Original research proposal
This website contains useful information for current materials graduate students and also is intended to provide insights into the research of our materials chemistry program for prospective al research students will present an independent research proposal. The rp is similar in format to the tbo, consisting of a 8-10 page written research proposal, public presentation, and closed-door exam. Research proposal document completion of the oral examination, the examining committee will decide on one of three options: 1) the student passes the examination, 2) the student receives a partial pass, or 3) the student fails the examination. Join them; it only takes a minute:Anybody can ask a best answers are voted up and rise to the to find a good topic for a phd research proposal? Many countries an application for a phd position includes a written research proposal, so my questions is what are some advises/strategies to come up with a good topic/idea for a phd research proposal and how can one assess the quality/fruitfulness of an idea? As an undergraduate student one just doesn't have the experience to foresee which ideas might have promising research results and which probably won't have.
In my (very limited) experience students already have research experience and have established research relationships with faculty. For example, the fourth year of my undergrad ("honours" in australia), was a year supervised research. This is how i developed my research interests and found a is an extremely popular paper on the subject: /mcb/urialon/nurturing/howtochoosegoodproblem. You have a list of topics that you could explore, do a literature review and figure out for what topics you'd have a person has his own formula on what to choose as their phd proposal. This is not necessarily because the proposal would be better with their help, but there might be nobody who would be able to advise for the answer! In this example what the applicants and their proposals will be judged less of what it says officially, it's always a good idea to at least establish contact with your potential advisor.
I think most people will be happy to give you at least some feedback on your most cases i know (europe, physics) the research proposal was written together between the phd advisor and the candidate, or by the phd advisor. Reading through these publications, you will get a sense for what the current major research focus is in a wide variety of fields, and you'll get a feel for what's interesting to to professors in fields that interest you! You'd be surprised at how many professors (admittedly, not all of them) would be willing to spend 15 minutes talking to you about their research, and their field in general. This subject is going to become almost your entire life for a few years, and you will need huge dedication to it, in order to , ideally over a coffee, but by phone or (worst-case) email if you can't meet in person, with people who recently completed their phds and are now actively researching in this field; discuss your ideas and recent developments in the an area that your intended supervisor is up-to-date you do it right, your phd will lead you to knowing more than anyone else in the world about this very very specific subject: so it will really help if you're going to be keen to pursue it as a career after completing your phd, even after writing several papers and making plenty of conference presentations on |improve this ed feb 16 '12 at 7: aspect of a phd is pursuing original research in your given field. I believe it is hard for an undergraduate to know what research has / hasn't been in covered in all of the topics they may be interested ore, i would advise that you consider the topics you are interested in, and find out which researchers / professors are working in those fields, in the universities that you are considering. This will give you a feel for the kind of research that you could be |improve this ed feb 17 '12 at 8: are already very good answers above; i would only like to add that you should also take into account whether you can get a scholarship/funding for your research topic.
- summary schreiben englisch phrasen
- ice cream parlour business plan
- developing a business continuity plan
Most people cannot support themselves financially through the course of a phd programme, so this point is not to be you apply for a government scholarship for example, they will likely want you to study a topic that is of high policy relevance to them and you need to think about whether you can offer that or modify your original ideas in such a way that they will meet the policy priorities of the government at the point of application. Governments tend to publish their strategic priorities in various documents online, so it will not be difficult to make the connections between your research and their sity departments giving scholarships tend to be more flexible with regard to research topics as long as the quality and originality of the proposed research is high, but again, it would be best to get an opinion from a member of the department on the chances of your proposal attracting sufficient interest that it will get t funding, it will be close to impossible to do a |improve this ed mar 19 at 10: up using up using email and posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of the answer you're looking for? Your research s determining a feasible research to choose a topic for a phd in organisational behaviour? Is to decide the main idea(s) of research in a phd proposal, the student or his/her supervisor? To write a research proposal for a phd position where the description of the project is given? To write in research proposal when applying to phd for a specific project that is already outlined in detail in the job listing?
- good research paper thesis
- research paper on salem witch trials
- genetically modified foods research paper
Stack exchange works best with javascript to graduate al research students entering fall 2014 and students entering fall 2015 and student is expected to write and defend an original research proposal during the sixth semester of residence. The learning objectives of the proposal are to demonstrate that the student has the ability:To generate ideas for original research, defend the methods and importance of the speak effectively about chemical research to an audience of faculty and peers, a report demonstrating scientific writing skills appropriate for ph. Ping a proposal distinct from the thesis provides valuable experience in building on current expertise to address new research problems and convincing others of the importance and feasibility of the work, as will be needed in most careers whether the position is in academia, industry or government. It is also an opportunity for breadth useful for adapting to changing priorities in business or ility for oral ts will typically not be eligible to take the original proposal oral exam if they have not passed the research progress report/candidacy exam, and the english proficiency requirement. Students may petition the gpc for an exception to go ahead with the oral exam; documentation must be provided to show strong effort to date and extenuating a student has not submitted a complete written proposal by the 11th week of the semester and has not submitted a petition for extension, he/she is not eligible to have the oral exam and is on probation pending review by the gpc for possible termination from the ph. Program at the end of the ensure sufficient originality and promote feasibility within the desired timeline, topics must be approved by the student’s advisory committee and at least one member of the graduate program committee who is not on the student’s advisory committee to ensure the topic is distinct from the student’s thesis work (see timeline under topic approval).
The topic need not exclude the general field of the student’s research but should use some primary sources outside his/her specific dissertation topic. Students who wish to pursue work distant from their field of interest are advised to include information in their topic description and discuss two issues with their advisory committee members and the gpc member reviewing the topic to make sure they can complete the proposal with appropriate rigor: (1) whether the committee members view their expertise as sufficient to serve as an examiner or can recommend an alternate member, and (2) whether the student’s background is sufficient to complete the proposal successfully in the available ptions of topics (approximately 1–2 pages) are due the third week in november for students who are due to complete proposals in the spring semester. Note that typical reasons for rejecting a topic would include insufficient chemical content involved in addressing the question, lack of feasibility, lack of sufficient distinction from the student’s dissertation research, or too much distance from the student’s background to master sufficiently in the time the student is not able to address their advisory committee members’ concerns successfully by 8 weeks after the topic is due, the student will be put on probation. Subsequent failure to write and adequately defend the proposal by the end of the seventh semester would be grounds for termination from the proposals submitted to a funding agency, students’ original proposals will be expected to have major sections which accomplish the following goals, with subheadings to be determined in consultation with the research advisor(s):Introduction (4–5 pages). The specific research, including details about the theoretical and/or experimental e an estimate of capital costs if nonstandard or specialized equipment is required,Predict results, including discussing possible outcomes and how you would interpret them and demonstrating approach is feasible by calculation or reference to previous literature,Discuss alternate approaches to address potential pitfalls, s the significance of the nces (no page limit, 30–50 references would be typical). The student is free to consult with anyone, including the advisor, in developing the proposal, but the advisor’s role should be non-directive and the work should represent the student’s own creative thinking.
A final version of the proposal must be distributed to advisory committee members at least one week before the scheduled examination ng guidance and the original proposal should be produced largely independently, students are expected to pursue sufficient feedback to complete the proposal in a timely way. A student who does not submit a draft of a written proposal to his/her advisor by week 11 will typically be placed on probation until the proposal oral exam is completed, unless a petition for extension is approved. Students are also encouraged to consult the following resources in developing and writing the proposal:Nih’s writing your application, particularly nih peer review criteria and writing like a chemist: a guide and resource by marin robinson, fredricka stoller, molly costanza-robinson, available online at the mi exam committee will normally be the student’s advisory committee. Note that members of the gpc can attend to assist with questions about requirements, policy or procedure or to facilitate completion of the outcome/feedback advisory committee chair is responsible for the following:Giving feedback to the student, advisor and gpc on quality of the student’s final written proposal at the end of the oral exam,Ensuring sufficient breadth in the exam to address the requirement objectives,Keeping track of the nature of the questions asked, noting the quality of the student’s responses,Leading the discussion to complete the feedback form and arrive at the overall outcome and providing the outcome of the exam to the student in person and in writing to both the student and gpc using the department’s designated advisor is responsible at the exam for:Giving written feedback on quality of the student’s final written proposal at end of the oral exam, ipating in asking questions, particularly to ensure that the methods for the student’s proposed research is assessed defense comprises a public seminar (approximately 30–45 minutes in length) and a private oral examination by the student’s advisory committee. Attendance at the examination may be by any of the chemistry faculty, although they will be nonparticipating this oral examination, the student is expected to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the literature and methods relevant to the proposal, including any material mentioned in the written proposal or oral presentation. In addition, the student’s skill in speaking and writing about chemistry will be g the original proposal requirement typically leads to all-but-dissertation status.
There are five potential outcomes to the original proposal, to be determined by majority vote of the committee: high pass, pass, conditional pass, conditional pass with probation, or failure. Additional work may be required to pass as follows, and the advisory committee sets the specific deadline using these guidelines:High pass indicates outstanding performance based on overall assessments of excellent or good and no deficiencies in the four objectives indicates clearly satisfactory knowledge of both fundamental theory and research methods, along with satisfactory research progress that is on a trajectory to successful completion of the ph. Indicates grave concerns about a student’s ability to generate ideas and design research independently such that the advisor and committee question the student’s ability to complete a ph. If a student fails, the committee must agree by majority on one of the following actions:Advisor(s) permit an oral re-exam and revision to the proposal typically within 2–3 months, upon agreement of the gpc co-chairs. If a change of groups is possible, the student may be accepted only on a probationary basis and given up to 3–4 months to pass the original proposal while simultaneously conducting research satisfactory to the new advisor. Note that, at the discretion of the graduate program committee, a new progress report may also be required for students who change major research that if there are suspected academic integrity issues, the person identifying the concern must gather the evidence and discuss the matter with the department head or gpc co-chairs according to the departmental academic integrity procedures and penalties, when warranted, will be determined separately from the outcome of the written progress report.
The concern should be kept confidential and not be raised with the advisory committee at the each case, the deficiencies must be communicated in writing by the advisory committee chair to the student and the graduate program committee, along with conditions to be satisfied in order to pass and a new deadline for re-defending the proposal, if a re-defense is required, reported in writing by the advisory committee chair to the student and the graduate program committee by the next day. Failure to defend an original proposal successfully by the end of the seventh semester in residence is grounds for termination from the ph. Students entering fall 2014 and student is expected to write and defend an original research proposal during the sixth semester of residence. The purpose of the proposal is to demonstrate that the student has the ability to generate ideas for original research and to defend the methods and importance of the ensure sufficient originality and promote feasibility within the desired timeline, topics must be approved by the student's advisory committee and at least one member of the graduate program committee who is not on the student's advisory committee to ensure the topic is distinct from the student's thesis work (see timeline below). The topic need not exclude the general field of the student's research but should use some primary sources outside his/her specific dissertation topic. Students who wish to pursue work relatively distant from their field of interest are advised to ensure that faculty members with relevant expertise are available to consult and/or serve as an additional ptions of topics (approximately 1-2 pages) are due the third week in november for students who are due to complete proposals in the spring semester.
Note that typical reasons for rejecting a topic would include insufficient chemical content involved in addressing the question, lack of feasibility, or lack of sufficient distinction from the student's dissertation research. Subsequent failure to write and adequately defend the proposal by the end of the seventh semester would be grounds for termination from the program. Note that the gpc meeting to review petitions for extension will usually be held the 3rd week of the spring proposals submitted to a funding agency, students' original proposals will be expected to:State the idea and motivating scientific hypothesis,Justify the importance of the scientific problem,Review the relevant theoretical and/or experimental background literature,Propose the specific research, including details about the theoretical and/or experimental techniques and te of capital costs if nonstandard or specialized equipment is required,Predict results, including discussing possible outcomes and demonstrating that the approach is feasible by calculation or reference to previous literature, s the significance of the format should follow nsf proposal guidelines. Proposals should be 15 pages of text, including figures but excluding references, in a font no smaller than 12 point times with 1. The student is free to consult with anyone, including the advisor, in developing the proposal, but the advisor's role should be non-directive and the work should represent the student's own creative thinking. A final version of the proposal must be distributed to advisory committee members at least one week before the scheduled examination defense comprises a public seminar (approximately 30-45 minutes in length) and a private oral examination by the student's advisory committee.
During this oral examination, the student is expected to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the literature and methods relevant to the proposal, including any material mentioned in the written proposal or oral presentation. While some of the questions may not have clear-cut answers, the committee will evaluate the student's ability to reason effectively and draw appropriately on a broad range of knowledge to do ng guidance and the original proposal should be produced largely independently, students are expected to pursue sufficient feedback to complete the proposal in a timely way. A student who does not submit a draft of a written proposal to his/her advisory by week 11 will typically be placed on probation until the proposal oral exam is completed, unless there are extenuating g the original proposal requirement typically leads to all-but-dissertation status. Should the research proposal be determined to be deficient, the outcome should be recorded as conditional pass, conditional pass with probation, or failure. In each case, the deficiencies must be communicated in writing by the advisory committee chair to the student and the graduate program committee, along with conditions to be satisfied in order to pass and a new deadline for re-defending the proposal, if a re-defense is required, reported in writing by the advisory committee chair to the student and the graduate program committee by the next day. There are four potential outcomes to the original proposal: pass, conditional pass, conditional pass with probation, or indicates clearly satisfactory knowledge, along with a satisfactory original idea, written proposal and oral the deficiencies are deemed minor, the student's performance may be recorded as a conditional pass and the student required either to revise or otherwise address deficiencies as requested by the committee, with the deficiencies, conditions for passing, and a new deadline reported in writing by the advisory committee chair to the student and the graduate program committee by the next the deficiencies are considered significant or major (e.
Re- defending the proposal to the committee and/or revising the proposal is normally required in this situation; advisory committees may assign other written follow-up as the concerns are grave and call into the question the student's ability to complete the ph. The outcome should be recorded as failure and the advisory committee may terminate the student from his/her group or, upon agreement of the advisor and gpc co-chairs, may allow the student to submit and defend arevised proposal. To graduate ent of sity policies and ic and research ne for completion of ph. Ment h language ch progress al research ement to candidacy and all-but-dissertation tation progress al tion of student standing and progress toward te student time off and leaves of ces for exceptional or challenging mental for graduate program ment of ie mellon universitymellon college of sciencedepartment of ment of ie mellon to graduate al research students entering fall 2014 and students entering fall 2015 and student is expected to write and defend an original research proposal during the sixth semester of residence. Ment h language ch progress al research ement to candidacy and all-but-dissertation tation progress al tion of student standing and progress toward te student time off and leaves of ces for exceptional or challenging mental for graduate program ment of ie mellon universitymellon college of sciencedepartment of ment of ie mellon university.
