IDERN 2010International Doctoral Education Research Network

21-23 April 2010Universiti Putra Malaysia

Stumbling Blocks in Choosing a PhD-/Dissertation Topic

Nothing is more satisfying than standing on the starting block knowing that you have a backbone to take through the race – not a wishbone.

(David Wilke, Olympic Games, Montreal 1976)

2

Background

• Increasing number of doctoral thesis world wide

• Despite cultural/traditional differences dissertation projects should be:

Scientifically notable

Contribute to the standard of existing knowledge

3

Introduction & Focus

• Variety of reasons to obtain a doctorate

• Sizeable number of doctoral students face various obstacles

• Abandoning thesis projects

• Selecting an appropriate topic daunting task

• Not always problematic

• Eco (2002,14): Topics suggested by supervisor should be avoided

• Supervisor should counsel

4

Considerations

1. The topic should match the interests of the candidate

2. Sources and references should be accessible with ease

3. Candidate must be able to handle data from various sources

4. Methodological approaches should be in line with the expertise and experience of the candidate

5

Assumptions

• Casual and incidental observations how Malaysian and German students handling topics

• Conducting informal interviews with students and colleagues

• Primary difference with regard to discourse

• Malaysian students hold their topic private

• Reluctance to talk about the undertaking and to disclose the topic

6

Asking for Reasons

• Asking for reasons behind this phenomenon

• Fear of theft instead of hope to obtain help

• Impressions of some students that they searched long time for their topic

• Our assumption: a topic is an individual item, from intrinsic interest, experience, to complete one’s quest for further knowledge, to contribute to scientific questions in the research field, to gain deeper insights

7

Questions

• Two major questions to be answered:

1. Are those observations a product of random coincidence, meaning hat the observation just happened, like casting two dice could result in 2 times ‘6’; or can those observations be generalised?

2. In case of the first question being answered in the positive, to what could those differences be attributed? The authors’ hypothesis was that socio-cultural determinators would be primary reasons.

8

The Study – Methodological Aspects

• Questionnaire (adapted from SREQ-Survey of Sydney University and modified)

• Selecting German and Malaysian universities (UPM, Uniten in Malaysia; Greifswald, Berlin, Darmstadt and Mannheim in Germany)

• Only 28 samples were returned

• Continuation of this study required

9

The Study – Methodological Aspects

• Questionnaire (adapted from SREQ-Survey of Sydney University and modified)

• Selecting German and Malaysian universities (UPM, Uniten in Malaysia; Greifswald, Berlin, Darmstadt and Mannheim in Germany)

• Only 28 samples were returned

• Continuation of this study required

10

The Study – Participants

• 15 participants from German universities, various nationalities

• 13 participants from Malaysian universities

• 6 male

• 20 female

• 2 did not answer

• Mean age of 27 ( one did disclose age) 33.7 years

• Mean age of German respondents: 30.2 years, Malaysian respondents: 38.1 years

• Range from 25 to 55 years old

11

Reasons for Dissertation

• Not much differences between the two groups

• Questions answered differently slightly: Questions 4,5,7,9 by Malaysians, questions 3 and 8 by German students.

• 4,5,7,9: Wish to pursue an academic career, enhancement of career prospects, no suitable employment without PhD, requirements by the university

• 3,8: Intellectual challenge, recommendation of lecturers

12

Reasons for Undertaking a Dissertation

13

Self-Management

• Not very significant differences between the Malaysian and the German group

• Highest scores of all items by students in Germany in question 4: feeling responsibility of progress

• Students in Malaysia feel that their projects sharpened their analytical skills

• Factors need further investigation

14

Self-Management

15

Research Topic

• Spectrum of answers: yes – no

• Significant differences visible

• 2 students in Malaysia found easily their research topic

• 10 (out of 13) had changed their topic, out of 50% had changed their topic a second or more times

• 1 respondent still not satisfied

• All respondents from Germany satisfied with their topics

16

Research Topic

• Ca. 50% of students in Malaysia consider their topic very complex

• More than 90% of students consider their topic complex

• 38% of students in Malaysia find their topic ‘banal’, none of the students in Germany

• 31% of students in Malaysia still ponder about changing their topic, none of the students in Germany

• 50% of students in Malaysia had to ‘convince’ supervisors to allow them to work on their topics

17

Research Topic

18

Research Topic

• Spectrum of answers: yes – no

• Significant differences visible

• 2 students in Malaysia found easily their research topic

• 10 (out of 13) had changed their topic, out of 50% had changed their topic a second or more times

• 1 respondent still not satisfied

• All respondents from Germany are satisfied with their topics

19

Conclusions

• Students in Malaysia and German show similar approaches

• Some notions with a significant difference

• Students in Malaysia face in general problems with regard to support by supervisors, doubts about their topics, at times leading to abandonment

• Limitations: Respondents from Malaysia originated in Middle East, not representative for Malaysian students

• Influential factors not clear: University environment, cultural background, university system?

• Further studies need to be conducted on a larger scale

20

Recommendations

• Samples should be representative

• Notion of ‘valuable` versus ‘invaluable’ topics has to be further explored

• Support by supervisors

• Evaluation of feelings and expectations of doctoral students

• Analysis of the university environment/system

• Role of the subjects (Humanities, Science, Medicine etc.)

21

References

2009 Survey of Higher Degree Research Students. (2009). University of Sidney: www.itl.usyd.edu.au.

Aoki, N., & Smith, R. (1999). Learner autonomy in cultural context: A case of Japan. Learner Autonomy and Language Learning: Defining the Field and Effecting a Change. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Cortazzi, M. (1990). Cultural and educational expectations in the language classroom. In B. Harrison, 54-65.

Cohen, A. D., & Marcaro, E. (2007). Language Learner Strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dewey, M. (2002). Medizinische Dissertation: Wie unterscheiden sich erfolgreiche von abgebrochenen Forschungsprojekten? Dtsch Med Wochenschr 127 , 1307-1311.

Eco, U. (2002). Wie man eine wissenschaftliche Abschlußarbeit schreibt. Heidelberg: C.F.Müller.Harrison, B. (ed.). (1990) ELT Documents 132: Culture and the Language Classroom. London:

Modern English Publications and The British Council.Holliday, A. (1997). Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Littlewood, W. (1996). Autonomy: An Anatomy and a Framework. System 24,4 , 427-435.

22