Dr Kevin Morrell, Senior Lecturer in Human Resource Management (HRM) & Organisational Behaviour (OB), This page is my tips on how to do a PhD

If you are thinking of doing a PhD, by all means draw on the resources here, that is what they are for, but...

Much as I would like to help, I do not have the time or resources to review or comment on draft proposals.  However, if you want to apply formally to my institution and name me as a preferred supervisor, please do so.  Click here for the kinds of questions a potential supervisor may have about a proposal. [Added Jan 29th 2008]

Some of the ideas expressed below are discussed in the book ‘How to get a PhD’ by Phillips and Pugh.  If you haven’t read this, it's a very good idea to do so.  The rest is my opinion but it helped me to think in this way.  I finished several months early & passed with no corrections.  For my PhD abstract click here.

These notes are the basis of presentations I have given to PhD students at the British Academy of Management, to some business school PhD students at Warwick, and to social science PhD students at Loughborough faculty-wide.  I've shared it with people doing PhDs at other institutions in the UK.  Hopefully it will be of use to you.

Introduction

What is a PhD?

Something that is finished.

There are a number of ways of thinking about it. I think the first thing that comes immediately to mind to many PhD students is that it is ‘a contribution to knowledge’.

Other elements to it are that it is: a license to teach in a university, a signal of expertise and authority, a qualification, the highest degree that can be awarded in a university.

Less obviously perhaps, it means you are a fully professional researcher, it’s a kind of ‘passport’ or sign that you belong to a ‘club’. In real terms, it means several years of hard, lonely work that is potentially very rewarding. I think of it as an apprenticeship for a career in academia – but there are a lot of reasons for doing a PhD.

It also means you can change your credit card and cheque book, book tables as Doctor, + some other perks. It can be beneficial if you’re a woman and you don’t like being asked if it’s Miss, Ms or Mrs.

What do you need to get a PhD?

Myths

There are plenty of myths associated with the process of doing a PhD.  They can be dangerous because although they have an element of truth within them, they can be extremely unhelpful if you believe they are wholly (or even largely) true.  If you don't recognise the dangers of these myths, they can become excuses for why the process of doing a PhD doesn't fit with your expectations.  Believing in such a myth can absolve you from trying to find constructive explanations, that lead to more helpful behaviours (like forcing yourself to write something, no matter what it looks like at first).  In the worst case scenario, they may be a justification for why you 'can't' do a PhD.  This is convenient at one level, because it means you aren't responsible for delays, or failing to complete, but it is counterproductive if finishing a PhD is what you really want to do.  My guess is that everyone who completes has doubts at some stage: e.g. they must have let me in by mistake; everyone else doing one is cleverer than me etc.  Below I have listed some beliefs about the PhD that are unhelpful 'myths', as well as some short counterarguments to each of them.  You might find it useful to think about whether similar myths may be holding you back. 

You need to be a genius.
WHY IS THIS DANGEROUS> It's an impossible standard to live up to. 
COUNTER> Many, many people have done PhDs, it is not possible that they are all 'geniuses' (whatever that means anyway).  In completing one you follow a fairly systematic procedure applied to many different people and PhDs vary (look at some).

You have to do something no-one has ever done before.
WHY IS THIS DANGEROUS> This misunderstands the nature of a 'contribution'.
COUNTER> You build on others work in a rigorous, precise way (else how do you add to the existing state of knowledge?).  If no-one has done anything like what you're studying before maybe it's not such a great idea(!)

The PhD is going to be your life’s work / masterpiece. &
It will be the best thing you ever do.
WHY IS THIS DANGEROUS> Again it's an impossible standard to reach.  
COUNTER> Remember that you're learning (by definition).  The idea of a masterpiece maybe is helpful if you reframe it in terms of 'apprenticeship'.  +  If you finish a masterpiece, what's next?

It will shake the foundations of your discipline.
WHY IS THIS DANGEROUS> This misunderstands what is required.  You need to finish a time-bound project, not win a Nobel prize.
COUNTER> You have to complete something that a reasonably competent PhD student could do in 3-4 years.

You’re going to spend three years on one topic.
WHY IS THIS DANGEROUS> Though a common misperception (among my friends anyway), this is a really unhelpful belief because it makes it sound so boring.
COUNTER> Yes you do something specific, but you have to first identify what that will be, then pursue it.  To do this you typically have to: get to know several strands of literature (and keep up to date with them), understand a context, devise a method (get to grips with epistemology and methodology), get hold of (or 'construct' depending on your epistemology) some data - often you'll have to negotiate access, carry out the analysis etc. etc.  

Being able to write well is a ‘gift’. OR
Writing is just a question of getting down what you know, it will all come together the time comes.  OR
Writing is what you do at the end, that's why it is called 'writing up'.
WHY IS THIS DANGEROUS> These are very unhelpful excuses for procrastinating, or for writing to a low standard.
COUNTER> You have to write to a competent standard, which is high (by nature of the PhD), but this is a learned skill.  The only way to acquire this skill is by doing it.  It may help to think of three ingredients that go together in developing writing skills: 1. Practise (see section on writing below) 2. Read widely in quality journals (and aspire to those standards). 3. Get regular, constructive criticism on your writing.

Tips

General

If you haven’t already done one, I recommend you write a fairly detailed (2 page) proposal and timeline. An example of the one I used to apply for a place at Loughborough is included as an appendix. This bears little resemblance to what I ended up actually doing, but it helped me to have a sense of structure at the beginning.

As soon as you can look at other people’s PhDs. Do this throughout your thesis. When you start writing things, you will be able to assess the merits of your work by comparing it with other people’s. If you start doing this today, it won’t be long before you find something that you think you can ‘beat’.

Ask your supervisor if you can look at PhDs from students they have supervised. This might give you the clearest idea of what they think is required.

Literature Review

Early on get a list of the top (ten) journals in your field and use the zetoc alert service (find it via google and search for 'zetoc mimas alert') to send you the contents pages of each one as it comes out. You need to do this throughout to keep up with the literature.

Get to know how to use your institution's library (+ inter-library loans).

Get to know how to use your institution's electronic library and e-journals.

Try to build up and systematically organise a mini-library of your own, made up of relevant (and recent) journal articles.

Get into the habit of collecting references (in full). One of the things that can impress readers is a long list of relevant references at the end of a thesis.  This is also vital when you are taking notes on what you read.  Be very mindful of the dangers of plagiarising something - it is irrelevant whether you do this accidentally (e.g. by confusing notes from an article with your own words), you must always give credit if citing others' ideas.

If you decide early on and use the same referencing system it will save time. Here’s an example of what I used to give you an idea (there may be specific requirements in your institution, so you should check this):

Journal article: Morrell, K.M. and Wilkinson, A.J., (2002) 'Empowerment: Through the Smoke and Past the Mirrors', Human Resource Development International, 5(1): 119-130.

Book: Abel-Smith B. (1964) The Hospitals 1800-1948, Heinemann, London.

Conference paper: Morrell, K.M., Loan Clarke, J. and Wilkinson, A.J., (2003) 'Shocks, Images and Nurse Turnover', Democracy in a Knowledge Economy, Nagao, D.H. (ed), 63rd Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Seattle, Washington, USA, August, [CD-ROM].

Contribution in edited book: Morrell, K.M., (2001) 'Business Strategy and Contingency Approaches to HRM', in The Informed Student Guide to HRM, Redman, T. and Wilkinson, A. (eds), Thomson Learning: 22-24.

Departmental working paper: Morrell, K.M., Loan Clarke, J. and Wilkinson, A.J., (2001) 'Lee and Mitchell's Unfolding Model of Employee Turnover - A Theoretical Assessment', Loughborough University Business School Research Series, No. 2001:2.

Book review: Morrell, K.M., (2003) review of C. Cooper, and D. Rousseau (Eds), Trends in Organizational Behavior Vol 8:  Employee versus Owner Issues in Organizations, Personnel Review, 32(4): 526-530.

Writing

Write early, write often. The more you write, the better you will become at it. Even if you are not going to try and publish anything while you are doing your thesis (this is probably a mistake), you must get into the habit of writing down your ideas. Start with a modest target – maybe review three articles in your field (3,000 words say), give it to your supervisor and ask for feedback.

If English is not your first language:

· Speak English at every opportunity

· Get into the habit of listening to radio 4 and / or radio 5

· Seek specialist tuition if you need to and find out what help is available in the university. Do this now rather than have to spend months redrafting. You will have to learn the language to a very high standard, and this is a long term process which starts now.

· Remember it isn’t your supervisor’s job to proof read what you write, they are interested in your ideas – they can’t be expected to correct your English (though they should give some help), and they only have a limited time available for you - try to use that time to most effect, i.e. get advice about your PhD, not your English.

· On a positive note, doing a PhD often involves learning a new vocabulary for English speakers.  Some people starting a PhD will be as unfamiliar as non-English speakers with concepts like methodology or epistemology, for example.

Personal lessons

I wish I had:

Learned to touch type

Kept a research diary

Gone to more staff development courses

I’m glad I:

Had a pragmatic view of the PhD

Chose an interesting topic

Chose what I wanted to do

Had excellent supervisors

Strategies

Managing your supervisor

I think it’s helpful to see the relationship with your supervisor(s) as a
l o n g – t e r m, p r o f e s s i o n a l one.

You may ‘hit it off’ straight away, but this is unlikely, and may not even be helpful as there may be times when you need to talk to your supervisor about how you are dissatisfied, or to ask for more support and guidance. It is more important over the course of your PhD to:

· Build trust

· Build confidence

· Build a good, working relationship

Than to:

· Become best mates

· Swap stories

Some quick ways to build trust, confidence and a good, working relationship are to:

· Keep promises

· Clarify expectations

· Share information

· Make specific commitments and honour them

If you want to damage your relationship with your supervisor, do the reverse. You could also try the following: disappear without telling them, go to visit them without any particular reason, fail to hand work in (or fail to do any work), don’t keep them up to date on your progress / lack of progress, don’t read anything they advise you to, ignore their comments on drafts of your work, phone up for frequent chats about nothing in particular.

Your supervisor will have several legitimate expectations. They will want you to:

· Show initiative, be proactive etc. basically be independent – these are key to doing PhD research in the social sciences

· Be honest about how things are going

· Produce quality written work that is not a first draft

· Meet deadlines (or explain why not)

· Meet regularly to discuss your progress (regularly doesn’t necessarily mean weekly)

· Be keen & enthusiastic

· Listen to their advice. This does not mean you have to always follow their advice (you have to be independent), but it does mean that when you disagree, you can show you 1. reflected on what they said 2. can state clearly the reasons why you chose not to follow their advice and 3. can say what else you suggest (or what you did) & why

· Tell them what you are learning (you will become an expert)

You are entitled to expect:

· Regular, constructive criticism on your written work

· Guidance, suggestions and ideas for research avenues

· Help with the literature

· Advice at each stage of the project

· Support

· Some (though probably not too much!) direction

Here are some more suggestions:

When you go to meet your supervisor always take a pen and some paper, together with a list of things you want to talk about. This is so that you show: attentiveness, planning, that you are seeing her/him for a reason, that you recognise their time is important. It will help you get what you want as well (partly because you won’t forget what you went in there for), and force you to be focused.

If you phone your supervisor always ask first if they have a couple of minutes, and offer to call back later if they can’t talk to you then.

Don’t try to collar people in the corridor – being in a corridor is a sure fire sign that someone is going somewhere (-: If you see someone and it reminds you that you need to talk to them, make a note to phone them later.

Try to gain a sense of your supervisor’s preferred style of working – they may prefer a written document or e-mail, or they may want to discuss things and periodically review your work, likewise they may want to meet frequently or they may be happier with a more structured, formal arrangement. If their way of working isn’t helping you, you could try gently ‘educating’ them, by being more organised yourself, and clearer about what your needs and expectations are.

How to finish within a reasonable time

Don’t get disheartened if it seems like it’s taking you along time to get going. This is a common feeling during the first year or so. It is better to take the time to be really clear about what you are doing and how, than to try to go and ‘collect data’ (for example) only to find it’s not relevant to your needs.

Try to keep in mind these goals.

· A title for your thesis

· Clearly formulated research questions, which are ‘good’ questions, by which I mean: practical, interesting (to you at the very least), will lead to a contribution + symmetrical (i.e. whatever you find out, you’ll be able to tell a story – you could come unstuck if you set out to prove or find something and you don’t).

· Being able to summarise your (expected) contribution in two sentences

Unless you have submitted and are waiting for a date for the viva there is never, ever any excuse for not being able to do some work that is relevant to completion. This can be reading, writing, analysis, or something that is extremely important - planning.

One of the problems with doing a PhD is it is easy to get wrapped up in the detail of what you are looking at at the moment, but forgetting the ‘big picture’. This is one of the things your supervisor should help you with, but you can help yourself by trying to think strategically about the process, and your long term goals. For example, do you need to become an expert in the literature in a field, or do you need to know one theory really well, and know the main ways it is different from ‘the others’.

Do not fall into the trap of thinking you have to wait for feedback about your latest piece of submitted work until you can progress or move to the ‘next stage’. This will slow you down.

Pretty early on (within the first year), you are likely to have an understanding of what research methods you want to use, and what type of data you can collect. It is highly likely that you are going to be using sophisticated analytical techniques (whether qualitative or quantitative or both) and even if you are familiar with the techniques, you will be using them at a more proficient level. Don’t wait until you start analysis to familiarise yourself with these techniques. This will slow you down.

Look out for courses on undergraduate programmes which may be relevant to your needs, and ask the lecturer if you can sit in. If you do things like this early on, it reduces the lead time to learn techniques prior to data analysis.  Bear in mind that learning these techniques is iterative and usually a long term process.

Though you need to keep up with the literature, don’t always be swayed by the latest research, you should have an idea of what you are doing after the first year (or so). It’s important not to get sidetracked. Again, this will slow you down.

Be aware that your plans may change, in fact if you are to do well, they will probably need to change. Finally, not everything in the process is within your control, and this can be very frustrating. Remember that when you finish is not necessarily a sign of how good your work is, the important thing is to finish.

Summary

Be clear that your expectations of what is involved in doing a PhD are realistic (beware the myths)

Aim for a working, professional relationship with your supervisor (Phillips and Pugh’s book is good on managing your supervisor)

Try to keep your end goal in mind and stay ahead of the game (remember the tips + strategies and develop your own)

Miscellaneous

SR Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, The Business Library 1989 is good for personal development / time management

This might be useful if you get stuck:

http://www.dissertationdoctor.com/

On doing PhDs in a second language:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/edu/edu_back/020513/ednew_wed.shtml

A study on PhD completion and health:

http://kerlins.net/bobbi/research/myresearch/health.html

Below are some miscellaneous tips:

http://cs.anu.edu.au/grad/current/guide/#purpose

Example of a Proposal

Abstract:

A survey commissioned by the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) found that 8.7% of nurses left the profession in 1997 Michelle Dixon spokeswoman for the Royal College of Nursing commenting on this said, "The problem is so big, it’s more than a recruitment campaign alone that’s needed." Bob Abberley head of health at Unison talked of the recruitment and retention "crisis" at the labour party conference 1998, he said, "Pay is now the burning issue in the NHS".

Aims:

To provide a contribution to the understanding of recruitment and retention in the NHS. To provide practical recommendations for improving both.

Hypotheses:

Recruitment / retention can be improved by changes to things other than pay including: Training provision / administration, Management styles and structures, Use of 'nurse mentoring', Better modelling of nurse labour supply and demand

Research Methodology:

I will have a better understanding of appropriate methodology after completing my management report and dissertation, which are on topics relevant to the proposal. I intend to use a mix of methods to gather data, to reflect the fact that this problem does not lend itself readily to either an exclusively nomothetic or ideographic approach.

Data collection will comprise semi-structured individual interviews with management and nurses as well as more free-ranging discussion with focus groups in 4 NHS Trusts to identify key issues / factors affecting recruitment and retention. These data it is hoped will form the basis for a comparison, to see if salient differences can be identified and correlated with shelf data on wastage rates, participation rates etc.

This will also form the framework for a survey targeted principally at management in trusts across the country, but also to explore attitudes of senior nurses responsible for recruitment in these trusts. This will be to see if wider comparison of factors affecting recruitment and retention and subsequent correlation with labour turnover metrics is possible. A regional cross-break will also identify national differences. Access should not be a problem, given Loughborough's excellent links with the NHS in the midlands, and prior completion of theses across all NHS trusts.

Problems anticipated with Method:

Trying to isolate the extraneous variable of pay.

The method depends on finding local differences, such differences may not be sufficiently significant.

Initial selection of just 4 trusts may be flawed, given possible national variations.

Personal limitations re running of focus groups and interviewing may lead to bias.

Accounting for other, manifold extraneous variables will prove difficult.

The study may suffer by lacking longitudinal scope, so changes may be hard to assess.

Timeline:

The abstract for my PhD was as follows:

This thesis reports the first independent test of an influential model of employee turnover (Lee, Mitchell, Holtom, McDaniel and Hill 1999).  The context for this test is the case of nurse turnover in the National Health Service (NHS).  There have been many hundreds of turnover studies in the last fifty years, and many ways of understanding the turnover phenomenon.  The thesis organises this literature, by selectively analysing and discussing the more influential of these studies.  This selective, critical review allows for the model tested here to be placed in a theoretical and historical context.

A critique of the model signalled the need for theoretical development prior to operationalisation.  However, the relative paucity of empirical evidence in support of the model suggested that replicating the basic findings of the authors would also be desirable.  Accordingly, the case for a critical test was clear, and an outline of the role of this type of replication facilitated this.

The research involved eight NHS trusts, in three regions.  In total, 352 full-time nurse leavers participated.  Data relating to their decision to leave was collected via an eight page survey, which comprised both closed and open items.  Analysis and interpretation of these data challenge the current formulation of the model tested, as well as contributing to the understanding of employee turnover and nursing turnover.

KEYWORDS:  Employee Turnover, Human Resource Planning, Unfolding Model, Modelling, Decision Making, NHS, Nurses, Replication

Top