University of Pretoria

Faculty of Education

Phd Student Proposal Presentation 4 April 2012

Sonja Coetzee

Phd Student Proposal Presentation

Introduction The Context Reflective Thoughts From one student to another Guidelines: General & Specific The reward of a sound proposal

The Context
Changed job-description twice; Changed PhD topic twice; Changed supervisor once; Wrote TWO drafts before I sent FIRST draft to the supervisor; Had one baby; Husband moved 400kms away; Bottom line: Phd or Masters does not wait for your life to have time!

Reflective Thoughts
Keep to the guidelines given by the Department/Supervisor A proposal is NOT an ASSIGNMENT you do it for yourself A proposal is a planning document describing your intentions/decisions; a defence is a formative discussion that supports you Write enough to make a point: Relevant, Recent and Reasonable AFTER Reading lots and lots and lots (times 2) What you write should be: Connected, Clear and of good Quality do not try and impress your supervisor with jargon that you dont even understand(times 2)

From one student to another

Do not write for your supervisor! You know yourself/context the best:
When is your best working/reading time? Do you need time to think/reflect before you write? Do you have to talk about what you have read before you write? Do you read what you have written? Do you remember what you have written? Do you understand what you are saying?

Guidelines (general)
Start with a good literature search (get help from the Bib) Make time to collect articles, books, dissertations and theses Read first, then write, read again, re-write, read more (times 2) When is enough? Proposal
Get a good guideline or example (ask your supervisor) Do a first draft and ask someone you trust (a critical friend) to give you feedback Accept that no proposal is perfect Attend to technical and language care Write with an audience in mind anticipate questions (go to a few defences before you even start writing!)

Guidelines (specific)
Part One: Introduction, Rationale, Initial Literature review, Purpose, Research Questions, Concept Clarification, Theoretical Framework
Argue the link between why YOU are interested and what is CURRENTLY known Argue the GAPS in knowledge (global and local) and link this with your question Clarify how YOU see concepts based on sound LITERATURE (balance between classic and recent findings) Situate your question and rationale within a THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK what kind of theory will help me understand the topic better; make sense of the data better Set the scene for Part 2 if you state ABC, be sure to connect

Guidelines (specific)
Part Two: Research design, ethics, quality, contributions, limitations, role as researcher
Show the relationship between WHAT you want to know and HOW you will find out use LITERATURE to justify Argue the positive and the negative of each research design decision you make (a good research book is very valuable here) DO NOT BE VAGUE; the more detail the better (but be concise) Use Ethics Application questions to help you with detail Think things through and make sure that it is linked to Part 1; If you decide something in Part 2 make sure that you build in the necessary information in Part 1 already

Example
6.2 Meta-theoretical (philosophical) paradigm (Paragraph 1): I follow what Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2011) refer to as a phenomenologistbecause Nieuwenhuis (2010) describes phenomenology According to Giorgi (2005) a phenomenologist focuses on In agreement with this Van Maanen (1982, p. 297) writes This is why I regard phenomenology as suitable for the study (Paragraph 2): Being a phenomenologist I regard teachers subjective consciousness as (Paragraph 3): The benefit of being guided by a phenomenological stance in this study is that it may create a natural link between the unit of studythe research questionand the engagement of me as researcher during the research process (Cohen et al., 2011; Lindegger, 2006). (Paragraph 4): Criticism against a phenomenological paradigm as highlighted by Cohen et al. (2011) include that Consequently, in this study I view the criticism of Bernstein as a reflection of the authentic strength of the study. (Paragraph 5): To support my decision to work from a phenomenological paradigm I agree with Giorgis (2005, p. 211) statement that Therefore in this study I will not seek to produce universal findings, but rather to understand how teachers in a particular education setting sustain their 9 career resilience over time.

The reward of a sound proposal

Prepared for proposal defence Chapter 1 ( 15 pages) (Introduction) Chapter 2 ( 9 pages) (Literature study) Chapter 3 (18 pages) (Methodology) Extensive reference list of 18 pages already Quick ethical clearance application (the next day) Ready to select participants and collect data (Defended in Feb, May I start with Data collection)

10

Thank You!
11