======= Date Modified 17 Nov 2012 06:35:14 =======

nothing much dan.
u juz gotta be careful about sharing research technology that's marketable.

first ordeal?
a friend of mine was stuck with her research for quite some time.
so, i showed the algorithm i made, to help her regain hope.
the algorithm was meant as an impetus ie to demonstrate how the problem can be solved.
she published the algorithm and conveniently dismissed my name. LOL

second ordeal?
i shared a model i developed with a researcher just to get her 2nd opinion.
i'm quite a perfectionist. so, after showing it, i continued developing the model.
thinking that.. "oh, once i've perfected it, i'll publish it".
about one year later, i stumbled upon a paper with my EXACT model on it... with the researcher's name on it.
i confronted her and she replied with utter innocence "oh, i thought u didnt want the model" LOL

from my experience, this kinda thing usually happen for research areas that are very competitive, rapidly expanding and highly marketable.

example?
u constructed a new compression scheme that can speed up telecommunication by a 3 fold without sacrificing its quality.
u formulated a new chemical compound that can cure cancer at a remarkably low cost.

since then, i've been more careful about sharing any technologically related researches like the ones in engineering.

however, i do FREELY share my non-technological researches on psychology/sociology/education with others around me.

what are u passionate about?

it's good to combine passion and value. u're gonna do the research for the next 3 years, so having some joy in it would help, a lot.

it's true. some ppl are kinda opportunistic. they might use the idea and publish it. happened to me twice.

that's why it's *really* important for u to find someone u can trust.

one way is to break down the idea into small parts which do not signal innovation at all.
u could inquire each part from different individuals and then assemble the findings.
this way, the original idea would only make sense to u and no one else iA.

my friend had the same problem. his supervisor was kinda popular and was always out on conference sprees from one country to another.
finally, my friend couldn't stand waiting any more and visited the supervisor at his villa, with the thesis. LOL yeah, seriously.

he had a long and peaceful talk with the supervisor and before long, got the thesis checked! i don't know whether it'll work in ur situation tho.
just sharing my friend's tale :)

i'm so happy for u swetcha.

when is it gonna be published? maybe i can get an autograph version? :)

WOW great blog by pat thomson! she's using verbal protocol analysis to accentuate her thought processes.

she's employing the bottom-up approach to develop the framework.
idea => literature review => framework

very impressive groundwork. her analysis is rather extensive.

still, i reckon it's gonna be time consuming. doing my phd part time, won't have the time to do it that way tho.

hope to see her come up with the framework soon!

hey,

nice work on the paper! u've done a lovely job on the literature. :)

still, i've some things on my mind ..

what differentiates a focal customer from a normal customer?
perhaps a definition would be nice.

u could offer an improvement to McAlexander's model further since the firm, product and brand should be in a *clique* and not separated from one another.
in other words ..
1. the firm should interact with the product to change its feature in accordance with the customer.
2. the firm should interact with the brand to improve its capacity to connect better with the targeted customer.
these interactions are not reflected by the model.

how does online brand differ from offline brand? how do they relate?

furthermore, how do experts come into the picture?
i reckon experts are specific portion of the consumer whose views have a strong impact on the community.

just my two cents.

yeah, i'm targeting to finish around that time too iA :)

ready, set.. GO!

the paper from salford explained the elements that are relevant to the construction of a framework. the practitioner's paper provided a process on how to build it.

now, a framework has to be built in stages. seldom do people get it right the first time.

as such, it would be best to start with a sketch. then, iteratively refine the informal sketch into something worthy for ur thesis.
using a concept map is a great way to do this. it allows u to see the relevant concepts and how they are related to one another.

let me demonstrate this point with a simple example.

GOAL
build a conceptual framework on how people cooperate.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK V1.0
RELEVANT IDEAS? goal, actors, task, resources, time
SKETCH?
actors must share the same goal.
actors divide task among each other.
actors use resources to complete task.
task depends on time. complex tasks take longer time. simple tasks require less.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK V1.1
RELEVANT IDEAS? goal, actors, task, resources, time.
LIMITATION OF PREVIOUS VERSION? coordination of task wasn't mentioned.
SKETCH?
actors must share the same goal.
actors divide task among each other.
actors use resources to complete task.
task depends on time. complex tasks take longer time. simple tasks require less.

task must be coordinated between actors. certain tasks can be done in parallel, some must be done in sequence.
add 'coordination' to RELEVANT IDEAS.

(the process goes on from version V1.1 to VM.N until the conceptual framework is fortified enough for the thesis.)

i think building a framework is quite challenging to some people because they expect the structure to be sound initially.
that's gonna be tough. unless u have precognition. :)

what exactly is ur research on?

r u trying to develop a framework? or r u trying to analyze the process of developing a framework?

it's kinda hard to find any literature on how to combine articles in developing a framework because the approach can vary too much.
still, i've found a practitioner's guide on the process of developing a framework based on system thinking, concept mapping and bayesian maths.

http://www.icffr.org/getdoc/5c82bb6e-0137-4ec6-87ab-5d51a56e5d46/04-Neil-Cantle.aspx

from my own experience, u can develop a framework using the following steps :

1. define clearly the purpose or goal of the framework
2. ascertain the main ideas required to enable the framework
3. develop a *sketch* ie rough outline on how the ideas might interact
4. find articles that ..
a) support the need of these ideas and how each would contribute to the purpose
b) justify the interaction between them and how they can work together in reaching the goal
c) captures a portion of ur initial sketch to understand the collective impact
5. refine ur sketch into a formal framework based on 4.
6. test the framework with a simple proof of concept to illustrate its usability

i think u can find the differences between conceptual, theoretical and analytical frameworks in textbooks for postgraduate research.
i've seen it before, though i cant recall which book precisely.

hope it helps. :)

had the same problem when i did my phd. 3 years and no results.
one day, for no apparent reason, i had an epiphany on how everything could be solved.
i designed the framework, model, implementation and did the experimentation in one shot.
managed to get it all done in 3 1/2 years.
for me it was a miracle.
i knew then that it was divine intervention. :)
don't lose hope. miracles do happen. maybe not like the ones in hollywood, but they do happen.

if u're not interested of being an academician or researcher, u could consider the idea of being a consultant in ur research niche. being a consultant is kinda fun. u get to meet up with clients, travel and what not. the flexi hours are pretty cool too if u're not an early riser.

======= Date Modified 10 Nov 2012 08:53:29 =======
i wore all black for the viva. just to let everyone know that i was dead serious bout my research. :)