Has anyone ever been criticized with the above? Your research proposal is not 'Sciencey' enough? I'm doing Computing and I just heard that my research is not Computing Sciencey enough.

I think that's the most ridiculous thing that I could ever heard. What defines something to be 'Sciencey'? Or "Engineery" lol

Could someone help me understand?

======= Date Modified 01 Feb 2012 19:17:02 =======
Disclaimer: Massive over-simpliication coming... but arguably science is the process of doing research, but engineering is about building things. So, if you're proposal isn't sciencey enough it might be because you are proposing to implement/design a system that is a solution to a problem, rather than researching what the problem is?

Science requires theories based on literature, hypotheses, experimentation, results followed by analysis. Are you proposing to do this? Or are you just proposing to implement a system? If so, one way to make it more scientific is to establish how you are going to evaluate the system and establish if it meets a set of criteria?

Yes, my research is based on literature, hypotheses, experimentation, results followed by analysis, which of course falls under the Science - but I would think Engineering or even the Arts e.g. Economics, Accounting, Education, etc would be under this criteria as well.

But even if I did propose to implement/design a solution to a problem, wouldn't that require us to do literature, hypotheses, experimentation, results followed by analysis as well?

It's a bit vague isn't it? Without the details of the proposal though it is pretty much impossible to tell you what the problem is. Not that I'm saying you should post them on a public forum, just saying that I doubt you'll get a decent answer. Could you not ask your supervisor for something a bit more specific?

Often the problem with proposals can be a lack of a clearly defined research question. Do you have a well defined problem you're trying to solve or a clear hypothesis you're trying to test? There should be a clear question/problem that can be summed up in a couple of sentences, from which the rest of the proposal will flow.

But as others have said it's difficult to give more specific advice as the details you've given are quite vague.

I understand. I'm sorry for the vague input =/ But I think you could appreciate that I'm not in the position to tell in great detail what the proposal is all about =/

To answer the question, I would believe that the proposal is trying to solve a well defined problem; it's a problem plaguing the current situation. I have also made a pilot study to support the claim and from the empirical evidence, it does support the hypothesis that there's a problem and it needs to be solved, which is the whole point of the PhD research - sorry if I missed this one out.

Ok, I'm going to try giving a greater understanding of my research topic. Assuming that you're in the Biomedical Engineering field, and you would want to find a solution to solve the problem plaguing scientist with problem X, in the industry. You claim that it needs to start from the root problem, which is in the University education itself and a technique needs to be defined. You proposed the technique for your PhD topic. Some argued that your proposal wouldn't be in a more technical research anymore, as it's more of empirical research now, and as well as less Biomedicy.

How should one defend such argument?

Many thanks for the reply
*If it's not clear, let me know, I'll try again. =>

I think it might be worth going back to your supervisors and asking for clarification as it sounds like you've been given some very vague feedback! Can you arrange to meet face to face/on the telephone and go over the proposal page by page?

======= Date Modified 02 Feb 2012 14:15:28 =======

Ok, so you've identified a problem in an industrial process, and your hypothesis based on preliminary research is that the problem stems from upstream failures in education/training.

If you wanted to explore/address that problem further then a scientific approach could be:
- evaluate the features of the current educational approach. Identify specific weakness
- design an alternative approach
- trial the alternative approach and compare the outcomes with those of the standard approach to see whether it makes any difference.

That would be a *scientific approach* to addressing that question. But it's not one that would require/develop biomed or engineering skills as much as educational theory and social sciences techniques. It would also be a complicated study to conduct and might not be possible within the time frame of a PhD.

I'm guessing that either your proposal lacks the structure of a scientific approach to a problem, or would require skills or applications outside the remit of your field. But you should ask for clarification from your supervisors.

Thank you. I think that would be the argument of the panel; it's not biomedcy (enough) but more towards educational theory/social sciences. So, if that assumption is right, I don't see what's the real problem now really =/ The way I see it, if the assumptions holds, they want me to do something of a pure biomedcy, which is rather strange and a bit unfair really. If there's no problem with the research, and the argument now is just that, it's not 'pure' enough, I just don't think it's fair to even present the arguement to the candidate. But, that's my opinion of course. I might be wrong =/

I'm holding asking my supervisor since I'm waiting for the response from the panel whether to accept me or not. If they reject/accept me, I'll get in touch with the SV. (I don't know whether that's a good plan or not thought =/)

Thanks hazyjane (lol, I'm feeling a bit hazy myself ;) ).

Well it depends on your academic background. And theirs. If your background is in pure sciences then it might not be a realistic undertaking for you to do that project. And if they are pure science/engineers then they're not well suited to supervising it. If there's a funder they might have particular requirements too. So it might be a valid research proposal, but just not right for the set of people involved.

Fair point.

You might be right, and if you are, it would be a bit hard for me to swallow to be honest =/ (Well, you know, after all the research that had been done).

But if it's for the best, then I'll let it be.