Saturday, September 6, 2008

Budaya Sawarak - kenali Menariknya Budaya ini..

Tidak cukup tempoh hari percutian jika hendak merentas ke seluruh negeri terbesar di Malaysia ini. Kunjungan ke Kampung Budaya Sarawak merumus segala inti sejarah, budaya dan keistimewaan masyarakatnya.


PENGUNJUNG Kampung Budaya Sarawak boleh mendekati gaya hidup pelbagai kaum dari pelbagai aspek termasuk makanan, muzik dan juga aktiviti yang berkaitan dengan alam semula jadi.


VARIASI ucapan yang menyambut kedatangan tetamu sejurus melewati pintu masuk kampung di kaki Gunung Santubong ini amat jelas mewakili sistem sosial majmuk yang menghuni di dalamnya.

Selain 'apa khabar' dan 'ni how' yang biasa didengari di Semenanjung Malaysia, sesekali terdengar juga ucapan salam yang lain bunyinya. 'inou dengah', 'damea brita', 'nama brita', dan 'nu denge', itu semua bersahut-sahut daripada bibir mereka yang kelihatan bangga menyarung pakaian tradisional masing-masing.




Selepas diamati wajah, pakaian dan dibantu pemandu pelancong yang arif dalam pelbagai bahasa Malaysia Timur, barulah dapat membezakan satu-persatu orang yang menyambut penuh senyum itu.

Melanau, Bidayuh, Iban dan Orang Ulu, terasa sungguh istimewa dan betapa bumi Sarawak ini kaya dengan entiti seumpamanya.

"Kepelbagaian kaum dan etnik adalah tarikan utama di kampung yang bertindak sebagai muzium hidup ini.

"Bukan sahaja warga asing, malah rakyat Malaysia yang datang dari Semenanjung juga kagum dengan apa yang mereka temui," ujar Pengurus Jualan dan Pemasaran Kampung Budaya Sarawak (KBS), Zaini Zanuddin.




Terletak sejauh 35 kilometer dari bandar raya Kuching dan tersorok di tengah-tengah kehijauan hutan hujan, KBS mencanang pakej dan agenda lawatan yang unik lagi menyeronokkan.

Dalam keluasan 14 ekar landskap semula jadinya, KBS menghimpunkan diversiti kumpulan etnik utama Sarawak dalam persekitaran yang benar-benar serupa dengan kehidupan mereka di seluruh Bumi Kenyalang.

Mendaki tangga tinggi rumah Orang Ulu, bermain buai di bawah rumah Melanau dan belajar menyumpit di pondok Penan adalah antara aktiviti yang boleh dicuba.

Di rumah ladang yang sinonim dengan etnik Cina, kumpulkan maklumat menarik tentang penanaman pokok lada dan pemprosesannya.

Berminat pada tekstil, kraf tangan dan gaya hidup tempatan? Sesiapa pun tentu terpesona pada kehalusan seni pada tenunan Pua Kumbu Iban, terendak Melanau, ukiran kayu orang Penan dan tambok Bidayuh. Apatah lagi kalau diajak menumbuk padi, menggoreng snek tradisi dan memproses sago.

"Paling mudah, semua rangkuman kehidupan itu boleh disaksikan dalam persembahan budaya selama 45 minit di panggung KBS," kata Zaini yang sering mengalu-alukan langkah pengunjung ke hadapan pentas.


DALAM muzium hidup ini, pengalaman mendekati keseluruhan isi Sarawak boleh dicapai sepanjang lawatan setengah hari.


Jangan pula terkejut kalau tiba-tiba disergah oleh pahlawan-pahlawan Iban yang bersenjatakan parang dan tombak. Juga bersedialah untuk menyerah diri kalau tempat duduk dijadikan sasaran sumpit.

Di atas pentas yang sarat ciri teater itu juga, saksikan kenakalan bakat-bakat ini mengusik para tetamu wanita di panggung itu. Sememangnya menghiburkan!

"Kami sentiasa melihat potensi perkembangan tarikan di KBS dan berusaha merealisasikannya. Antara produk kami yang paling berjaya adalah Festival Muzik Dunia Hutan Hujan yang tidak pernah gagal memanggil pelawat dari serata dunia," ulas Zaini.

Turut difahamkan, KBS menyediakan pakej perkahwinan yang membolehkan pasangan pengantin meraikan hari bersejarah mereka dengan persediaan persalinan dan sambutan yang mengikut adat Melayu, Iban, Bidayuh, Orang Ulu, Melanau atau Cina.


PERTUNJUKAN budaya di panggung KBS menghimpunkan lagu-lagu, kostum ekstravaganza dan tarian etnik negeri.


Memetik kata Pengurus Besar KBS, Jane Lian Labang, di laman web rasminya: "Komitmen kami adalah untuk menghiburkan tetamu kami selain menawarkan perkhidmatan dan maklumat terbaik mengenai budaya kami. Semoga tetamu berpuas hati dengan pengalaman di Kampung Budaya Sarawak."

Disambut aneka ucapan salam kaum etnik, merentas sungai dengan titi buluh, hampir 'disumpit', dan kemudian diajak menari tarian tradisional, tidak mungkin kalau satu pun daripada pengalaman itu tidak membuatkan tetamu tersenyum dan terkenang-kenang kembali saat melangkah pulang!

Useful Things to Know About Ph. D. Thesis Research

1. Introduction

  • Ph.D. thesis is treated very seriously at leading universities.
    • Expectation is high.
      • Ph.D. thesis represents a substantial work. Faculty often tell other people that "We have a student working on this area for his or her Ph.D. thesis." Amazingly enough, this is usually sufficient to convince people that the problem is somehow going to be solved.
    • Ph.D. thesis research is a task to ensure that the student can later take on independent, long-term research commitments. (If a Ph.D. student does not intend to be a researcher, the Ph.D. thesis work is not worth the effort in general at least at CMU.)
    • Through the Ph.D. thesis process the student is transformed into a professional researcher.
    • Faculty are judged by the theses of their Ph.D. students.
    • High standard Ph.D. thesis is probably one of the most important factors that contribute to the success of graduate education at leading American universities.
    • Ph.D. thesis is probably the only real challenge for getting a Ph.D. degree.
      • Ph.D. qualifier is seldom a problem for motivated students.
  • Ph.D. thesis research is probably more mechanical than a new graduate student would think. (Of course the process is still too complex to be automated.)
    • Knowing this mechanism can be more important than thesis results themselves.
    • Some information presented here may be relevant to your whole research career, i.e., it is not just for the Ph.D. thesis per se.
  • This talk consists of pragmatic advice.
    • The talk is based on my personal experience (i.e., not based on any serious research)
      • I happen to have research experience in both theory and system areas. We will compare thesis research in these two areas.
    • This is a common sense talk and will have down to earth discussions.
      • "I wish someone told me this before."

2. Why Ph.D. thesis could be really difficult for a student

  • Most likely this is your first, major research experience.
    • A big challenge for most students
  • No simple recipe
    • Different talents
    • Different kinds of theses
    • Different approaches
  • The work is judged by thesis committee (mostly advisor). This produces anxiety.
    • Unlike other research you will do, the evaluation mechanism for thesis research is very unique.
    • No clear contract
    • No clear standard (we only know it is high)
    • Recall the Stanford murder case (the former student said, after he had finished--he did finish something-- his jail term, that he might do it again under a similar circumstance).

3. Types of Ph.D. theses (from Allen Newell)--not a topic of this talk

  • Opens up new area
  • Provides unifying framework
  • Resolves long-standing question
  • Thoroughly explores an area
  • Contradicts existing knowledge
  • Experimentally validates theory
  • Produces an ambitious system
  • Provides empirical data
  • Derives superior algorithms
  • Develops new methodology
  • Develops a new tool
  • Produces a negative result

4. Growth of a star (the transformation process that some students go through to become a mature researcher)--which stage are you in?

  • Knowing everything stage
    • Student: "I have designed a supercomputer even before graduate school."
    • Faculty: speechless
  • Totally beaten up stage
    • Student: speechless
    • Faculty: smiling at the student's progress so communication is possible now.
  • Confidence buildup stage
    • Student: "I am not stupid after all." (student thinks)
    • Faculty: "Uh oh, she is ready to argue." (faculty think)
  • Calling the shot stage
    • Faculty: "I am going to design an n-processor supercomputer."
    • Student: "You are crazy, because ..."

5. Stages of Ph.D. thesis research

  • Selection of area--not a topic of this talk
  • Selection of advisor--not a topic of this talk
  • Becoming a researcher in the area
    • Building up general knowledge, experience, and confidence
    • Knowing issues and important questions in the area
    • Capturing research opportunities
      • Don't let any idea or question go by without first giving it careful thought.
        • Be alert and diligent.
      • Pay attention to new technologies
        • Examples
          • VLSI, networking, and new chips such as the Weitek floating-point chips three years ago which in some sense gave the initial motivation for the Warp project
    • Some useful things to do (from Dave Gifford, MIT)
      • Read recent proceedings of the best conferences, and ask more senior people what were the best papers. Try to figure out what makes a great paper (and thus what makes great research).
      • Keep a notebook that contains your research notes. Put all of your empirical data and initial ideas in the notebook. Make notes on a paper as you read it and think about the assumptions of the author and the importance of the results.
      • Follow references from one paper to another until you know an area extremely well. Don't count on your advisor to hand you all of the relevant papers out of his file drawer. He doesn't have them all!
  • Thesis proposal
    • It is the most crucial stage in the sense that the basic concept is worked out here.
      • To get important results you need to ask important questions
      • This is the time you need your advisor most.
      • Problems in later stages are usually rooted from a weak thesis proposal.
    • Purpose
      • A research plan
        • A serious attempt to get an overview of the whole research course
        • Not really a contract
          • Need some flexibility because research always has uncertainty.
      • Forming the committee
        • Varies a lot
        • Choose people for your thesis committee that can help with needed expertise. For example, it is useful to have a relevant theory faculty member on a systems committee and vice-versa.
        • However, there is usually no need to optimize too much on the selection of the committee members--advisor still plays the most important role.
        • However it can be very important, when
          • you have a "questionable" advisor, or
          • you have an interdisciplinary topic.
      • A review
        • If there is any serious doubt, it had better show up now.
        • Proposal could sometimes be viewed as just a forcing function for taking care of certain things.
    • Some of the difficult questions always asked in a thesis proposal:
      • What is your approach and what is new?
      • What is your secret weapon? (Herbert Simon)
      • How do you measure your own progress?
      • What are the success or completion criteria?
      • How will the expected results change the-state-of- the-art?
    • The grand challenge for a thesis proposal is to come up with an approach or an experiment.
      • It is easy to identify a general problem area, but setting up an approach and designing an experiment can be difficult.
        • Need ideas
          • Just need one good idea, really
          • Unfortunately, there is no magic here (however see some hints below). This is the hard part of any research project for everyone (not just for students).
      • Need independent thinking
        • You should be good enough to start arguing with your advisor on technical issues and research tastes.
      • Need to elaborate on focus, approach, experiment, and potential impact
        • For theory research you may propose some new models of computation.
          • Examples: area-time complexity (new VLSI model in theory), parallel algorithms (new cost models)
        • For system research you may design experiments and argue their relevance.
          • Examples: multiprocessor architecture, compiler for a parallel machine
    • Useful things to know when preparing a thesis proposal
      • Be honest. There is no need to exaggerate your claims! If you point out the weaknesses in your approach you will disarm your critics.
      • Pick a project that is manageable so you can do an excellent job - things are always harder than they seem. It is far better to do an outstanding job on a moderate size project than a moderate job on a large project.
      • Include a tentative thesis outline and a month by month schedule in your thesis proposal.
        • This may be difficult to do but it is better than no plan at all.
        • This will also help gauge the total size of the work you are committing yourself to do.
  • Producing results
    • Lots of work--what else do you expect?
      • System--be inside an active project without losing sight of thesis
        • Need to be a worker as well as a conceptual person.
        • Your work depends on other people's work and vice versa
          • Opportunity to see real problems
          • Getting good support, including encouragement and demand, from the group
            • It seems that this arrangement really works in all cases.
        • Be quick, because you don't want to be overtaken by the environment (this is one of the pitfalls to avoid, as described below)
      • Theory--be lucky!
        • Be flexible
          • It is hard to insist that you will prove a theorem before you go to sleep.
        • Be quick, because theoretical results are totally portable and so competition can be keen.
    • Keep the committee informed (at least those "trouble makers")
      • You can get real help sometimes.
      • Committee members are obliged to talk to you.
        • Sometimes finding a qualified person beyond your advisor to discuss your work can be difficult.
      • Don't want surprises in the later stage of the thesis
    • Ways to finish a thesis
      • Incremental and adaptive approach
        • A sequence of incremental results
      • Big-bang approach (this is not recommended in general)
        • One big theorem
        • A big piece of software or hardware
  • Writing
    • Why some students find that Ph.D. thesis writing is very difficult
      • First major document
      • Writing is time-consuming--part of the .9999 perspiration (Satya)
        • Think how many good sentences you can write in an hour.
        • Fighting with fonts, figures, references, etc.?
          • Please don't be too picky.
      • When results are not totally solid, writing can be really difficult even for an experienced writer (now you know another reason why proposal writing is not easy)
        • Can't say too much and don't want to say any less
        • Writing about flaky results can be a real challenge.
          • In this case you should improve your results first.
      • Writing has to do with presentation rather than finding new results. So writing may not be as exciting..
    • However, thesis writing is useful in the sense that it helps reveal possible problem areas and provides new insights.
      • Help get a large picture on what you really have.
      • Help organize the concepts
      • Completeness is forced.
        • You must take care of things that you have been ignoring.
          • For example, you need to do comparison with other results
      • Correctness of the results is checked.
        • You had better have the proof now for any plausible "theorem" that you have been believing.
      • New insights on how things really work
        • New ways of looking at your results
    • Recommendations
      • Get some practice--write some papers before thesis
        • Write some joint papers with people who have substantial writing experience
      • Need to know the theme of the thesis very well
        • Outline first
        • Write the conclusion first (try it at least)
        • Start writing chapters which are more settled.
        • Write the introduction last
        • Iterative process
      • Make the writing as precise as possible, so that you know exactly what you are talking about. This will save lots of rewriting.
        • Precise writing usually also yields good English.
  • Getting final comments from the committee
    • Not too early or too late
      • Getting some committee members to read can be a challenge.
        • They are busy people. You want to give them an "optimal" version to make comments.
    • How much to ask for comments varies a lot
    • Should not have any surprises now.
      • You had better know what you have been doing by now.
      • However, if there is any problem, it had better show up now.
  • Defense
    • Mostly a formality and a happy occasion (should be like that)
      • You know that your results are good and you will present them well.
        • You should know the answer to the question - "What are the three main ideas in your thesis?". You should be able to rattle them off and relate them to previous work.
      • Getting a date set can be more difficult than you think.
        • Committee members do not necessarily stay at CMU as long as you do!
        • Weekend defense is not really desirable.
          • May be difficult to get audience.
    • However defense is still very important:
      • Opportunity for final improvements for the thesis
      • Formal presentation to the community
        • Many people form their opinion of your n-years' work from this presentation
      • Presentation material can be used for future presentations
        • Used in recruiting presentations if you have not settled on a job yet
      • Psychologically important
        • Once in a life time occasion--you will remember it always.
      • Don't want to blow it.
        • Absolutely no surprises
  • After defense
    • Usually there is still some minor work to be done for the thesis (too bad)
      • Defense was moved early for various reasons
      • New comments from defense
      • Did not have time or did not want to polish the thesis before defense
    • Publication
      • Articles, books (or give the thesis to your parents)
      • Very important to publish the results in journals
        • This is the only reliable way to archive your results. (You don't want to lose them after all these efforts, do you?)
        • Publication is important for academic career.
        • May break the thesis up in several articles. When appropriate, some articles may have joint authors such as your advisor.
        • Do it right away before you get on to the next thing.
      • Books can be good too.
    • Follow-on work
      • Keep mining the thesis--why not?
    • Finally you are free!

6. "Methods" to get into the depth of a topic (or how to come up with good ideas)

  • No magic, but we will still try ....
  • How to develop initial ideas
    • Study other work and do comparison
      • What are similar issues and solutions?
    • Look at examples
      • Generalization and abstraction
    • Make hypothesis and validate it formally or informally-- keep trying
      • You will discover issues at least.
    • Do modeling and abstracting
      • Get the essence
    • Just do something--be active
      • Implementation--details reveal issues
        • Join a project to do some real work!
        • Handle a smaller case
        • Implement a throw-away simulator, language, design, etc.
      • Start proving "theorems", even if they are known to be difficult.
        • Quick way to understand issues
    • Work with good, experienced researchers (don't forget to use your advisor!)
      • They might have deep insights on similar problems.
      • They can help calibrate the difficulty of the problem.
      • You learn the subject matter from them more quickly and directly.
      • You learn their techniques
        • Every successful researcher has his or her own bag of "tools":
          • Calculation, synthesis, analysis, persistence
      • If they also get stuck once in a while, you know that you are not that bad after all.
  • How to develop existing ideas further
    • Exploring problem and solution spaces
      • Enumerate parameters individually (and do quick pruning)
        • To see where your current ideas sit in the space
      • Correlate results
      • Generalize ideas and results to other points in the space
      • Produce phenomena and explain them (Herb Simon)
    • Brainstorming your ideas with others
    • Presenting your ideas in papers or/and seminars
      • Ideas will be checked out carefully and systematically (see above on thesis writing)
    • Example steps that can be used to get some depth from a simple result such as a speed-up curve
      • Explain the curve
      • Look at the problem and solutions spaces
      • Do some comparisons
      • Change the assumptions
        • How stable is the result?
        • How will results vary or correlate under different assumptions?
      • Derive some general principle
        • Similar curves for other situations?
  • General comments
    • Thinking is the key
      • Thinking is more important than reading
        • Books are not always right.
          • Note that in the system area with few exceptions people who build systems do not have time nor need to write up their experience--it is too bad but it is a reality.
      • Be alert on all sorts of opportunities
      • Do the thinking right away while you have it.
        • Ideas and interest may be lost more quickly than you like to believe
    • Talking to people
      • Don't over do it (you still need to do the work yourself)

7. Breaking myths

  • "Advisor is a stronger researcher than you."
    • It is true that advisor is experienced, wise, smart (maybe), and knowledgeable in general. Advisor also sees a bigger picture, and has contacts in the area.
    • However, advisor is not always right.
      • Advisor is not as focussed as you.
      • Advisor does not have more time or energy than you do.
      • Advisor is not as innovative in general.
        • They know too much.
        • They are more conservative.
          • They know too many horror stories.
        • Aging does not help.
      • Advisor's knowledge may be obsolete (don't say this in front of him or her!).
    • You must believe that you can do better than advisor for some research areas.
  • "System theses take longer than theory theses."
    • The most difficult part of a thesis is to come up with some good, new ideas. The difficulty in getting new ideas is the same for theory or system research.
      • Theory thesis is in general not about solving open problems.
        • Actually good theoreticians always work on new problems, models and methods so that they can solve the problems that are "solvable" in the first place.
          • Greatest contributions are ground breaking ones, such as new models.
          • New approaches give new insights to old problems. This is the way open problems usually get solved (e.g., the four-color problem).
      • For systems theses it is important that the major ideas in the thesis are independent of the implementation--the goal is to have the ideas live on in other systems as well. A good systems thesis usually has a new algorithm or new method at its core.
      • Few theory students who finish really early are likely those who have prior research experience. (Recall that theory results are highly portable!)
      • Incompetent theory students are more noticeable than weak system students. So we don't often see theory students who drag on for a long time.
    • There are some differences in systems and theory research however, but they should not have too much impact on the thesis research time.
      • System needs implementation, whereas theory needs more background study.
      • Theory research is self-sufficient and system implementation may depend on other people's work (you should not get into a situation where you don't have control).
  • "Ph.D. thesis research follows some standard guidelines."
    • Yes, a Ph.D. this must represent a substantial result in a very high standard.
    • But there are many ways to leave a mark in a research area. As long as you have come up with some good ideas and pushed the frontier of knowledge, you will be surprised sometimes how flexible your committee could be in terms of the research approach, acceptable results, and thesis presentation.
    • There is a small percentage of Ph.D. theses completed in unusual manner. Don't give up too early if you belong to this class. Try it or you will never know.

8. Pitfalls to avoid (easy ones to avoid listed first)

  • The goal is too big to reach.
    • Theory
      • Proving P /= NP
      • Proving P = NP is even worse (likely this thesis will never finish!).
      • Deciding whether P = or /= NP is best of the three (i.e., be flexible)
    • System
      • The initial effort is so large that real issues never get a chance to be looked at.
      • It is important to size the project and evaluate the total effort carefully based on past experiences.
  • Ideas cannot stand without an implementation that competes with commercial products.
    • Chess machine implementation is OK, because there is no commercial competitor.
    • In this sense, Warp hardware is more difficult than software.
    • Floating-point designs that require a high-performance chip implementation to validate the concept would be disastrous.
    • Never need to implement another vector processor!
  • The thesis area is overtaken by technology and environment
    • Technology advances have solved the thesis problem.
      • A clever operating system using no more than 128K memory is not very interesting today.
    • Advisor (or student sometimes) has changed his or her interest
    • Other new projects have better approaches and opportunities
    • Other people have published similar and/or better results.
    • Advisor has a better job elsewhere or the project is over.
    • Lesson: You should always do your thesis as quickly as possible.
  • Totally isolated work
    • No encouragement and support--no one cares about your thesis
      • Can't even find an advisor sometimes
      • Doing a thesis away from CMU is really difficult.
    • System research
      • Lone ranger approach is almost suicidal.
        • No software, systems and application support for evaluation
        • Very difficult to do anything real without feedback from a community
    • Theory research
      • At least global networking is needed.
  • Not knowing when to stop
    • Thesis is not the last research you will do.
    • You can do the same research after your Ph.D. thesis (while making more money).
    • Learn to make reasonable assumptions to restrict the problem
  • Unhealthy competition between student and advisor
    • This is more likely to happen in the theory area.
    • The potential is always there (especially for smart professors with lots of ego). In general if both sides try to be fair, things can always be worked out.
  • Lots of numbers and hacking but no fundamental principles
    • System research has to have more than implementation.
    • Implementation for a thesis research is interesting only if it can be used to validate some theory.
    • This problem should be fixed as early as possible.
  • Things dragged on--wonderful general ideas in the beginning that never get developed into a coherent approach (i.e., heading to a black hole--there is no output)
    • Wrong areas for the student (and perhaps the advisor) with respect to ability and interest
    • Nightmare case--it does no good to anyone.

9. Some other general advice

  • Stay away from areas that have been thoroughly mined by your ancestors.
    • Keep yourself at the very front of a research area so that you have a better chance to hit something big or at least new.
    • After all in research what matters is the work that pushes us into new territories.
    • Make use new advances in other areas
  • Don't avoid thinking
    • Thinking is hard but there is no substitute for it.
  • Psych yourself up for this unique experience of doing a Ph.D. thesis
    • Make yourself believe you are solving the most important problem in the world
    • Remember what worked for you before
      • If you work best when you are competing with others, then create some confrontation.
    • Must be very alert about issues and opportunities
    • Thesis process is sort of artificial (almost a torture in some way)
      • The thesis is judged by a committee (mainly your advisor)
        • More subjective than exams
      • Probably one of the most humiliating experiences for people of this age (advisors should all remember this and be considerate.)
      • The process is not a typical research style--you don't do anything similar to it again even if you will be doing research after the degree.
    • The thesis process can be long and treacherous. (Be prepared for it.)
      • You don't want depression.
    • There are quite a few very competent people who just do not want to go through this.
  • Use forcing functions well to speed up the thesis process
    • Competing with someone else
    • Family pressure
    • Financial pressure
    • A job is waiting
    • Advisor is leaving or project is over
    • Equipment is retiring
  • Never throw away advisor's comments
    • Cox-Denning case
  • Keep good relationship with your advisor (even after you graduate)
    • Good thing to do--no exception almost
    • Relationship is unique.
      • Advisor usually has lots of influence on you in this very important stage of your life. Advisor also appreciates the good research you did with him, and is in general interested in your well-being.
    • Advisor may be your mentor for your entire career.

10. All the effort is worth it (believe it or not)

  • Experience from Ph.D. thesis research is unique. You have learned how to do research. Future research is going to be more interesting because you will know how to do it, so you will have more freedom and fun.
  • Almost all leaders in research have this experience. You will have confidence in your research ability. You will look at things differently than people who did not go through this process. It is very clear that Ph.D. thesis research is still the best way we know of in developing powerful researchers.
  • In summary, it is the best investment for becoming a successful researcher.

Three little-known keys to writing a thesis

Experience and research have uncovered three keys to writing a thesis, as the following quotations (with emphases added) show.
  1. Have a `thesis' of the thesis

    A review of 139 examiners' reports ... revealed that rarely were theses criticised for `bad writing' in the sense that most people understand that phrase. That is, theses were acceptable in terms of the mechanics of presentation: sentence structure, paragraphing, spelling, grammar, etc. They also were not criticised for failing to conform to conventions of the discipline about referencing or presentation of data. What frequently was criticised was the students' failure to take a clear philosophic stance or to reach a conclusion. Examiners called upon students to state clearly their hypothesis and their conclusions. If students adequately communicate the `thesis' of their dissertations, they usually avoid unnecessary length, lack of coherence, repetitiousness and confusion in their writing.

    Supervisors need to emphasise throughout students' candidacies that they are striving in the thesis to communicate one big idea; that there should be a `thesis' or centre to which everything in the document contributes. (Nightingale 1992, p. 174)

  2. Have a research problem which is gradually refined as the thesis is written

    Educational research and our own experience ... suggest that it is extremely important for the beginning researcher to define the research problem at a very early stage in the research process. Defining a research problem is often found to be a most difficult and frustrating task. The reason for this lies primarily in the fact that undergraduate students are by and large not compelled to define the problems they work on; such problems are presented to them by lecturers, and the notion that defining and articulating a problem is a demanding intellectual process in its own right is often poorly developed amongst undergraduate students. Yet it is a crucial preliminary step in the research process, and one which the postgraduate student, who has recently emerged from the security of undergraduate life where problems appear to exist self-evidently, must confront and overcome. It if is not, and the research proposal remains vague and ill-defined, the student's subsequent activities of researching and note-taking will lack focus, be more time-consuming than is necessary, and largely ineffective. (Zuber-Skerritt & Knight 1992, p. 196)

  3. Start writing a first draft early, based on preliminary conceptual maps

    Another crucial phase in the research process is the transition from analysis to synthesis; that is, from the collection and analysis of literature or data to the writing of the first draft. Many postgraduate students attest to the psychological difficulties they must overcome before writing of the first draft can proceed; for many the task appears insuperable, and much time can be wasted at this point as the student prevaricates and justifies this prevarication by asserting the need to continue the phase of analysis. Most supervisors have heard the plaintive cry: 'I still haven't read enough!'; this is frequently a symptom of nerves as the awesome moment approaches when the student must lay aside the security of index cards and plunge into the writing phase. Our experience suggests that problems particularly arise when the postgraduate student is unaware of the stages and steps through which research and writing normally proceed. This manifests itself as an attempt to write a final draft without the intermediate steps of constructing a flowchart of ideas (or a conceptual map), writing a first rough draft, revising and editing, and then rewriting. In the attempt to move immediately to writing the final draft, the student becomes preoccupied with the fine details, stylistic niceties and attractive presentation, often at the expense of development of ideas or argumentation; as a result, the writing process is inhibited, and the product is often characterised by unevenness of thought and argument. (Zuber-Skerritt & Knight 1992, p. 200) [That is, constructing drafts of a flowchart of the sections of a chapter or the subsections of a section is useful early in the process of reading the literature, with several consequent revisions. Rarely has a student not read enough to start writing the first draft of these frameworks.]

    Another trap for student writers is that they believe they need long periods of time if they are going to try to write anything. Waiting for the significant piece of free time to come along makes procrastination easy. Two helpful strategies are to encourage students to set attainable sub-goals so they use short periods of time efficiently. For instance, rather than trying to write the whole section on methodology, a student could set the sub-goal of writing only the description of a key piece of equipment. Of course, if she or he had been writing all along, there would be at least a rough draft of this which would simply need to be refined.

    Another helpful strategy for writers who often face interruptions to their work is to leave themselves `pick-up points'. This means that they do not work until they are at the absolute end of something, but quit when they can still see what will come nest. They jot down a few notes about what they expect to write next, and when they come back, there is no blank page facing them.

    Finally, supervisors who have several research students or whose departments have a group of novice researchers should encourage them to exchange drafts of their work frequently. The more commentary, the more often a student is asked, `What did you intend to say here?', the better the chances of a well-constructed thesis.(Nightingale 1992, pp. 176-177)

References
 Nightingale, P. 1992,
`Initiation into research through writing', in Zuber-Skerritt,
O. (ed), Starting Research - Supervision and Training, Tertiary
Education Institute, Brisbane.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. & Knight, N. 1992, `Problem definition and thesis
writing - workshops for the postgraduate student', in Zuber-Skerritt,
O. (ed), Starting Research - Supervision and Training, Tertiary
Education Institute, Brisbane.

Appendix II

Research proposal structure keyed to the thesis structure

At many universities, candidates in PhD programs are usually required to present a research proposal during or at the start of their candidature. This note provides a suggested outline for a proposal that fits with the structured approach to presenting theses, based on experience and Poole (1993) and Krathowl (1977). The centre headings in capitals are required by QUT, with the recommended side headings being my interpretation of what is required.

As a rule of thumb, the proposal should be a minimum of about two or three pages and a maximum of about seven to ten pages in length (with the list of references and any appendices of support material not being included in this page count), so the estimates of word and page lengths given below are very tentative. The proposal could have about twenty or so references. Sometimes a QUT proposal requires details of a `coursework' unit and an example of a tailored one is provided in a note at the end of this appendix. Please remember to check spelling and to provide page numbers at the middle top of each page.

Any research proposal should be carefully tailored to the organisation asking for it, so the format should below always be adjusted to suit other requirements.

OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAM

1 Introduction

The introduction is a five- to ten-line picture of the whole research, showing the major controversies or gaps in the literature which leads to the research problem. This description may become section 1.1 in the final thesis.

The research problem is presented at the end of this section, in italics and indented. Note that readers of a research proposal cannot be expected to know the jargon of every discipline, and so the title and research problem should be expressed in as simple terms as possible, and any specialist terms should be defined in this section as they are introduced.

2 Justification for the research

This section is about one page and justifies the research, usually on four dimensions:
  • size of the industry involved,
  • gaps in the literature (provide several references in support and refer to section 3 below),
  • unusual methodology to be used (provide several references in support and refer to section 4 below), and
  • possible benefits of outcomes for policy and for practice.
This section becomes section 1.3 in the thesis.

RELATION TO PREVIOUS RESEARCH

3 Preliminary literature review and theoretical framework

In about two pages, show the major issues and schools in the literature and the gaps in the literature, and then briefly justify some likely research questions (for qualitative research) or hypotheses (for quantitative research) arising from the gaps which may be the focus of data collection and data analysis. A model of the theoretical framework along the lines of Sekaran (1992, chapter 3) would be impressive. This section becomes the later parts of chapter 2 in the thesis. Define key terms as the section progresses or have a definition sub-section.

Incidentally, having read a completed PhD thesis similar to the planned one is a good inspiration and guide for the task ahead.

4 Contribution of the research

A contribution is a change to a body of knowledge created by a research project. This section complements section 2 above about the justification for the research. This section describes the specific outcomes of the research developed in chapter 5, and describes their importance. For example, it discusses a model which will be developed to fill the gaps in the body of knowledge noted in section 2, or a checklist which will be developed for managers who have no guides at present. In brief, this section is specific about likely outcomes and their importance. A candidate could also mention a conference at which a paper about the research could be presented, such as the annual conference of the Australia and New Zealand Association for Management (ANZAM) or the Marketing Educator's Conference. As well, the title of a journal which might publish an article about the research could be mentioned.

5 Limitations

Outline and justify the major limitations that will be placed on the research, for example, industry, level of management, states, etc. No claim for generalisability will be made beyond these limits. This section could be kept to about one third of a page. This section becomes section 1.7 of the thesis.

6 Background of researcher

This is a brief section outlining any pilot studies that the researcher has done, and his or her research qualifications and experience, for example, titles, methodologies and word lengths of dissertations.

RESEARCH METHODS AND PLAN

7 Methodology

This section would be between one half and one page in length. It should be both comprehensive and concise, with references to support its judgements. The methodology usually does not need to be described, merely justified. But again, avoid jargon that non-specialists might not know, or explain or describe what is meant by specialist terms. Topics could include:
  • justification of a quantitative or qualitative paradigm;
  • justification of the methodology within that paradigm (with preferably an explanation why some alternative methodologies were not used), using terms such as correlational/causal, field studies/field experiments/lab experiments, cross sectional/longitudinal (Sekaran 1992, chapter 4), instruments and especially the unit of analysis, the dependent variable and how it will be measured, sampling frame and size of sample;
  • arrangements for access to the data, for example, agreements from people to be interviewed; and
  • possible ways of analysing data, for example, conjoint analysis with SPSS or the matrix method of analysing qualitative data suggested by Miles & Huberman (1985).
This section should have at least three references to textbooks or articles about methodology, to justify the proposed steps. Moreover, a proposal for a quantitative methodology should indicate that operational definitions of the constructs in the proposed hypotheses of section 3 above, have been considered (for example, how `firm size' will be measured). In addition, scales and their accompanying statistical test should have been thought through (for example, a rank scale needs a nonparametric test). Tables of these considerations would be helpful.

This section becomes chapter 3 in the thesis.

TIMETABLE

8 Thesis outline

One or two lines per chapter should suffice, especially if the standard five chapter structure will be used. This section becomes section 1.5 of the thesis.

9 Timetable

The timetable could be shown for each chapter, for convenience. The same rules of thumb could be used for time as for length, that is, 5, 30, 20, 25 and 20 percent of the desired word length; for example, chapter 2 would take about 30 percent of the available time - but allow two months at the beginning for settling in and at the end for putting the finishing touches to the whole thesis, and an extra couple of months if there is a lead-in or follow-up study to the main methodology. Table II.1 is a rough guideline for a minimum time PhD which follows these principles. Phillips & Pugh (1987, p. 74) also have a usual timetable for a PhD program which is not very much different to table II.1's. This section and the next ones are in the proposal only and are not in the completed thesis.

Table II.1

Approximate guidelines for writing a minimum time PhD thesis

Chapter or section Topic % Words Months
1 Introduction 5 3,500 3
2Literature review 30 21,000 6
3Methodology 20 14,000 4
4Data analysis 25 17,500 5
5Conclusions and implications 20 14,000 6


100 70,000 24

RESOURCES

10 Resource requirements

A tentative estimate of direct funding requirements is required, for example, postage for survey mailings. Justifications and sources of estimates are required for each expense item, for example, the date a quote was received from Qantas or a price list of a computer supplier. Printing costs of questionnaires will require estimates of their length and the price per page to print. There should be no surprises in the budget items, for they should flow naturally out of the earlier sections about the aims and design of the research. For example, car hire should not be just costed, but why car hire was necessary rather than public transport should be explained and its use related back to overall aims of the research.

This estimate is not the formal request for the funding, and acceptance of the proposal does not include approval of funding. If outside funding is being used, make it clear that academic integrity will not be jeopardised.

11 Evaluation

Many research proposals require details of how the project will be monitored and evaluated, but these details are not necessary for a PhD proposal. If you want to gild the lily of your proposal by adding an evaluation section you might to mention that `The research will be monitored through weekly or fortnightly meetings with the supervisor and at regular thesis-in-progress seminars. The thesis will be evaluated through normal examination procedures which will be organised by the supervisor.'

List of references

 Krathwohl, D.R. 1977, How to Prepare a Research Proposal,
University of Syracuse,

Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. 1985, Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage,
New York.

Phillips, E.M. & Pugh, D.S. 1987, How to Get a PhD, Open University
Press, Milton Keynes.

Poole, M.E. 1993, `Reviewing for research excellence: expectations,
procedures and outcomes', Australian Journal of Education, vol. 37,
no. 3, pp. 219-230.

Sekaran, U. 1992, Research Methods for Business: a Skill-Building
Approach, Wiley, New York.

Note

Adding a `coursework unit' to a proposal is supposed to force the candidate and supervisor to think about what will happen after the proposal is approved. One appropriate unit is an `advanced readings' unit in one or two of the bodies of knowledge which the PhD will cover. The example below of a tailored unit covering the two parent disciplines of market segmentation and advertising illustrates the core elements involved ranging from aims, through objectives, and a program of topics, to assessment details and criteria. The topics are usually selected from a modern, authoritative textbook and recent review articles.

Doctoral Research - Coursework Unit

Coursework unit. Independent readings in the areas of marketing segmentation and advertising.

Objectives.

  • To review the review of literature and identify major themes about:
    • the process of marketing segmentation, targeting and positioning
    • the bases for marketing segmentation, with particular reference to the use of age as a segmentation base
    • identification and measurement of market segments
    • the use of segmentation in developing marketing and advertising strategies
    • advertising appeals and their relationship to geographic, demographic, behaviouristic and psychographic bases of segmentation.

Areas.

Topic No. Week    Topic

Section 1: Developing market segments

1 1 Mass marketing versus marketing segmentation

2 2 Introduction to factors used to form segments

3 3 Segmenting consumer and industrial markets

4 4 Requirements for effective segmentation in marketing
(these requirements in advertising are covered in section 3.)

Section 2: Describing, measuring and choosing segments; implementation

5 5,6 Describing segments - customer profiles, size and growth
estimates

6 7 Evaluating market segments

7 8 Selecting market segments
8 9 Positioning strategies

9 10 Choosing and implementing a positioning strategy


Section 3: Marketing segmentation and advertising

10 11 Appeals used by advertisers

11 12,13 Advertising appeals and their relationship to bases of
segmentation

12 14 Advertising effectiveness: measurement and evaluation

Outcomes. A 3000-4000 word report on each section, upon completion of each.
Assessment. The supervisor will give a grade for each report. The criteria used for assessment shall be:
  • breadth of reading
  • ability to group core ideas in the literature
  • ability to synthesise ideas into a new and coherent framework
  • ability to communicate and present the report to the reader.

Preliminary coursework reading list

Aaker, D.A., Shansby, J.G.  1982, `Positioning your product', Business
Horizons, May- Jun, pp.56-62.

Aaker, D.A., Stayman, D.M., Hagerty, M.R., 1986, `Warmth in
advertising: measurement, impact, and sequence effects', Journal of
Consumer Research, vol. 12, Mar, pp.365-381.

Abrams, B. 1982, `Middle generation growing more concerned with
selves', Wall Street Journal, Jan 21, p.25.

Albright, J. 1992, Creating the advertising message, Mayfield,
Mountain View.

Bertrand, K. 1989, `Market segmentation: divide and conquer',
Business Marketing, Oct, pp.48-54.

Burnett, J.J. 1981, `Psychographic and demographic characteristics of
blood donors', Journal of Consumer Research, Jun, pp.62-66.

Bonoma, T.V., Shapiro, B.P. 1983, Segmenting the Industrial Market,
Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass.
And so on for a total of 28 references.

Appendix III

Action research in a PhD thesis

Action research as a methodology for management PhD research is relatively rare (Perry 1991). Moreover, although action research has the potential to overcome many deficiencies in social science research, its results are generally viewed as not generalisable (Heller 1986). This appendix reviews a number of issues which candidates using action research might consider when writing their PhD thesis. The appendix attempts to ensure that action research is no longer a marginal backwater depending sometimes on very carefully selected examiners, but becomes a part of the river of PhD research. Action research is outlined in Kemmis and McTaggart (1988a), and Zuber-Skerritt (1991).

Firstly, it is wise to consider the thesis as something distinctly separated from the action research project, that is, the candidate will have two projects - the action research project and the thesis project which uses data from the action research project (Perry & Zuber-Skerritt 1992). The philosophy and processes of action research are broader and more complex than those implicit in most PhDs. In particular, the action research project is relatively unfocused, emphasises practice and has outcomes of reflections which include propositional, practical and experiential (group and personal) knowledge. In contrast to action research, a PhD thesis project usually emphasises an individual candidate's additions to propositional knowledge published in the literature of a discipline. In brief, in the action research project, action research may be an ideology, but in a PhD thesis it is merely a methodology. Writing a PhD thesis about an action research project without acknowledging differences between the thesis and the action research project is difficult.

Provided these differences are acknowledged, the structure of a five chapter PhD thesis can be adapted to PhD research using the action research methodology. For a start, the 'research problem' in chapter 1 of the thesis could be different to the 'thematic concern' (Kemmis & McTaggart 1988b, p. 9) of the action research project; the research problem necessarily refers to practices of a workgroup and is written in terms of the literature of a discipline, but the thematic concern is less restricted. For example, a research problem could be 'How can the senior management team at an open-cut coal mine integrate marketing, operations and financial subsystems in the planning of inventories of mined coal?', and the thematic concern of the senior management group at Pacific Coal could be 'How can our inventory management procedures be improved?' The action research project will probably require multidisciplinary solutions, but it is advised that the thesis should concentrate on only one or two disciplines, to facilitate its examination.

Chapter 2 of the thesis written about an action research project would refer to some unresearched areas of propositional knowledge which are the foci of the data collected from the action research project. However, to be true to the spirit of action research, these propositions should not have been finalised before the action research project began - unlike PhD research using some quantitative methodologies, when the hypotheses should be crystallised before the data collection project begins. Furthermore, chapter 2 could outline the boundaries of practical and experiential knowledge which existed at the start of the action research project. Alternatively, the discussion of practical and experiential knowledge might be restricted to an appendix, if likely examiners are not expected to be familiar with action research methodology.

Chapter 3 could be used to describe the action research project - not to allow replication of the experiment, but to demonstrate the researcher's competence in the action research methodology. The chapter could have sections or refer to appendices which contain the following details of the action research project (Kemmis & McTaggart 1988b):

  • the names of group members;
  • the group's thematic concern;
  • details of the multiple sources of data, for example, dates of meetings and their attendees and matters discussed, reports and letters;
  • the distinctions between the stages of the project through its one or more cycles of plan-act-observe-reflect;
  • the group's published report of the project - which is written before the thesis is completed and for a different audience from the thesis, for example, this could be a short narrative or a management report;
  • the evidence that the group has reflected on processes as well as content, which might be recorded in the group's published report noted above but does not have to be; and
  • the nature of the action research, that is, technical, practical or emancipatory (Carr & Kemmis 1986).
As noted above, an appendix might also reflect on the practical and experiential knowledge gained in the action research project, but it would be more usual to include that reflection in the body of the thesis.

Chapter 4 could be used to categorise the data collected in the action research project (not all of which needs to be included in the appendices referred to in chapter 3). This chapter organises the data from the action research project into patterns. Chapter 4 begins the candidate's own preliminary reflection on the action research project and could be divided into sections according to the propositions of propositional knowledge, and into sections for practical and experiential (personal) knowledge if they are to be included in chapters of the thesis rather than in appendices. So the chapter should be written with the ideas to be developed in chapter 5, in the candidate's mind.

Finally, chapter 5 makes conclusions about the full PhD research, linking the data of chapter 4 to the boundaries of the body or bodies of knowledge outlined in chapter 2. A section in chapter 5 entitled `Reflections on methodology' should be included in a PhD thesis which refers to an action research project . Then sections `Conclusions about the research problem', `Policy implications' and `Further research' will conclude the thesis. In PhDs using other methodologies, a chapter 5 section of reflections on the methodology is not required, because those reflections are incorporated into the `Limitations' and `Further research' sections.

In conclusion, an action research methodology can be used in PhD research, but action researchers should be concerned that their thesis may be messy, inconclusive and be unrelated to propositional knowledge published in the literature of a discipline. Use of the adjusted five chapter format for a PhD thesis which has been outlined in this appendix may allay that concern.

References

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. 1986, Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge
and Action Research, Falmer, London.

Heller, F. (ed) 1986, The Use and Abuse of Social Science, Sage,
London.

Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (ed), 1988a, The Action Research Reader,
(third edition), Deakin University, Geelong.

Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (ed), 1988b, The Action Research Planner,
(third edition), Deakin University, Geelong.

Perry, C. 1991, 'Action research in management education and
research', Symposium on Action research at the Annual National
Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education,
Gold Coast, November 1991.

Perry, C. & Zuber-Skerritt, O., 1992, `Action research in graduate
management research programs', Higher Education, vol. 23, pp. 195-208.

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (ed) 1991, Action Research for Change and
Development, Gower, Aldershot.

Acknowledgment: Discussions with Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt, Bruce Frank
and Helen Samujh helped clarify some issues in this appendix.
However, the views expressed are the writer's.

Appendix IV

Frequently referred to pages of Style Manual (Australian Government Publishing Service 1988)

                                         
Topic Page

Adjectival possession 290
Bullet points 226
Contractions and abbreviations 96
Dates 172
Foreign words and phrases (for example, i.e.) 105-106
Harvard referencing style 129-148
He/she and gender issues 121
Headings 220
Hyphens and prefixes 81-86
Lists 226
Names of countries 107
Names of people 107
Omissions using three points 88
Paragraph indentation and spacing 224
Possessive apostrophe 80
Punctuation in quotations 94
Quotations 25 and 230
Spacing between paragraphs 224
Tables 231-237
Titles 51

APPENDIX V

Writing an abstract

An abstract should contain (based on Brown et al. 1993):
  1. 1 What did you do?
    The research problem, and the hypotheses
  2. 2 Why did you do it?
    Briefjustification for the research problem and the hypotheses
  3. 3 What happened?
    Methodology
  4. 4 What do the results mean?
    Patterns in the data
  5. 5 What is your work good for?
    Conclusions and implications, with special and explicit consideration of the CONTRIBUTIONS
Note: as a rule of thumb, about 250 words is the maximum length of an abstract for a journal article, two pages for an honours and masters thesis, and three pages for a PhD thesis.

Reference

Brown, R.F., Pressland, A.J. & Rogers, D.J. 1993, 'Righting scientific
writing: focus on your main message', The Australian Rangeland
Journal, vol. 15, no. 2.

APPENDIX VI

Writing the introduction to a journal article

Swales (1984) studied introductions of journal articles and established four major moves or steps were required:
  • Move 1: Establish the field
    Assert centrality State current knowledge
  • Move 2: Summarise previous research
  • Move 3: Prepare for present research
    Indicate a gap Raise a question
  • Move 4: Introduce present research
    State purpose Outline present research An example and an exercise about constructing an introduction are in Nightingale (1992, pp. 110-116).

    References

     Nightingale, P. 1992, 'Writing about research in the humanities and social sciences', in Zuber-Skerrittt, O. Manual for Conducting Workshops on Postgraduate Supervision, Tertiary Education Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane.  Swales, J. 1984, 'Research into the structure of introductions to journal articles and its application to the teaching of academic writing', in Williams, R. & Swales, J. (eds), Common Ground: Shared Interests in ESP and Communication Studies, Pegamon, Oxford.  
  •