work by examination or continuous assessment;
• a report which is examined by someone in addition to the supervisor;
• depending on the nature of the research work and the department, other possible candidates for inclusion are regular reports (each term?) to the head of the group or department, and regular presentations to other group members, including other students.

Whatever the framework chosen, the aim is to encourage the student's work and to develop good working habits; to train the student to develop his or her own programme schedule and to make the judgment at the end of the probationary period as objective as possible.

The Middle Stages

Back to Top

If it has been a successful first year, the student will enter the second year knowing what he or she is intending to do, with a thorough background knowledge, and with a start made either on the research work itself or in the design and building of the necessary apparatus. A successful framework in the first year will have encouraged the student, hopefully, not merely to accept, but to expect a suitable framework for the remainder of the work. Indeed, much of what we have said about the first year applies with equal force to the subsequent years and department notes should emphasise this.

It is in the second year and the early portion of the third year that the student should obtain the bulk of the results which are going to form the main body of the student's thesis. Any student who doubts this should glance now at the next section of this discussion document, where we attempt to lay out the steps, once the research work has been completed, that go into the production of a thesis.

Clearly it would be ideal at this stage if appropriate milestones could be erected, determining the stage which the student should have reached at various times in the year. It is important to remember, however, that original research may, by definition, not necessarily go the way intended. Nevertheless, it is a good idea at this stage for the student and supervisor together to do their best to lay out a critical path. This critical path should be reviewed at various stages throughout the year, and become more sharply defined as time goes by.

The plan of campaign should contain ample allowance for unexpected additional work, particularly in the early stage. Indeed if the work laid out in the original plan looks as if it is going to occupy more than half or two thirds of the student's time, it is almost inevitable that in the end he or she will be very hard pushed. This is the nature of research, in looking for the new and unexpected. It is extremely important, fairly early on in this stage, for the supervisor to assess whether it is likely that the student will be able to bring the work to a timely conclusion, or whether the difficulties are greater than expected and the student should be transferred to a topic more likely to produce a thesis on time, even if it is less exciting.

Towards the end of the period of research training many people have found a mock PhD viva very helpful.  Most academics will be familiar with the student who has mastered all the details of a particular research project but has not realised that the external examiner may be more interested in the wider aspects of the research and its impact on the whole body of knowledge.  Students should have been made aware at an early stage that, whilst concentrating on individual research in a specialised area, they are also expected to gain a broad knowledge of their subject.  If carefully carried out, a mock viva will reveal gaps in the student's knowledge which may now be rectified.  It will help greatly in concentrating the mind on the structuring of the remaining portion of the research.

What has been so far has focused on the student and his or her supervisory.  More and more these days, particularly in particle physics and astronomy, research is carried out in collaborative teams.  This presents its own somewhat different problems, particularly in the middle stages.  Where teamwork is involved, there will usually be several senior academics who are only too well of the necessity of milestones, of meeting deadlines and of ensuring that the work is progressing in an efficient and satisfactory manner.  The problem in this area is not so much to set up a milestone for the project as a whole, but to define the student's specific contributing to the work, and to make sure that not only does he or she fulfill that contribution, but also at the same time has a thorough grasp of the project as a whole.  In this case therefore it is almost essential for the student to be occasionally asked to explain to the group with whom he or she is working not merely what her or she is up to, how much has been achieved and what are the problems foreseen for the future, but also to explain how this fits in to the project as a whole.

Clearly a similar process is highly desirable for all students.  There is nothing like having to explain yourself to other people for clarifying the mind.  An excellent opportunity for this is attendance at suitable conferences.  The supervisor should assist the student in selecting an appropriate conference and the work that they will report via paper or poster.

The Final Stages

Back to Top

Between one and two thirds of the way through the third year, depending on the subject, the student should have completed the experimental work or basic theoretical study,  and the analysis of the data, so that all that should be left is the production of the thesis.  Once again milestones become very important, as slippage now usually means slippage in the final date of submission.  There are  various questions which can be asked at this stage and the wise student will make a list of these and their draft answers:

• What questions has the work so far answered, and what open questions has it left or raised?
• What is the relation of the work completed to previous work done by other people?
• Does the student really understand the work that has gone before?
• What comments can be made on it in the light of his or her own work?
• Is there a full list of references, etc.?

By now the student should have acquired a substantial list of references and copies of the most relevant papers. It is advisable at this stage for the student to re-read some of the papers to ensure that the relationship between any previous work and his or her own is fully understood. If the student's work has been carefully carried out, one likely result may be to throw some doubts on previous work. It is important to study this carefully and to try to reconcile any differences that have arisen.

The writing of the first draft of the thesis should have started long before this stage. A general introduction should be drafted as soon as possible, even if it has to have gaps. Equally it will be a great help to the student if a rough draft is written on each piece of work as it is finished. The writing of the full thesis will then be much easier.

It is likely that a thesis will be the first really extended piece of work the student has ever written. It is worthwhile, therefore, spending some time in laying out a plan for the thesis which can be discussed with the supervisor. Different departments in universities have different rules regarding the amount of assistance that a supervisor may give to a student in this portion of the work, but it is generally accepted that by and large the thesis should be the student's unaided effort.

Three particular points must be mentioned here. First the thesis should be no longer than necessary. It should demonstrate that the student understands the background to the research, explain clearly the methods used, present the results and discuss them within whatever framework is appropriate; but verbosity and padding should be eschewed at all stages; they offer hostages to the external examiner.

Secondly, unless particularly gifted in writing good English, the student should study one of the many books that are now available on the subject. Sir Ernest Gower's 'Plain Words' is an excellent example. There is more in this than making the thesis a pleasure for examiners to read. Woolly writing is frequently a reflection of woolly thinking and a student who has trained to write clearly will soon discover that a problem of expression often arises from a lack of understanding, whereas a student who writes poor English can write rubbish without even realising it. The development of good written English will be aided by the writing of papers during the course of the PhD as well as reference to a particularly "well presented" thesis identified by the supervisor.

Finally, it is probable that the student will type and produce the thesis using available word processing software. While this offers many advantages, e.g. greater control of presentation, and "real time" amendments and editing, the student should not get distracted by the software and hung up on the fine detail of the presentation of the thesis. It is of course necessary to have back-up storage of any material which might be needed for the thesis, and to keep this in a separate location for safety.

Producing the Thesis

Back to Top

The actual layout of the thesis will depend upon the topic. Even within the Science and Technology Facilities Council areas traditions differ between astronomy and particle physics, and within these areas between theoretical and experimental or observational work. Students should have been shown examples of theses in related fields, so as to get some idea of a possible structure for their own, although clearly previous thesis should not be regarded as blueprints. The writing of each chapter is likely to take two to three weeks of full time effort. An example of a timetable is as follows;

Introduction	3 weeks
Method and results	7 weeks
Discussion, tables, figures, reference etc	7 weeks
	17 weeks
Consultation with supervisor or others	1 week
Revision of draft	2 weeks
	3 weeks
Final corrections, art work on figures, proof reading etc.	3 weeks
Binding	1 week
	4 weeks
TOTAL	24 weeks

Although the details will differ the full time equivalent of half a year is a typical minimum time to produce the thesis. In practice it may be an advantage to spread this work over a longer period, and with word processing it is easy to improve and update material written earlier. As an example for a thesis whose main thrust is in the analysis of experimental work, chapters giving the theoretical background and a description of the apparatus might be written well in advance of any results being obtained.

We suggest that early in the third year the supervisor should spend some time with the student going over the material with particular attention to the state of organisation of the thesis. Useful topics for discussion are things like the numbers of tables and figures and whether they give a clear picture of what has happened, are in a form that is easily digestible, are not excessive in number and no essential ones are missing.

A Final Hiccup

Back to Top

In our earlier discussion of some of the reasons for late completion, we ignored one particular cause which can be controlled by departmental policy. When the work has gone well and opened up prospects for future research, the supervisor may in some subjects suggest that the student might like to consider a two or three year continuation as a postdoctoral research assistant. Experience shows that if the student accepts, and is appointed before handing in the thesis, in the vast majority of cases the rate of progress on the thesis slows dramatically, and a delay of six months to a year is almost inevitable. This may sometimes be good for science, but may not be fair on the student and is scarcely in tune with the intentions of grant giving bodies. In some cases there are regulations which do not permit the post to be taken up until the thesis has been handed in. Whatever the circumstances it is recommended that the full financial rewards of the new post should not accrue to the student until the thesis has been submitted. This contains an incentive, and a recognition that the research assistant is still a student with demands on his or her time for finishing the thesis.

Time Checklist

Back to Top

Beginnings

• Directed reading over summer vacation
• Choice of research topic

First Year

• Fix regular tutorials between student and supervisor
• Student undertakes the necessary formal courses
• Student produces end of year report which is then examined
• Student to complete a literature survey
• Production of reports/papers using appropriate word processing software Middle Stages
• Student and supervisor to define milestones and a critical path for the research project
• Close to completion of the research project the student should have a mock PhD viva
• Draft a write-up of each element of the work as it is completed
• Draft the Introductory Chapter of the thesis
• Presentation of papers/posters at appropriate departmental/external conferences/meetings

Final Stage

• Explore particular questions to ensure everything is in place to write-up the thesis
• Re-read appropriate references
• Production of scientific papers for publication