Hi ywan,

On second thought, your supervisor A is quite ok.

Firstly, he is possibly preparing you for oral examination. Imagine what if the internal examiner also comments that he or she cannot understand your presentation.

Secondly, he may consider to recommend you an academic job. Thus, he wants you to learn how to explain in idiomatic language such that most undergraduates can understand you... Have not you encountered some professors speak in certain accent and it is difficult to understand their lessons?

Thirdly, there could be internal politics within the department or between A and B and so on. For example, someone in the examination committee may purposely try to convince everyone that your presentation on your thesis is not comprehensive. Anyway, if you don't perform, it will only suggest your supervisor is not helping you enough. It is better to be positive now.

Hi ywan459,

This high impact journal that requires 6 reviewers for a paper is engineering-related.
The director was sharing with me on his paper which is related to satellite technology.

For science & education, it is also possible to have 8 reviewers; but it depends on the Chief Editor.

Hi LilyLily,

In a sense, your supervisor's tactics have worked! You've publishable results in first year of research under his "guidance". You may become like him one day because his micromanagement helps to produce many publishable results within short period of time.

Some teachers who have gone through "punishment" may believe that this is a good way for personal growth. Your supervisor may have undergone similar treatment when he was a PhD student...

Your situation could be worse if there is jealousy because of your PhD in another field or your look suggests you can be bullied? Just another guess.

But you should submit your results for publication before making formal complaints. Meanwhile spend more time with other professors or Head of Department... Actually, you could request for change of supervisor and work with minimal guidance. Later, just let him know that you're not unhappy with him, but you need a more positive environment, something similar to your first PhD.

One director of an institute told me he prefers to recruit postdoc who has publications in high impact journal.
His definition of high impact journal has 6 reviewers.
That is, if only five reviewers accept your paper, it can still be rejected for publication.

Journey, you did not mention if you are the first author in all these four papers.
Some supervisors appear as first author despite the students did most of the work, and wrote the first draft.

Another possibility is your university is not Top 100 university in the field.
So the PhD may not be as well recognized.
Some PhDs are accomplished within 3 years, and it may not have a rigorous process.
For example, the examiners may not have publications in your field or even cited in the thesis.

Usually, one may define the terms in Chapter 1 Introduction.

However, I still discussed the alternative definitions of the terms in Chapter 2 Literature Review.
So, it is possible to be introduction AND literature review.

Why if possible?
In Chapter 1, I clarify the meaning of the term as used throughout the thesis.
In Chapter 2, I explain the inadequate definitions as used by current scholars.

I know of one PhD (part time) student who is in the 8th year; extension was possible based on personal reasons. However, the main reason (I feel) is he published 3 papers and 3 book-chapters. He is under a lot of stress now, to think of another reason for extension. But if he only published 2 papers, he would have completed his PhD with less stress. Just being used by the supervisor for publication. Poor Phd students...

According to Einstein, if you really know your work, you should be able to explain it to your grandmother.
Alternatively, read something about Richard Feynman. Feynman also believes that if you cannot explain to layman, it means you do not understand it yourself.

Focus on explaining to A first with simple words.

The Conference may need you to register and pay first. They need money too...
What if more and more participants don't register?

Actually, conference paper with proceeding is not really well recognized. But it is still good for postgraduate students to have some...

One important purpose of conference is networking. You can also get feedback from other professors on your work, as well as possible future employment opportunities. Just have a cup of coffee with one professor; you do not know what you will get... may bring surprises to your future works...

One physics professor told me he often "bullies" gifted high school students during their science projects. It is his belief that stressful environment can stretch the students to their fullest potential. Your professor is likely someone who pushes himself a lot too. Don't take it personally.

Perhaps, your PhD is about some theoretical simulations on condensed matter physics or fluid dynamics? Don't see any point for you to proceed with a second PhD. There could job opportunities for you to apply your knowledge in physics and computer science to simulate global financial markets. Just a backup plan for you.

Being the chairperson for several conference sessions, the absence of a presenter allows us more time to share as well as more questions and answers... Very often presenters over-prepared with too many slides, so we are happy to have one missing presenter. :-) It is also not easy for me to request some professors to stop their presentation.

Maybe about 5 to 10% presenters missing in action. It could be delay in flight or work commitments etc..

Hi Pjlu,

You remind me of a seminar I’ve attended years ago when grounded theory seemed to be something scarry; one is sort of groping in the dark in this methodology without knowing the end-point… But I feel that it could be summarised below:

There are at least three types of grounded theory: Systematic design (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), emerging design (Glaser, 1992) and constructivist design (Charmaz, 1990). The systematic design involves the use of preconceived categories, open, axial & selective coding... This has been criticized by Glaser (1992) to be overly emphasized rules and procedures...

While Glaser (1992) may skip literature review completely, Strauss & Corbin (1990) still suggest literature review, but at a later time. In other words, PhD thesis may have literature review or not depends on whether you adopt Strauss or Glaser’s approach etc... However, grounded theory is often misinterpreted by some scholars. Many journal papers claimed that their results are based on “grounded theory”; but it could be more appropriately termed as “grounded approach” or “grounded theory approach”. They don’t really follow Strauss or Glaser’s approach completely. Anyway, there need not be *one and only correct grounded theory* for all kinds of research studies.

Let me know if I’ve interpreted grounded theory wrongly. Let’s not make GT sounds eerie. :-)

I was trying to be less explicit; but you did not seem to get the idea. :-(

In responding to the question, “What can I do now that will save time towards the end of PhD?”, some PhD candidates might skip *writing* the chapter on literature review by claiming that this was based on Strauss' grounded theory. Note that they still did their literature review, but at a slightly later stage. There is good reason: not to be influenced immediately by current research such that breakthrough idea is possible. Anyway, I'm aware of PhD thesis who wrote that there is no literature review... Not sure if this was intentional in order to save time towards the end of PhD… But this is not good...

Hope you get the idea now. :-)

For health related PhD, "literature review" may not be the best thing to do in the first place. Strauss and Corbin (1990) suggest not to conduct a literature review beforehand but that the researcher should analyse their own feelings and prejudices. Of course, this is just a school of thought as we could be "brainwashed" by current literature. :-)

Your new way of solving highly nonlinear mechanical model could be just another numerical analysis or slight change in existing algorithm? Perhaps, you should present your results to Supervisor A and compare the results based on conventional model as well as experimental results?? There are three columns in this table.

Supervisor A's use of rude word may suggest insecurity in him; it could be a defense mechanism to appear knowledgable. But maybe give him benefit of doubt; maybe you should also explain the limitations of your method. That is, your results are valid under certain constraints, and beyond certain boundary conditions, your method may be less accurate etc... Maybe you did not present your results thoroughly? Just trying to be open minded... maybe you are correct, but just in case...

Don't remind me of paper review. There were four reviewers: One happily agree; One reject my paper in nasty way; the other two somewhere in between. Journal paper or PhD thesis is really in the eye of the beholder.

One of my external examiners is also from Germany. He has been the invited speaker for numerous conferences. Really world-renowned... So, my situation is worse....

Let me clarify the word, cosmetic. My supervisor mainly asked me to improve the table presentations and alignment of paragraphs. So your supervisor B even mentions structure. He seems more serious and helpful! :-)

It seems that you are not meeting both supervisors at the same time? If possible, all three of you should sit together for a cup of coffee. Maybe a casual meeting on possible future conference; then bring out the question if there should be changes in the structure… maybe B has a valid point.

You have to be rational now. What if the external examiners request for major corrections? This may happen to me; my supervisor is not an expert in my area. She is currently an assistant professor who is also assessing another PhD thesis. Some PhD thesis could be assessed by assistant professor. But my university requires associate professor or full professor to be the examiners. Do you know who are the potential examiners for your thesis? Perhaps, this could provide some reasons whether you should make some changes according to your supervisor B.

In fact, writing clearly is an important skill; I have not mastered it yet. So, don’t simply dismiss the comment on “poor writing skill”. If the examiners comment that they could not understand your thesis, then both your supervisors can use it against you. Try to polish your paper just one more time?

Do you know why I am assigned to my supervisor? I was told to help her in publication. But I may not find an academic job now because of her delay in editing my paper... Ha! Ha! My situation is not better than you...