This is a long (and interesting) discussion tread I'm just entering. A lot of common mistakes have been pointed out and perhaps also the two that spring to my mind.

- Not having clearly defined and well formulated aims. As an examiner (MSc/PhD), I frequently come across descriptions of aims which are little more than nonsensical platitudes. "The aim of my thesis was to study...some subject", which is like saying that the aim of research is doing research. Whether your research project is a curiosity-driven fundamental science project, or an need-driven applied research project, you should be able to clearly explain why your work is important in a broader context and how your research will advance the state-of-the-art.

- Believing everything published in the scientific literature. Authors often get away with publishing papers with very assertive titles and bold conclusions, which sometimes are unfortunately based on weak, limited data and/or flawed experiments. Learning to critically examine the experimental data presented in the literature and to draw your own conclusions instead of only relying on what the authors have concluded, is a very important step in scientific maturity and it should occur no later than during the PhD period. Journal clubs are good for training critical examination of the literature.

I should add that this is not a mistake only made by students, but also much too often by the established scientific community. If conclusions which happen to be wrong are cited enough times, they become "truths" and dogmas, which may take decades to get rid of.

Waiting for someone else to make a crucial machine operational has screwed two PhD candidates that I know. In my opinion it is risky to take on a project where important aspects depend on third parties.

If we imagine a PhD thesis (or a PhD dissertation) as a house to live in, then PhD candidates tend to be ambitious. Some imagine their home to be a mansion. Others even want to build a building. However, I would advise them to build a "small hut" that is a "home." By being more realistic, they can put in more time to think, learn, relearn, and unlearn. In this way, they maximize their learning, filter out noises, and have more time to reflect on aspects pertaining to the "small hut." Thus, an error that is common is being too ambitious and not realistic.

Francisco a great point and as my supervisor said once you are not aiming to write for a Nobel prize, so look at developing a narrower more focused study rather than a broader one. This of course begs the question as to how we get from the broader topics or phenomena under study to a narrower study - any suggestions out there?

@ Sera Murugiah and @ Andrew Roberts :-) I agree to both "not aiming to write for a Nobel prize" in CONTEXT of developing a narrower more focused study. Likely, reality shows that the first few works of Nobel Laureates did not land them the prize. That being said, the PhD candidate should have the mindset of making their PhD thesis their best works "to date." One can be innovative in making the "home" (small hut) cosy, beautiful, artistic, etc. in order to live in happily. There are rooms for being innovative and get the thing done. I believe that a PhD thesis is to demonstrate the "thinking" in terms the theory rather than the application of the theory.

If the candidates evolve from masters, they tend to emphasize the use of empirical evidence to solve the supposedly real problem (the practice). In PhD, such solution is but an implication to practice. What is important is for the candidate to contribute to the knowledge (the theory).

Thus, I am fond to refer to Russell's (2009) definition of Philosophy:

- Philosophy adds insights of possibilities:

- Philosophy reduces uncertainties as to what things are.

- Philosophy increases the knowledge as to what things may be.

- Philosophy shows familiar things in unfamiliar aspects.

If the candidate can demonstrate his or her competence to the above four concepts of Philosophy, then very likely the small hut that he or she is constructing is very livable and that hut can be his or her home to live in.

I want to elaborate further. One thing missing in the above bullet points is certainty. First bullet contains possibilities. Second has the image of not removing totally the uncertainties. Third bullet does not say that the knowledge is certain. It simply states that philosophy increases (that is of becoming) knowledge as to what things MAY be. The fourth introduces the image of perspectives. Thus, a knowledge once it is certain becomes a science. It is not longer a philosophy. Russell highlights the distinction.

I personally believe that the candidate can exercise his or her innovativeness to understand what things are and how uncertain they are (the ontology) and put in his or her argument of what things may be and describe familiar things in unfamiliar aspects in order to contribute to epistemology (justified true beliefs).

This is my perspective to the question raised. There are other perspectives that could be valid if we know the hidden contexts and premises of the other parties.

Reference

Russell, B. (2009). The Problems of Philosophy. Lawrence, KS: Digireads.com Publishing.

Francisco and everyone thank you for your replies. We uncover a few of the continuum that our students need to navigate successfully as they have us as advisors or mentors. The first being the degree we are to obtain - practical or philosophical, theoretical or problem based - as was pointed out - research striving for the concrete or being allowed to remain in the philosophical arena. Sera points out a desire to reach for the stars which I agree with in my heart but as a pragmatist what I want for my students is that they graduate.

A motivation for my question was a target at the 50%+ rate of those who never finish. Looking at the students you have advised or mentored. Why did some drop out? what walls were they unable to get over?

Were some of these their own mistakes as in choosing a topic that led to relying on someone who did not come through (thank you Dieter), were there barriers from the university that they could not manage? 50%+ is to me a travesty of broken dreams and promises.

What are your thoughts?

Alana

@ E. Alana James and others - In my opinion, 50% drop out is not bad. I will explain why using the Diffusion of Innovations (DOI) theory (Rogers, 2003), which includes the concepts of positive bias (pro innovation bias) and negative bias (innovation resistance).

A misconception in DOI is about the adopter categories. Aside the innovators and the early adopters, three adopter categories have been added to form the positively biased S-shape curve. They are the early majorities, the late majorities, and the laggards (Bass, 1969; Mahajan & Peterson, 1985; Ryan & Gross, 1943; Tarde, 1903). Supposedly, the last group (the laggards) simply lags or lingers behind but presupposes they will sooner or later adopt.

In the concept of S-shaped curve of the DOI theory, the innovator accounts for two and a half percent. The early adopters represent about thirteen and a half percent. These first two categories, totaling sixteen percent of the population, are market maven (Clark & Goldsmith, 2005), a slang use for opinion leadership. The subsequent thirty four (34%) percent belonging to the early majority, another thirty four (34%) percent under the late majority, and a last sixteen (16%) percent under laggards bring about a normal distribution.

The weakness of the five adopter categories and the related S-shaped curve is the percentage (the statistics) in the normal distribution (Wheeler, 1976). The terms early majorities and late majorities of Ryan and Gross (1943) mislead people believing that these two groups are potential adopters with positive biases in favor of the innovation. But, based on the research of Brown and Venkatesh (2003) of the PC industry, only the first two groups of innovators and early adopters, making up the sixteen percent of the population, have positive bias in favor of change and adoption. The remaining eighty four percent is negatively biased. Brown and Venkatesh (2003) further argue that about thirty four percent (that is, forty percent of eighty four percent of the population) could be convinced to diminish their negative bias against the innovation. Any decrease of bias against the change likely increases the bias in favor of the innovation. All others are non-adopters (Brown & Venkatesh, 2003) and they likely remain non-adopters to the end because of their innovation resistance mind-set.

If (a big IF) we can assume that the PhD candidates behaves like the PC industry and if their theses are something that these candidates perceive to be new (innovation), then perhaps sixteen percent would be able to succeed and finish their challenges. Eighty four percent of the population needs aggressive pushing. Forty percent of the eighty four percent (that is equivalent to thirty four percent) could be pushed (motivated) to complete. Thus, your 50% (or 50%+) seems to fit the findings of Brown and Venkatesh (2003).

I hope that I have contributed something for you to ponder on.

Reference

Bass, F. M. (1969). A new product growth for model consumer durables. Management Science, 15(5), 215-227.

Brown, S. A., & Venkatesh, V. (2003). Bringing non-adopters along: The challenge facing the PC industry. Communications of the ACM, 46(4), 76-80.

Clark, R. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2005). Market mavens: Psychological influences. Psychology & Marketing, 22(4), 289-312.

Mahajan, V., & Peterson, R. A. (1985). Models for Innovation Diffusion. London: Sage Publications.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press/Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Ryan, B., & Gross, N. C. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociology, 8, 15-24.

Tarde, G. (1903). The Laws of Imitation (E. C. Parsons, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wheeler, M. (1976). Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics: The Manipulation of Public Opinion in America. London: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

@ E. Alana James and others - Probably the question can be modified as follows: A question for everyone who supervises doctoral research - all topics: What do you see as the two or more most common errors students make? (What do you see also as the two or more most common mistakes the mentors make?)

For PhD candidates (or even MBA students), we assume that they are mature. We also assume that they know how to think critically. We likewise assume that they have ALL the motivations that they should have to complete their endeavors. Lastly, we might further assume that they have adequate foundation on research methodology. But, the truth is that they might have difficulty even in distinguishing ontology, epistemology, methodology, methods, etc. In short, they might have inadequate preparation in Philosophy and yet they want to have a PhD suffix to their names. Moreover, they might not realize that the research is a journey and not a destination.

Given all these likely shortcomings, the mentors better point the fingers at themselves and not to the PhD candidates. The PhD candidates should not be accepted in the first place. And if they have been accepted, then the mentors should think positively on how to provide the right learning (coaching) environment and to inspire them to finish their challenges. The mentors cannot use excuses, such as that they are busy with their teaching or that students do not have the right motivation or do not have the right knowledge. If the PhD candidates have the right motivations and the right knowledge, then they do not need coaching in the first place.

@ E. Alana James and others - One weakness (rather than error) is that students at times like to look at the jungle and miss the trees; or at time they examine the trees but miss the whole jungle. Research is not a linear task. In qualitative research, one has to zoom in and zoom out on different times and as frequently as necessary. Many students have difficulty developing the (zooming in and zooming out) skill especially as a novice researcher. I use a “one table guide” (see an example attached) to provide students with the trees and the jungle at the same time.

I thoroughly appreciated reading this post, and I love the "hut" analogy, I understand it and can use it. So far I have yet to make any of the most common mistakes, only because I'm too busy making dozens of less common mistakes.

Thank you

so which "not so common" mistakes are you referring to Steven?

Well my biggest regret is wasted time - the first 10-11 weeks I spent on spent on my lit review was on a topic that I have now moved away from, challenging behavior of students was a focus but I see it now as a symptom but what alot of wasted time and resources! In reflection my mistakes are mostly around organisation - failing to organize my readings effectively from the very start, which meant some wasted time going back through folders for lost information. Not enough focus on the topic at hand also means every now and then I realize I'm reading something extremely interesting but off the track of my area.

Im not sure how to explain this but undertaking a doctorate has actually made me feel quite naive and even dumb at times and one mistake I have made a few times is to walk away from the work when I feel this way. I always come back but that strategy effects my time management.

I have done those very things too Steven! I think doing a PhD is a lot about learning about your learning style. AND making mistakes is a great way to learn. I am gradually learning to be less afraid of making mistakes but i still have a long way to go. Related to this is being afraid to write down my less-than-fully-formed thoughts in early chapter drafts. This is the biggest hurdle for me. I try to remember E.M Forster's wise words, "How do I know what I think until i see what i have written?"

Great stuff, I have learnt alot from this discussions because I am undertaking this similar journey too. All those that you are discussing is relevant to me. I feel I still have the struggle of diciding on a focus topic. I am looking at Higher Education and Adult Learning.

Steven, Methilde and Petya - thank you for answering. I started just mentoring doctoral students in the US - then because I live in Ireland I started putting it on the web and found that - like yourselves the challenge is as much in the systems which are foundational to the work as in the work itself. That seemed unfair, and so I started building maps through the process - you can see the result on our site at www.doctoralnet.com - but the point here is something that one of our virtual retreat people said last month - she said everyone talks about writing a dissertation or thesis but really she sees now it is engineering.

That fits for me - part of engineering a bridge is figuring out the size of the span, the materials available, the relationships with others, etc. All of these too are critical on a doctoral journey - do you agree?

On a side not Mathilde - I encourage everyone to consider themselves and their goals in life as they look at topics - where do you want to be and what topics would be "sexy" or interesting to those who you would want to notice you as either employers or colleagues. Too often I see doctoral graduates a little sad because their work didn't quite reach the stakeholder they needed to impress.

All the best and please keep joining in - I like this being a conversation of both professors and students about what hold students back.

As a mature student with a life of experience in a range of disciplines I was not prepared for the personal nature of the Doctoral journey. I am not sure that anyone is or really that you can prepare in a formal way. What is important however is that you find a mentor- not necessarily your Supervisor who you can share your journey with and reciprocate how you feel about what you are doing and why you are doing it.

What is interesting to me - my focus is on Further Education in England - CPd and professionalism particularly is that we seem to lose the facility to communicate our ideas clearly, simply and directly. It strikes me that this is perhaps the reason for the sadness mentioned above- is because we lose our trigger/ our motivational keystone.

E Alana James, I agree about it being like engineering, but I am not sure I understand your comment

"what topics would be "sexy" or interesting to those who you would want to notice you as either employers or colleagues. Too often I see doctoral graduates a little sad because their work didn't quite reach the stakeholder they needed to impress".

Can you elaborate please?

Mathilde, I recommend choosing a topic you feel passionate about. I am researching with people who have a life-limiting illness. Although their stories are very sad at times, they are also funny, informative and inspiring. Thsi keeps me going past the boring bits and the 'I hate being a PhD student' phases. I know I HAVE to write my thesis for my participants.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the focus of one's topic often changes so much. I think this is the experience of most PhD students anyway. So I guess in a way it doesn't matter exactly what your topic is, so long as it is in the general area you are interested in knowing more about. I am sure that if i had researched with a different group of people I would have similar feelings about their stories and a similar drive to finish.

I think one of the most common mistakes, no matter if in the US, EU or elsewhere, is to assume that you as a PhD student have to provide research at a level of a Nobel Prize. Try to find a research gap focused on a small subject of interest and fill it as good as you can. Do not forget that besides the research also other aspects have to be considered in your way to a senior scientist. This includes social and communication skills, teaching, grant writing, networking etc. The whole sum of it pushes you to a new level.

In order to find the "best" research gap for you take your time. For me it took nearly one year until i found a suiting set of hypotheses and research questions. Try to look at it from as many views as possible. If you have the opportunity to ask a senior researcher besides your supervisor (Mentor) do so. It will certainly open your eyes at some point. Only if you feel absolutely comfortable with your research questions go for it.

Well.... I got my PhD from the UK, and I am currently supervising students from Arab world, I think there are some differences between the two environments, yet some common mistakes can be seen, such as:

1- lack of reseach modern skills, such as gathering internet information and linking them to each others, geting and using "short information" (especially from social websites), etc.

2- Students mostly don't know how to "advertise" and "defence" their work, they are some times hid the best work they have done!

Thanks for asking this question. I think it is very important, and have liked having answers from the students. In my opinion, as a PhD program director and member and chair of dissertation committees, I recognize that deciding on a research topic is probably the most dificult challenge for students. However, even before that, I have found that students often do not understand the format of a dissertation and what is expected of them. I provide my students with an unpublished paper and power point on reading a research article, so they can see the format and what is expected to be in each section of a research article. They read a journal article while reading the paper or power point, section by section so they can follow each section of the article/power point and compare and contrast the article/power point with the study they are reading. Of course a dissertation is more complex than a research article, but the format is basically the same, and that helps my students understand what they will need to do.

I also feel strongly that students need a strong faculty advisor to work with throughout their program, so they can ask questions as they start to think about the area in which they are interested in researching. I do have students focus on a review of the literature in that area, so they can see what has been done and how. I let them know that what they are looking for is the "gap" in research and the limitations of the reasearch in that area. Then, if they do not find what they think should have been researched, they may want to try developing a project to help close that gap. By doing that first, if they find their topic, they are ahead of the game for their lit review section in their dissertation. They can also recognize that this might not be an area of interest after all, and can go on to another topic that possibly their course work has raised. It can be frustrating for students in finding that research question, and they often need support and encouragement. it will be easier for them if they can identify an area early in their coursework, so they can be developing it in some depth throughout their coursework.

Hope this helps.

Arlene

I'm grateful this conversation keeps getting more interesting - Edward, thanks for bringing in the position of the physical sciences! Losing equipment in a lab would be a direct and negative consequence where students I work with more frequently at doctoralnet.com would be social science, education or business so what they lose the most is their time and the patience of their advisors!

Arlene I love your answer as well and it speaks to likely years of experience - alas not all advisors in the world are good, nor do they get on with all students. I have built the business helping those ends meet - helping students get back on track so that when they next go back to their university they have the work - the understand of the logic, etc that they need to discuss their study at a professional level.

I would love it if respondents here would take a look at our site and give peer review. We are rolling out a new one in the new year and, as a multi time author for Sage, I appreciate feedback.

Meanwhile I am collecting these ideas to help round out the new book on dissertation writing: James, E. A., & Slater, T. (in press for 2013). A map for engineering your dissertation: Proven methods for finishing faster. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications. Please keep your responses coming - they will help others as we work together to improve what is dismally often a 50% completion rate for doctoral candidates.

Alana

In my experience, one of the most common error committed is having too many variables to be included without really realising the relationship between and among variables, backed up with comprehensive review of literature. Simply, students lack focus in their topics.

Another common error is trying to use sophisticated statistical analysis for data that may only require simpler analysis.

Lastly, error in synthesising review of literature resulting in poor conceptualisation of the entire research proposal...

However, these are the areas that a good supervisor can come in to provide support to any student writing his or her thesis or dissertation.

I think, one of the very important issues related to one's dissertation project is the ability to choose the right statistical procedure and method for analyzing the data because if your method of data collection and analysis is not the one that gives the answer to your question, then the whole project will be under question...

To cut it short, I use to give two generic but fundamental advices:

1) Work on the chosen topic for a maximum of four years, and then submit (at the latest). You certainly will have reached enough findings, everything after should go into future work.

2) Do not (expect to) finish with exactly those results you envisioned at the beginning. Thesis writing is a journey, and you find challenges on the way, which lead you to new directions and conclusions.

1. Using passive voice (look for to be + participle) Academic writing requires the use of active voice, however in a literature review or method statement past tense is recommended

2. Employing weak vocabulary (use stronger, more assertive language) to be assertive a writer needs specific and economical vocabulary. Long sentences with vague points are discouraged

3. Writing with a lack of consistently serious attitude (no colloquial language and no slang) there is nothing cute or amusing in academic writing. “There are no plot points in leadership management”, is glib and out of place

4. Using run on sentences (less words not more, do not lose meaning) the length of your sentences requires control to enhance comprehension.

5. Disregarding the formula in the Dissertation Handbook

6. Disregarding the APA or MLA format, or using the wrong edition

I have seen people struggle because their ideas are too grandiose or vague and cannot be operationalized for research. I have edited other people's work, and find that they have not mastered how to use a style guide or basic writing skills. Finally, advisers who do not actively engage can be a barrier. I have seen some awful stuff signed off on because the adviser clearly couldn't have read it.

The conversation turns to be very interesting & informative for the researcher as well as supervisor....

The mentality I have experience is the length of thesis. I don't know why people will give so much stress on the length of their thesis, the introduction n theoretical part consume around 200 pages which is garbage as per my individual opinion.

literature review should be adequate & relevant.

The analysis part should be more & within the research framework.

many times the researcher fails to write significant contribution of their research in subject.

The selection of the topic/problem to be investigated and relevant reasons for selecting the topic is one of the most common problem usually occurred among the students.

The issue that bothers me most is the doctoral student who wants to be told what to do for their dissertation. The processes of narrowing the topic, selecting appropriate methods and analysis, and cleaning up the written communication can all be coached. A student who does not have the drive and passion for the subject enough to create their own "castle" or "hut" is likely to struggle mightily in academia. In my opinion, the dissertation process is about giving the student the confidence to stand on their own two feet.

@ Carla Allen - You have pointed a common phenomenon. Young people tends to look at the PhD tasks that could be done quickly.

Many do not realize that conducting research and writing the PhD thesis or dissertation is like strolling pebbles along the journey, pebbles that interrelate to the main theory.

Reflection is an important part of the learning experience.So is the reflexivity of the experience.

In New Zealand, the government evaluates the undertaking with carrot and stick. It rewards the University for the success at the same punish the institution for the failure of students. Thus, the university is careful to accept PhD students who are really qualified and to monitor supervisors to ensure that they properly facilitate the PhD journeys.

@ carla & francisco

The same scene is common everywhere, the students will select research topic in hurry, they will start doing work on it, but after some time they will realize that this not my cup of tea & get frustrated, they not only stuck themselves but guide as well. It is wastage of resources.

The system mentioned by Francisco is proper one.

• Inadequate literature searches. Computer-assisted searches can save oodles of time if done well. Too often, however, the novice fails to realize that different databases index different journals. Also, keywords may differ drastically from one database to the next. Some individuals rely on secondary sources, rather than ferreting out the original source. Collectively, these factors may result in a document with a foundation that is filled with holes patched with bias.

• Poor literacy skills. It takes time, practice, and effort to learn to read research reports accurately and efficiently. Shortcuts, leading to superficial readings of the literature, are common. Poor readers have difficulty paraphrasing, so we see many lit reviews that are nothing more than a series of article abstracts tied together by transition statements. It takes considerable effort to integrate research findings from various sources and to develop a cohesive and insightful narrative.

• Novice writers tend to torture the reader with long paragraphs that pile one syntactically complex sentence upon another. Intriguing ideas and original thoughts may be lost among the misplaced modifiers. Simplicity of expression is important. A sense of humor helps, too.

@ Francisco - I had missed your earlier post about the assumptions we make regarding the knowledge base, level of preparation and motivation of PhD students. Your insight resonates with me. As I have read the postings regarding fundamental issues of writing (@ Mike Coston) and information literacy (@Thomas Powell), I have pondered what can be done to address these educational shortcomings. I teach primarily undergraduate students and the demonstration of clear writing and a moderately effective level of literature search are expectations I have for my students at the undergraduate level. The adequacy of literature searches is something that develops as students become immersed in the field and develop an understanding of the ontology. This can be complicated by interdisciplinary topics where the terminology varies with the originating field (this is something I continue to struggle with). PhD students have not fully developed their area of expertise and should not be as adept at literature searches as practicing researchers. But, issues like citing from secondary sources and inability to read the literature effectively are things that we should be addressing in the curriculum (and I would argue, at a level much earlier than PhD coursework).

In trying to tie this thought back to the initial question, perhaps one of the common errors made as advisers is not developing a curriculum that adequately prepares students in "distinguishing ontology, epistemology, methodology, methods, etc." I know my methods courses were particularly bad. I was instructed in the use of a statistical package, but no effort was made to connect research questions, epistemology or domain theories to the research design and analysis. My adviser, thankfully, filled this gap by giving me the opportunity to participate in several research projects. Often, it is not until you are in the "nitty-gritty" of data collection or analysis that you recognize the issues in the methodological design. If dissertation research is the student's first exposure to actually completing a study, we should not be surprised by theoretical designs that pose issues with practical completion.

Perhaps they write longer than it's needed. Second, to stablish available aims. Third, think adecuate methodology for them.

Not able to clearly define the gaps in the existing literature and the problem statement.

Data in the results section do not match the discussion. Wrong statistical analysis making the statistical nonsense. Not uniform reference pattern even in these days of computer softwares and databases

YES! If we keep it up we may develop a comprehensive list that students can use as a checklist. J Andres mentions length - yet some universities require it - and the statistical nonsense Ramarao mentions is clearly a case of someone who is not ready to graduate yet. Carla is right that until you are in the nitty gritty things may not make sense.

Thanks everyone for keeping this going.

Alana

Great idea Alana. Only one punctualization about length. Probably as all you know, lenght of doctoral thesis are very linked to some kind of tradition in differents areas of knowledge. For instance, doctoral thesis in medicine are very short (100-150p use to be enough), whilst in sociology (my case) are longer. And perhaps a "cultural" aspect could be considered. It can be observed that in Spain, Portugal and Latin-America, longer thesis are wellcome, and northern countries prefer shorters'.

Two mistakes students make; following the rubric and they have a hard time to keep it simple

@Thomas Powell and @Carla Allen; as a higher general secondary school ESL teacher, I have thought about what you wrote. If you tied these problems to secondary writing and reading education, what should we focus our students on more than we do now? Writing synthesis is something I could think of, but what else to equip them better for their next step?

This is a long (and interesting) discussion tread I'm just entering. A lot of common mistakes have been pointed out and perhaps also the two that spring to my mind.

- Not having clearly defined and well formulated aims. As an examiner (MSc/PhD), I frequently come across descriptions of aims which are little more than nonsensical platitudes. "The aim of my thesis was to study...some subject", which is like saying that the aim of research is doing research. Whether your research project is a curiosity-driven fundamental science project, or an need-driven applied research project, you should be able to clearly explain why your work is important in a broader context and how your research will advance the state-of-the-art.

- Believing everything published in the scientific literature. Authors often get away with publishing papers with very assertive titles and bold conclusions, which sometimes are unfortunately based on weak, limited data and/or flawed experiments. Learning to critically examine the experimental data presented in the literature and to draw your own conclusions instead of only relying on what the authors have concluded, is a very important step in scientific maturity and it should occur no later than during the PhD period. Journal clubs are good for training critical examination of the literature.

I should add that this is not a mistake only made by students, but also much too often by the established scientific community. If conclusions which happen to be wrong are cited enough times, they become "truths" and dogmas, which may take decades to get rid of.

Good point Bjorn. The reason. Why. It is the center of every research process, nevertheless forgotten.

Bjorn - I love the comment "nonsensical platitudes" that is it exactly! I worked with a woman and doctoralnet yesterday and the issue was the difference between a topic and a problem. Following up from earlier stages of education she had always "researched" topics and was really having a difficult time moving from that idea of research to what we mean by investigation of a problem.

Words and backgrounds get in our way - but then if it was easy it wouldn't be the growth producing work that it is.

I also am appreciative of the "don't believe everything published" comment.

Later this weekend I will start to publish this thread in a different format - for ease of use by students and others I am thinking about a Do's and Don'ts list - helping folks in the stream of events that make up their research pathways to steer clear of some of the common rocks - I'll publish it on scribd and link it here for others to use.

Ideas about that? Anyone want to help peer review it for me?

All the best,

Alana

A do's and don'ts would be a fantastic resource - I'd definitely like to have a look and at least copy-edit it. Anything to procrastinate writing up my own thesis :D

Hi victor I see and deal with it now. students use casual talk as the number one frame work for writing. i have to teach them how to differentiate academic writing from everyday talk. second learn how to re- write a sentence or paraphrase is also a problem and last using transition words or opening sentences.

The question is what are the mistakes committed by the students. Some of the points discussed here are related to Supervisors. Supervisors have a major role in deciding the problem statement, plan of the study and the discussion. Students have to implement the suggestions, style, presentation, consistency and other things viz., references, pagination etc.,

Good question. A common mistake committed by Ph.D. students revolves around 'tunnel vision', i.e., forgetting to connect to other world(s) beyond that of the main question raised in their doctoral research. Such obsessive focus can dry up creativity and imagination. Of course this should be corrected by proper guidance but a narrow-minded supervisor will not be of much help there. A contrario the impact of a keen scientific supervisor, curious of everything (like the late G.E. Hutchinson of Yale Univ., the founder of modern evolutionary ecology, who inspired generations of highly creative Ph.D.s) shows the importance of a true humanist.

Another familiar mistake is the unability of many students (& many senior researchers) to relate in simple terms the originality or the relevance of their investigations for society. Universities should engage their graduate students in public debates to improve such skills. And if not, it will help to wander from time to time in the long corridors of the university library, without anything special in mind ... just browsing.

thanks Ashwin! - the non actionable part I see as too much emphasis on topic and not enough on problem - do you agree?

Alana

This is an invaluable discussion - and so important to involve both the supervisor's perspective with the student voices contributing. The discussion is certainly timely for me, as I am beginning my journey as a Doctoral student: I have been reflecting on how to capitalise on the numerous inadequacies of my Master's thesis and its minor strengths to turn this next phase into a small hut, (if I may borrow the metaphor from Francisco Cua, above) I can be proud to live in for some time to come. Many of these comments have helped focus some of my reflections.

I, like Caroline, have come to graduate school as a mature student, and, in addition to the acquired 'lived experience' that can support the focused research of learning to learn deeply, I have come with some romantic notions of what grad school is like. The greatest challenge to those romantic ideas and, not surprisingly, the biggest disappointment so far, has been the absence of interest among other grad students in my area in forming journal clubs or other group-supported means of exploring the extent literature. It is very difficult to arrive at some of the polished, coherent discussions that the many contributors to this thread identify as missing in doctoral dissertations when one is working entirely in a vacuum. While the comments on supervisors and supervision and on the needs of students to be realistic and relevant, focused and coherent are clearly on point, there does also need to be some willingness among the students to take their education in hand. Despite the recognition that we are all working on different topics from varying perspectives and with different methodologies, we are working with a common set of theoretical works and methodological choices. (Personally, I would like to make my research choices from a wide variety so that I can choose the best that applies to allow me the greatest possibilites to really understand my data, rather than choosing the only framework I sort of know.) I wonder if this lack of cohesion among grad students is a common experience, or if it is part of the temporal ebb and flow in the life of an academic institution.

Has sombody also included the fact that having a chair that is not agressive anough to detect quality indicators from the start , which can leave you as the researcher struggeling?

Based on my personal experience :

1-Thinking like undergraduates: Their is a big difference between lectures and research

2-Restricting their relations with their own supervisors and not fostering relations with faculty members who could also help in their research.

3-Not having fun: Research can sometime be frustrating, stressful and mentally exhausting, it is important to take time to have fun

Other errors are: finding the right research method to answer the research question and keeping the writing simple and clear.

There are many recurrent mistakes in the dissertation or thesis work. Three major seem to be:

- Deepening the subject enough to reach a very targeted and specific issue;

- Choosing carefully the theoretical framework for it is any real support to the analysis

- Taking the time to communicate with peers and teachers along the research work in order to enrich the subject.

let's say, first, this is part of teaching, it is not completely wrong to have some errors. second, you have a supervisor who can avoid such errors. third, there are different schools of conductinh thesis even in europe. My personal experince, the most common errors or mispresntation are the aim/objective of the thesis (not completely described in right way), citing relevant references and descriptive the findings of the thesis is proper way.

@ Carla Allen and @ Fathi M Sherif – The common errors of PhD students are related to the assumptions the supervisors as well as the students make regarding the knowledge base, level of preparation and motivation of PhD students. You have observed that “perhaps one of the common errors made as advisers is not developing a curriculum that adequately prepares students in ‘distinguishing ontology, epistemology, methodology, methods, etc.’” The bottom line or the main barrier is still in curriculum.

The inadequacy probably is due to the inadequate knowledge to the levels of knowledge expected from a novice (the PhD student) to the Philosophy. For example, New Zealand Qualification Authority has listed a ten-level framework (NZQA, 2011). Level 10 concerns the PhD, while Level 9 and Level 8 respectively concern Masters and Postgraduates. (Please refer to these three levels directly from the reference provided. I refer them as matrix in the discussion here.).

I am sure that the supervisors in New Zealand, of PhD students, might not have thorough knowledge of the above matrix in their supervision and the importance of skills development (first) as a means to knowledge acquisition (next) (Bellanca & Brandt, 2010). What they normally preach is that PhD students should CONTRIBUTE TO KNOWLEDGE to be qualified to have the PhD suffix in their name.

I will discuss this further about the error. However for the meantime, KINDLY CONTEMPLATE on the above matrix and relate it to the inadequacy of the supervisor, or to the inadequacy of the curriculum development. Critical reflections on the matrix might point back to the errors of supervisors, rather than those of the PhD students. This contradicts to the assumption that a supervisor can help the PhD students to avoid error...

REFERENCES

Bellanca, J., & Brandt, R. (Eds.). (2010). 21st Century Skills: Rethinking How Students Learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

NZQA. (2011). Understanding New Zealand qualifications. Retrieved 23 January 2013, from http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/studying-in-new-zealand/nzqf/understand-nz-quals/

In general to avoid the errors by student or researcher, we have to state that an evaluation is often initiated as a response to a problem in an operating program. Although in a way this is reasonable, since it initiates inquiry into situations where help is needed, two drawbacks need to be considered: first, the difficulty of beginning evaluation in an ongoing research program and the second, a tendency to perform evaluative research in a crisis. In order to do this, the supervisor and the student must work together from the outset, the results of the contineous evaluation must be useful of improving the research and avoidings errors as it moves toward objectives

Students have hard time matching citation and referencing. They get too tired before they put the last full-stop in their thesis; as a result, so much of citations is visible with little-a- match in the references section. We have "fought" with my doctoral students for sometime now. We have established a way forward to monitor their papers: writing a practice-sample-page or two and grading it; just like you would grade an essay! Feels frustrating but it is working!

Hello to all

@E. Alana James, you mentioned "I will start to publish this thread in a different format - for ease of use by students and others I am thinking about a Do's and Don'ts list - helping folks in the stream of events that make up their research pathways to steer clear of some of the common rocks - I'll publish it on scribd and link it here for others to use."

Have you actually done this yet?

I would like to follow up this Do's and Don'ts list, and eventually help peer reviewing it.

Ana

@ Lazarus Ndiku Makewa - I am using Endnote and does not find this task difficult. Endnote also allow immediate change of the Referencing format.

In my opnion, in summary, four most prevalent weaknesses (common errors) are

1. absence of a clear problem statement

2. lack of operational definitions adequate to permit replication of the study

3. inappropriate sampling (e.g., non-random assignment)

4. conclusions that are not justified on the basis of the study.

Ana - thanks for asking about the do's and don't from this - it had fallen off my radar but I hope to do it this week - actually on the calendar for tomorrow - we'll see what happens - Fathi - i completely agree - these are the challenges that keep students from passing defense or Vita

Major errors I see frequently in dissertations (and research papers by new researchers) are: (a) poor theoretical foundation, (b) imprecise and unclear research questions/hypotheses, (c) irrelevant literature reviews, and (d) failure to differentiate between findings and conclusions ( a repetition of findings does NOT pass for conclusions!).

@ Lynna Ausburn - You are right. Especially writing the conclusion. Both introduction and conclusion sections are difficult to write. The conclusions section is even more challenging. Other sections are comparatively easier to write.

In my opinion, the conclusion acts as a bridge to move back readers to their busy lives and routines, but RICHER with the insights that they have just read. There is a need of positive perceptions from them. The readers have to feel the satisfaction that they have read the paper (or the dissertation) and that they have something valuable, to see things differently. The broader implications in the conclusion section would enrich them in some ways.

@ Sachchidanand Swami – Good insight. Many new PhD students might not realize that the PhD marks the start of their commitment toward life-long learning. The PhD (or other doctorate) is simply a connecting point to the future.

1.Most of PhD student did not read research article regularly. When we instruct them to write research paper they cite old papers

2. Regularly did not check what research going on the topic of his/her research

3. Do experiment and accumulate data, later on when analyze data feel results are not up to mark.

@ Mohammad Jawaid - You are right. Most PhD students do not read research papers regularly. Probably, they have not learned the disciplined. If they cite old sources, either the old source is important or their supervisors are not doing their jobs well. Regardless, the "fault" rests on the students.

The analysis in a PhD thesis or dissertation is supposed to be comprehensive and in-depth. Imagine a capital T. The horizontal line represents the comprehensiveness of the topics (exploring all relevant issues). The vertical line represents the in-depth analysis (and discussion) of the topic (or issue) under focus. By imagining the T shape, the students will now the scope and the boundary to delineate.

@ Mohammad Jawaid - I found your "capital T" analogy astute and useful. I hope it is OK with you for me to incorporate your analogy into my disucssions with my PhD students.

@ Francisco Cua - Sorry, I believe the T-analogy came from you in response to Dr. Jawaid. I really do like this analogy. It is simple, easy to understand, yet quite useful in explaining breath and depth in research analysis.

@ Mohammad Jawaid - I strongly agree with your comments about students failing to continuously ready current research in their field. While it is entirely appropriate for researchers to read original and "classic" work in their field - and to cite these older works - it is also necessary to discover what has been done recently. I am also appreciative of the fact that sometimes researchers revive a theory or topic that has dropped out of the literature for a while. Unfortunately, education often drops older theories and constructs in favor of new "flavors of the month" when older ideas are still quite valid when applied in new contexts. In this case, it is necessary to drop back in time to find appropriate supporting literature. Nevertheless, it is true that new researchers sometimes are lazy or carefull in searching out newer literature. This is particularly a problem when they fail to point out that they are envoking older theories and research in the absence of newer ones, or when they state that "recent research has shown that ...." In a field such as technology, 2000 is NOT "recent research" - it is a lifetime ago!.

Other mistakes are :be able to tell what the study is all about in just a few sentences

If I may add my two cents:

1. Assuming that scientific writing will be easy and won't take too much time to do.

2. Writing without working on a blueprint first.

3. When reading a scientific article, skipping the Methods and Results sections and basing their interpretations on the Discussion.

3. Neglecting to go back to the literature to update their review once data collection and analysis, and writing are done and they (think they) are ready to submit.

4. Omitting to search for relevant literature by targeting ALL possible synonyms

5. Assuming that because something hasn't been done that it SHOULD be done.

The statement of the problem is not clear. Hence the objective of research and research questions are fuzzy.

@ Saadiyah Darus - very good point about the problem statement and its relationship to research purpose and questions. I call research problem/purpose/questions, the "big 3" when I teach my PhD students about research writing. Without clarity and precision in the problem statement, it cannot lead to clear purpose and then on to clear research questions.

A long, rambling statement of the problem usually indicates lack of clear understand of exactly what the problem is. What I tell my students is that if you cannot state your problem in about half a page, then you don't know what your problem is. I ask them to write, "The problem for this research is ....." then finish the sentence. After that, they need to explain WHY the problem IS a problem, remembering that mere lack of available information is not a problem in itself. It must be explained WHY a lack of available information is problematic.

Most of the time students complete their work and when it comes to the data analysis they realize that they hadn't planned their experiments well or according to the main theme of their research.

Second, even when there's some clarity in planning the experiment, there is a desire to have a specific result one way or the other. Means they don't back the results by what gone wrong or right when they were doing it.

@ Ahed Alkhatid - Thank you for your insight: "to induce certain changes to his design" might be likely. However if the person does not have proper design and yet he or she proceeds to build the house, then this shows that the person is not MATURE enough to engage in independent active learning for PhD.

The keyword to building the house in your context of "changes to ...[the] design" is ACCESS: Access to the solution (the small house that is a home) to be built, access to the data to be gathered, access to the background of the problem, and access to the problem. Of all these aspects, the access to the solution is the most important.

Unlike other lower-level (postgraduates or masters) students, the PhD students supposedly have the EMPOWERMENT to choose the access (embedded with the "design") to build his or her solution (the house). The empowerment is a condition (an antecedent) to the process of building the solution (the house).

The FIRST process fit for the PhD students is to design the solution to mitigate (existing or) emerging problem. The challenge is to build practical and realistic solution to complex, unfamiliar, unstructured, and unpredictable problem. On one side, the solution should be practical and realistic (imagine the solution as somewhat "relatively" simple to implement). On the other side, the problem is complex. Therefore, the EMPOWERMENT meets CREATIVITY of the solution to BALANCE the COMPLEXITY of the problem.

In the FIRST process, the emphasis is generating the solution (that is, building the house that is a home), rather than solving the problem. Generating the solution is not the same as solving the chain of problems, although both tasks can be conceived as the two sides of the same coin. In generating the solution, the threshold focuses on exploring options (the "design") in order to create the solution. Walking steps further, the expected outcome is a blueprint, the document that contains comprehensive and in-depth analysis and evaluation of issues, processes, and techniques; (2) that explores and understands the (macro, meso, and micro) contexts; and (3) that shares the implications of the solution on management beliefs, strategies, and goals (mission and vision).

Generating solution is forward thinking, with the creation of the solution. It is also backward thinking towards understanding the chain of problems. On the other hand, solving problems starts with understanding the problem, exploring its background, gathering facts, exploring options, and generating the solution.

I highlight the "first" process because there are other processes that the PhD students have to do to be successful...

Hi everyone! Sad that it took me so long but great that finally I have completed my commitment to publish this discussion in a format useable to our students - If interested, please go to my publications and download "overview of what experienced supervisors suggest to doctoral candidates". I would love it if some of you got back to me about whether and to what extent it proved useful.

from a Pakistani perspective, literature review and Background not well written, Hypothesis needs to be true or supported, critical evaluation missing, weak futuristic application of results and at time too vast a subject dealt with

@ Shazla Haris - In my opinion, background = literature review that supports the keywords in the topic. Hypothesis and variables are terms for quantitative research. While propositions and constructs are terms for qualitative research. We normally use qualitative research to EXPLORE the phenomenon. After the exploration, we use quantitatively research to PREDICT the phenomenon. These are two steps in research. Academics who are bias in favor of quantitative research dive into hypothesis and variables without exploring the phenomenon.

To ensure critical evaluation, I suggest the concept of T. This is the same as the concept of my small hut that is a home (see my above comment). The horizontal line explores all the breadth of the phenomenon. The vertical line EVALUATES the phenomenon deeply. In this way, I prefer a tall thin T than a short fat T.

1. Developing unrealistic time lines for completion of dissertation. I ask students to develop a time line with benchmarks so they can determine when / if they are on target. Missing a benchmark means reallocating your time (see mistake #3) and/or adjusting your time line to reflect a later graduation date. Students often project unrealistic time lines on others (dissertation chair and/or committee members). For example, several students expect a 24 hour turn around on edits for their project (some upwards of 100 pages). Not possible given faculty course loads, etc.... Time lines are greatly affected when ABD students leave "school" to work and/or due to life events (e.g., sickness).

2. Project is not tractable. While a dissertation should include a question that will advance their given field of study (i.e., be comprehensive), students often need to reign back ideas to something that can be completed within a given time line (see above) or with the resources available to them (e.g., I don't have the funds to purchase idiosyncratic equipment for each and every dissertation).

3. Allocation of time. There are many activities that compete for student's time. It is hard to find a good time to write and a good time to edit (I try to get students to separate the two behaviors). Prioritizing your dissertation over socialization, loved ones, sustenance, and other "ancillary" behaviors is a tough choice to make. My wife's dissertation advisor referred to holidays as "lost data time." Timely completion of a quality product must be within the top two priorities during one's doctoral program. If it is not, adjust your time line (see mistake #1 above).

The author of a dissertation likely knows more about that topic than almost anyone - it is a challenge for advisors to make sure that our graduate students also have broader knowledge that provides context for the research question.

I would sight one most common mistake that most of the good PhD students can not avoid. It is sure that the student understands the topic in much detail than any other person. When (s)he is asked to report his work, may be the thesis it self, it becomes difficult for her/him to realize that the detail information about the particular problem is not available to the some one who will be reading his thesis. Even for the examiner this might happen. For the supervisor it is very difficult to convince her/him such that at least a readable presentation is produced.

Dear Francisco Cua,

The biggest problems I have experienced was ..It took me 3 years to found a searchable topic ,and after 3 to 5 years of literature review , then, I found a small gap in Dr Hosftede' theory on Malaysia cultural studies ..then, I found my topic ! This is the worst experience as a student .

@ Yew Chin - You should be commented for perseverance. Now, you have "to switch" yourself mentally to be very positive in the perspective. This would be a good experience instead.

The cultural theory is like a "salt." If you focus on the "salt," then you will become proficient and an expert in dynamite making (the ancient Chinese kingdom controlled the movement of salt because of this). But you can use "salt" for food and voila a new wide venue opens: salt in curry laksa, etc. So instead of being an expert in dynamite, how about being an expert in culinary as you use your salt.

Do you know that Malaysia ranks first in the power/distance index? Philippines ranks fourth.

Look at the cultural theory from an interdisciplinary perspective. (What is your discipline?) The strength of the culture theory is the change is very slow. This means whatever indices there are, it is "somewhat" still applicable. I said "somewhat" because when you conduct your research, you might find something to falsify instead to validate. Another strength is culture tells good story, as long as the story is not about gun making.

Imagine alphabet T. The horizontal line is the theory that you have investigated for many years. The vertical line could be about power/distance. Its depth could touch in a phenomenon, such as globalization, entrepreneurship, corporate governance, upper management, etc.

Use ResearchGate feature (or this forum) and write to me. Hope I can me of help.

Dear Dr Cua, Thank you very much for your comment . I would like to share with you about my background . I join IBM Malaysia / Mesiniaga back to 1983 . As a trainee technician ( due to I am a " O" level drop out ) ,and I work my way up ,and became a Team Leader for Outsourcing and ITS department . I took the VSS and leave IBM on Year 2004 .

Dear Dr Cua,

When I read about the Organizational culture research project with IBM by Hosftede , I found what are problems when Malaysia PDI was 104 - Top in the world , I am very tempting to conduct this research ,and I also have get the consensus from Dr Hosftede to repeat the same research in IBM Malaysia , but due to the timing issue ,and I am focusing on my PhD proposal preparation , I delay this project .

As I mentioned before , I have collected quite a lot of information on this studies when I interview some of my senior IBMer whom actually took part in the survey back to early 70s . , I understand why the PDI is so high .

Regards

Chin

@ Yew Chin - Men are generally late bloomers. This phenomenon applies to you. You can EXPLORE and UNDERSTAND culture in context of International Entrepreneurship focusing on how the characteristics of the "innovators" in the organization influence the direction of the outsourcing in context of globalization. You can also EXPLORE culture in relation to BUSINESS MODELs. Many big businesses are dinosaurs and need to create new business models to be profitable or sustainable. How does the culture iof the "designer" (executive) influence the design.

The most important is the access to data. The access and the contexts need to be considered carefully.

@ Yew Chin - My suggestion is NOT to replicate the data of Hosftede even if the survey was dated back to early 70s. Go to this website (http://geert-hofstede.com) and you will find out that the evolution of culture is VERY SLOW. Therefore, you can safely assume explicitly in your thesis that the Hofstede's indices are still applicable in Malaysia.

Dear Dr Cua,

Thank you very much for your advise . My approach will be , Part One same set of original questionnaire for the earlier research will be used . Part Two will include the new set of question related to theory of evolution ,and change of attitude with social demographic information .

As a engineer in IBM ,and have went through two round of VSS , I seems a lot of changes of working attitude in IBM since 1983 - 2003 . Beside this , the change of culture in IBM is one of the most important factor which affected the IBM employee . Since the out come of this research does not looks good for the management of IBM , some of the senior manager ( also my colleague ) advise me not to take up this project !

Thanks

@ Yew Chin - This is a suggestion. If your thesis supervisor has positive bias in favor of quantitative research, my advice might contradict his or her advice. When you mentioned Part One and Part Two, I interpret it that you are heading toward quantitative research.

However if you will use culture as "salt" for "menu," you might want to seriously consider TELLing stories instead of INFORMing the relationships of variables. Therefore, you might want to EXPLORE telling stories through QUALITATIVE RESEARCH. For example, you have said that there are a lot of changes of working attitude. What are these changes? Your data access will be the IBM. You can use focus group discussions with many IBM employees. Your open-ended questionnaire (protocol level 1) can be crafted such that after the focus group discussions, you can go back to each participant and conduct an in-depth interview (using protocol level 2). Then after the interview, you might want to visit them again for more detail questions (using protocol level 3). Consider your interviews as conversations and when you draft your stories, let them review your stories to ensure the accuracy. With qualitative research, seven to ten good interviews can be adequate for a PhD thesis (a small hut that is a home). With quantitative research, you have to multiply each question by five. That is the number of respondents that you need. With qualitative research, the seven to ten interviews might provide you enough CONTEXT-RICH DATA for you to EXPLORE the relationships of, let's say, culture and something, UNDERSTAND the relationships in context of the phenomenon that you are investigating, and then SHARE your findings. In this way, it is as if you have constructed a small hut that is a home and you are inviting the readers to visit your home. :-)

I would like to share my experience while I supervising PhD thesis.The most common errors committed by the research scholars are;

i) Unable to differentiate Limitation of the study and Delimitation of the study,Perhaps we can draw a sharp demarcation line between Limitation and Delimitation.

ii) Under the statement of the problem many scholars are simply restate the title of the study.The statement of the problem does not mean the title.

iii)Often fail to summarize the review of related literature which is the vital part of the review by which we can identify the inferences made by the scholar,

Dear Dr Cua, What I intend to do was , just merely repeat the same set of questionnaire use by Professor Hosftede have done back to 70s. I just compare the out come of this new research with the old result performed 30 years ago . I am very confidence that , the outcome will be difference from the original outcome .

This means , a lot of those old index , like PDI will changed .

Another important reason why I am quite sure that , the break down of the original sample by social demographic on year 1970 are with me. The behavior of those sample worker will be the cause of the variance !

Any way , It is my pleasure to know you though discussion.

By the way , I will be in Manila on November to watch the Philippine Basketball league semi / final game by invitation from PBA Exco- member . I will come along with my vice president of MALAYSIA Basketball association and the former national team coach .May be, I could met up with you when I am in Manila.

Thank you.

Chin

Exco Member

KL Basket Ball Association

@ Yew Chin - Use your intuition to guide you. There is always a CHOICE with expected, unexpected, desirable, and undesirable consequences.

In a PhD thesis, an important component is MOTIVATION. Why did you decide to do what you do. And how do you contribute to knowledge? I suggest you write these two bits and then DECIDE.

A basic assumption with the cultural indices is that the change is slow. So, if you replicate, you can validate this assumption or falsify it. Why is it important to validate or falsify it?

When you proceed to execute this plan. There are likely two outcomes. One is the statistics could be same. It could be otherwise. Can you highlight the most significant achievement of what you have done? (This will have to wait until you have the outcome.)

Also, what is the profile of the respondents? How was it different to that of Hofstede? What challenge have you encountered? How did you overcome the challenge? How can we (the reader) learn from your experience in the replication? For example, if I want to replicate what you have done, what lessons can I learn from you? If you can be thorough about the lessons we can learn, this can be ONE contribution to knowledge.

(I will most probably be in Manila in November. Let us keep in touch.)

Dear Dr Cua,

Thank you very much for your advise !

I will take note on some of these advices . May be, I need to be prudent when I include all these points into my research methodology .

Thank you very much !

Cheers !