
How to write a PhD thesis your committee will not approve - nextscientist
http://www.nextscientist.com/write-a-phd-thesis/
======
scottfr
The best way to write a PhD thesis is to not write one.

Instead, spend your time writing articles and getting them into journals. You
should be able to produce roughly one published article a year [0]. When you
have 3-4 published or near published articles, take them and put them together
into a dissertation.

Most universities will allow this and it's the approach to developing a
dissertation that minimizes your risk (you don't bet everything on one
experiment, you minimize the risk of last minute critiques and requests for
changes, etc...).

[0] This might seem intimidating when you start out, but if you want a
promising future in academia you will eventually need to be producing 5, 10 or
more articles a year (with admittedly a lot of collaboration and assistance
from other). Setting a strict goal of one article a year as a grad student
should be obtainable in most fields and get you on the right track. It will
also force you to be disciplined and to produce. When of the biggest risk for
grad students is trying to be too perfect or too "big" in their work.

~~~
zmmmmm
I agree with this, but I also feel torn by it. A PhD is one of the few
opportunities in academia to do true, unconstrained, open ended research. With
no hard deadline, no constant "publish or perish" pressure, students can take
a bit more risk and look a bit further over the event horizon than other
researchers who have to make every bit of research count towards a
publication.

Students don't realise it because they are so focused on getting through, but
this opportunity doesn't come again. You are suggesting they should jump
straight on to the slavish publication treadmill that academics already spend
their lives on. In a pragmatic sense it's good advice, but it's also failing
to make the most of the opportunity presented by a PhD.

Maybe I'm just idealistic.

~~~
angersock
All of the PhD students I know are constantly under "publish or perish"
pressure, _in addition_ to the open-ended research work--which usually is only
as open as their advisor's pedigree and experience will allow.

Industry seems to be much easier to get crazy ideas done in.

~~~
tedks
And this is why academics are busy stomping out 3% speedups in arcane bullshit
nobody cares about while startups and BigCorps are getting actual research
done and pushing computing in new, exciting directions.

------
tjradcliffe
This isn't a bad list, but it's hard to over-emphasize the amount of pushing
that supervisors and committee members typically need to clarify their beliefs
about what is an acceptable dissertation. It's not too strong to say that most
academics will flat-out lie to students about what they need do. Although this
"lying" is frequently the result of inattention of misunderstanding its
effects are indistinguishable from malice.

So don't be shy about getting very concrete and specific with your committee,
including the kind of analysis you want to do, the theoretical framework you
want to apply, etc. This is all easier in the sciences--humanities PhD
programs are basically abuse factories
([http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1588)--but](http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1588\)--but)
even in the sciences it is all too common to see students get misled by their
supervisor and/or committee, who give guidance in one direction one month and
a completely different direction the next.

One further piece of advice with regard to a clear thesis question: I've often
found it useful to ask students "What's the title of your dissertation?" This
just a more concrete way of asking about their thesis question, but it's much
harder to fool yourself about. "Well, I"m investigating blah blah blah..." may
look like an answer to the question "What's your thesis question?" but it
frequently can't be reduced to "Experimental Investigation of Blah Using Blah
Models and Blah Theories".

Finally, it isn't just your own perfectionism you have to watch out for. My
iron rule for when a dissertation is finished is: the very first time your
advisor tells you to change A to B in draft N, and then tells you to change B
back to A in draft M &gt; N, you are done. Your resistance to making further
changes should go up factorially at that point, because your advisor has
stopped paying attention or has become obsessed with minutia, and if given a
free rein will continue to fiddle around indefinitely. I've seen students
waste a year on this kind of nonsense, when they had a perfectly acceptable
dissertation to begin with.

~~~
neltnerb
One thing that served me incredibly well (finished from BS to Ph.D. in 4.5
years) was to very early on write a proposal that clearly stated exactly what
question I would work on, and stating clearly what the approach and work
product would be.

This all but eliminated feature creep, and I could then go back and say "you
agreed that investigating this was sufficient." Then it was just a matter of
doing what I said I would do, and be done.

It helped focus my attention, because anything that didn't address the thing
in my proposal was more obviously tangential. It focused my entire course of
research and kept me from spending too much time on side projects. But most
importantly, it established in writing exactly what question I was going to
answer and roughly how.

I didn't say "I'm going to prove that <foo> does <bar>." I said "I'm going to
test to see if <foo> does <bar>." If I do the tests, and show the relationship
between <foo> and <bar> I've done science. The goal is to create an
experimental plan that tests a theory, not to build the best whatever
possible. The job of a Ph.D. student is to demonstrate that they can carry out
research, not to build the best widget. If you can, great, but that's not what
a Ph.D. means.

I saw endless examples of people who waited until they had better data to put
together a proposal. The problem with this approach is that it raises the bar
by removing risk from the project. If you spend five years demonstrating the
<foo> results in <bar> then your adviser will ask for you to spend another two
years doing an actual project extending that result. If you clearly elucidate
early on that it's not clear that <foo> results in <bar> then simply seeing if
that's the case or not is often sufficient.

Formal proposals are like a contract between yourself and your committee
establishing the scope of project that is sufficient to graduate. Doing this
as early as possible can only help you, and in my experience any work prior to
establishing the scope merely results in a larger scope later.

~~~
analog31
A formal proposal was required for me to enter the PhD program.

For better worse, my proposed project failed, and I was extremely lucky that a
Plan B emerged at the right moment.

~~~
neltnerb
Not to assume, but if it's possible for the project to fail, you need to
define it differently. Unless you mean it ran out of funding, or a
collaborator left or something. "I will use these techniques to test <foo> to
see what the impact is on <bar>." I suppose you might find it impossible to do
the measurement? Although I guess that's analogous to running out of funding.

~~~
analog31
That's fair. My project was a case where I had to build apparatus A to produce
B in order to measure C. After spending a fair amount of time getting A
working, I was able to observe B, barely above the noise, but could not
sustain it at a level needed to even consider trying to measure C.

It was an ambitious experiment, i.e., it would have earned me genuine
recognition within my specialty. I admit a high likelihood that the project
was over my head.

Oddly enough a fellow student dreamed up a project for me that used much of my
existing equipment and my equipment hacking skills. It produced one minor
publication, but opened up a new experimental technique.

------
chockablock
If you can get past the broken modal dialog (I had to use Reader view in
Safari), and the inane image macros, and the listicle-style writing, this post
is crammed with _excellent_ advice for science PhD candidates in their 3rd
year or beyond (much of it is applicable to postdocs as well).

Discusses how to define a clear scientific question and maintain focus on it
in the face of (sometimes subtle) forces that make both of these things
difficult.

~~~
kazinator
I didn't see any of that. Why? Because I never allowed Javascript from that
site. The content is there; just don't let their scripts bugger it up.

~~~
roghummal
Disabling Javascript removed the image macros and changed the writing style?
Wow!

------
sjtrny
2\. Is bullshit. Stapler thesis are totally acceptable. In fact many people
think they are better than a traditional thesis since they are based on work
that is of enough quality to already have been published in other venues.

~~~
stared
Only in _some_ places.

~~~
sjtrny
Places that are self aware enough to realise that no one really cares about
your thesis anymore. It's all about your publication list.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
True, but your thesis is your best opportunity to express yourself in long
form writing, a chance you might not ever get again unless you decide to write
a book. You should at least care about your thesis.

~~~
foldr
No-one will read it. If you want to do it as a personal exercise in self
expression that's fine, but it's a mistake to view it as a career goal. Any
time you spend in grad school writing something other than a draft paper is
(in purely career terms) time wasted.

(Probably no-one will read your papers either, but you can at least list them
on your CV.)

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Writing is often part of the journey, not the destination. But you should
always write to with the hope of being read.

Building a career in academia is vacuous, it's not the only thing that can be
done with a phd.

~~~
foldr
It's a really bad idea to do a PhD if you don't want a career in academia. If
you have a different goal there will always be a better way to spend five
years.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
8 years actually. One could work in an industrial research lab; I like it.
There are plenty of dev jobs that work well for PhDs (look at Google).

~~~
foldr
In a few fields. In my field there is no career option other than academia,
and that is very much the rule rather than the exception as far as PhDs go. To
encourage people who are ambivalent about an academic career to do a PhD is
terrible terrible life advice.

------
ars
This would be a lot easier to take seriously without the idiotic image macros.

------
analog31
Something nobody mentions is the idea of meeting with your committee on a
regular basis during your dissertation research. In theory, this is supposed
to be happening, and the committee should be keeping an eye on your progress
as a sort of check and balance. But because it doesn't occur regularly, it
falls on the student's shoulders to call such a meeting, and they might be too
timid to do it, especially if they are having problems.

Instead, the first time your committee knows that you exist is when you plop
your dissertation on their desk a few weeks before your defense. And they say,
"what the hell is this?"

Perhaps if it were "forced" to occur regularly, it would be harder for
students to spiral into the black hole. I think that the committee should
actually be serving in a supervisory role.

~~~
Joky
It probably depends on the country, but I'm from France and the member of the
committee were known when I was almost done with the writing of my
dissertation. I don't see how they were supposed to meet with during the
process then.

~~~
analog31
I'm sure it does depend on the country, discipline and maybe even the specific
university. I studied physics at a second tier research university in the US.
After finishing my coursework, I had to pass a comprehensive exam, and present
my thesis proposal to a committee. Generally speaking, your proposal committee
became your defense committee, and they were supposed to keep an eye on your
progress, but usually didn't.

In addition, the process evolved to make it extremely difficult to flunk your
thesis defense. First of all, your advisor had to sign a form saying that he
believed the thesis to be defensible. Then the committee had to sign the same
form before a defense could be scheduled. The defense was expected to be
practically a formality. For these reasons, a student flunking their defense
would actually reflect extremely poorly on the advisor. Now the committee
members might make it hot for the student, for instance demanding some
additional work or analysis before allowing the defense to proceed.

In some disciplines, it may have served as a final check to make sure the
student had actually done the work themselves. There were stories floating
around of students who faked their thesis and were not caught until the
defense stage.

------
Robadob
I'm already getting dragged in atleast one of these directions and I'm less
than 2 months into my PhD. As mine is partially CASE studentship sponsored
(industry partner provides additional funding). I have the company requesting
me attend meetings a few hours down the country and requesting I complete
small jobs beneficial to the company, all barely related to my research. This
travelling tends to lose me a couple of days alone and I can see it easily
becoming worse if I don't get a handle on it soon.

~~~
joshvm
I'm a CASE student, but in my case the extra work has largely been put upon me
by my supervisor, and really you have to start saying NO. Be very wary of
becoming a dependency for a side project. This is particularly dangerous if
you're good at something that nobody else in your group can do.

I've lost around 6 months to these kind of shenanigans and ultimately my
supervisor agreed that it could be part of my thesis so that it wasn't wasted
time. Took a long time to get that acknowledgement though.

Ultimately a CASE studentship should give you an idea of what it's like to
work in industry. This almost certainly means you'll do some non-PhD work, but
if you feel that it's becoming a big distraction then you should speak out. It
really depends on your supervisor and the company you work for. By contract
you are obliged to spend 9 months there over the course your PhD (at least
with mine). I tend to go over when I need to. I've helped out on things that
are both directly PhD related, kinda-PhD related and stuff that isn't at all
PhD related.

Talk to your supervisor first and let him/her know what's going on - at 2
months in they have better negotiating power and could be more subtle (e.g. "I
notice X has been spending a lot of time away from the lab, is this work
related to his PhD?"). Be honest with the company, tell them that you feel
that it's a big commitment and you're struggling to keep up with your PhD
work. They're not going to chastise you - if they do then you know you don't
want to work for them in the future.

------
BenoitEssiambre
I am shocked at how all the focus in the article and in this thread are about
getting the degree with little regards for doing good science.

Pushing yourself to publish every year creates noise in the scientific
literature and often leads to data cherry picking and massaging which is not
just "questionable" as the article claims but completely invalidates
everything a researcher does and makes him or her a fraud. The fact that it is
tolerated makes it really hard to trust the research coming out of
universities nowadays.

~~~
neltnerb
Lots of good science is never published because they get a null or negative
result from a utility perspective. That's just part of the scientific method.
And the job of a PhD student is to get their PhD, which requires them to
demonstrate a good understanding of how to do science, but shouldn't require
them to publish in a top-tier journal or make a seminal discovery. That's for
your postdoc...

------
jonjacky
See Olin Shiver's advice here: [http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/shivers/diss-
advice.html](http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/shivers/diss-advice.html)

------
mturmon
The premise is, honestly, not very good. Like with a movie, there are
infinitely many ways to do it wrong. Listing them is futile. Better to cut
down to what you should do (this would be a much smaller article).

------
imaginenore
I can't imagine doing this for 8 years, even though I love science, and I'm a
published scientist. Even conservatively it would cost me 1.5-2 million
dollars of opportunity cost to do that.

If you're doing this for science, then don't complain. If you want a career,
there are better options than slaving for 8 years, 80 hours a week.

------
untilHellbanned
The phd needs to be extinct. I have one and lined up a tenure track job at a
premier university and even I know the whole enterprise is doomed. Looking for
other opportunities STAT.

~~~
chockablock
What do you propose as possible alternate models for training scientists
(honest question)?

~~~
kriro
I think publishing multiple good articles should be encouraged over a
traditional PhD thesis. It's obviously possible to get a PhD from publishing
articles these days but at least here (Germany) it's the exception, not the
rule.

I wouldn't mind removing the PhD thesis all together and relying on articles
instead. It's more agile to borrow from software engineering. Article,
feedback, improve on your works beats working on a monograph as a general
setup in my opinion.

It's not as rosy as this though, the journal/conference industry is pretty
broken but in an ideal world with excellently peer reviewed open access
everywhere breaking your research into smaller chunks than a PhD is better
imho.

It should also be noted that even if you go the traditional PhD thesis route
you'll usually publish articles as well and most good PhD programs will make
sure you communicate your PhD work regularly. But I think there's too many
cases of scientists basically locking themselves away to write the thesis and
only turning in the final product, mostly talking to their advisor.

~~~
JetSpiegel
The Cathedral and the Bazaar strikes again.

