Month: December 2011

Notes On Writing A PhD Dissertation

The below is based on: 

  1. PhD Thesis Structure and Content – A [perfect] PhD Thesis for UCL
    http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/c.clack/phd.html
     
  2. Planning a PhD Thesis
    http://www.computing.dcu.ie/~nmcmahon/essays/planning_a_thesis.html
     
  3. The structure of PhD conclusion chapters
    https://web.archive.org/web/20120131043333/http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/M.Sewell/faq/publishing-research/Bunt05.pdf
 ======= Notes =======
YOU decide on the appropriate way to report. The default ‘solid’ approach in physics is IMRAD: Introduction, Method, Results And Discussion (reporting on the standard scientific cycle).
 
Your thesis _IS_ the PhD. Make it (in)CREDIBLE. Don’t make it a diary or logbook of done work. A thesis is the acquisition and dissemination of NEW knowledge (new to the COMMUNITY, mind you).
 
Hoover‘s four rules for defining the structure of a piece of writing:
  1. Include Every Topic Required by the Subject
  2. Exclude Every Topic Not Required by the Subject
  3. Working from the Top Down, Divide Each Topic into All Its Subordinates
  4. Order Each Group of Coordinates Properly
High quality dissertations often:
  • deal with significant and challenging topics
  • take an original approach
  • realize a significant contribution to the field
  • display an expert use of the literature in the design of the study and discussion of the results
  • report clearly and incisively on the literature

Length: approximately 100-150 pages w/o Appendices. First 20-30 pages appear to be seen as a ‘good indicator’ of thesis quality – clearly stated focus, clearly stated contribution, etc.. Partidge’s “four generic thesis types”:

 
Partridge writes “The traditional: simple type thesis … was more common at the master’s level than at the doctoral level where students either carried out more complex types of study, or ones which were more appropriately reported on in a different kind of way”. As with most things in life, there is a balance to be struck. Almost any type of scientific or engineering study can be presented using the IMRAD structure. At the same time, it may be that a more complex form will better present a particular project. The important thing is to communicate clearly and credibly. Norton‘s concluding advice about scientific report writing applies equally to the art of writing a dissertation: “… the purpose of the report should be to carry some fact or theory so interestingly … so clearly that the busy world will stop to read it, and having read it will pause to think, for the ability to make men think in a new way should be the aim of every writer”.
 
Traditional Simple
  1. Introduction
  2. Literature Review
  3. Materials and Methods
  4. Results
  5. Discussion
  6. Conclusions
Topic Based
  1. Introduction
  2. Topic 1
  3. Topic 2
  4. Topic 3
  5. Conclusions
Traditional Complex
  1. Introduction
  2. Literature Review
  3. (Background Theory)
  4. (General Methods)
  5. Study 1
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
  6. Study 2
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
  7. Study 3+
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
  8. Discussion
  9. Conclusions
Compilation Based
  1. Introduction
  2. Background to the Study
  3. Research Article 1
    • Introduction
    • Literature Review
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
  4. Research Article 2
    • Introduction
    • Literature Review
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
  5. Research Article 3
    • Introduction
    • Literature Review
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
  6. Conclusions

EOF.

A Taxonomy of Privacy (Solove, 2005)

In 2005, legal scholar Daniel J. Solove published A Taxonomy of Privacy. For my own purposes I made a mindmap of his taxonomy and list below the descriptions of the distinct privacy violations.

Categorized under information dissemination activity:

  • breach of confidentiality conveys “breaking a promise to keep a person’s information confidential”;  
  • disclosure conveys revealing (truthful) information that “impacts the way others judge [the] character [of the person involved]”;  
  • exposure conveys revealing “another’s nudity, grief, or bodily functions”;
  • increased accessibility conveys “amplifying the accessibility of information”;  
  • blackmail conveys the threat to disclose personal information unless the blackmailers demands are met;
  • appropriation conveys the use of the subject’s identity “to serve the aims and interests of another”;
  • distortion conveys the dissemination of “false or misleading information about individuals”.

Categorized under information processing activity:

  • aggregation conveys the combination of information about a person;
  • identification conveys linking information to specific persons;
  • insecurity conveys lack of due diligence protecting (stored) personal information from leaks and improper access;
  • secondary use conveys the re-use of information, without subject’s consent, for purposes different from the purpose for which it was originally collected;
  • exclusion conveys not allowing the subject to know or influence how their information is being used.

Categorized under information collection activity:

  • surveillance conveys “watching, listening to, or recording of an individual’s activities”;
  • interrogation conveys various forms of questioning or probing for information.

Categorized under invasions:  

  • intrusion conveys acts that “disturb one’s tranquility or solitude”;
  • decisional interference conveys “[governmental] incursion into the subject’s decisions regarding private affairs”.

Read Solove’s original paper (.pdf) before applying this taxonomy; there’s more substance to it than this short blogpost seeks to represent.