"And faith, 'tis pleasant til 'tis past

The mischief is that 'twill not last"

I actually think an important part of any student's, researcher's, or similarly engaged scholar's academic development requires such a questioning of "faith". Even if one is joyfully immersed in some topic impending defense of one's thesis makes one consider things one would, perhaps, not otherwise have given thought to. It's a crude analogy, but contrary to many popular beliefs special operation forces (in the US, Force Recon Marines, SEALs, special forces, whatever ISA is going by these days, etc.; in the UK the SAS & SBS, and son on) the intense training is designed to make volunteers quit. The idea is to make one really determine whether or not this is what they are interested in, why they are, and what they are prepared to do to stick to it. Any good scientist looses faith to some extent in some degree (or should) because science is about questioning the presumptions we were not aware we had. Also, many a student goes into graduate school (or even college) mostly because they are pushed. To give up on research and academia when you do not have a passion for long hours, little pay, and a "publish or perish" environment is what most people would do had they chosen to follow other paths to begin with. For those who remain tied to academic pursuits, challenges which question one's career decisions are important, as one either comes out more assured to find whatever truth one can, or decides to question whether research is suitable.

"And faith, 'tis pleasant til 'tis past

The mischief is that 'twill not last"

I actually think an important part of any student's, researcher's, or similarly engaged scholar's academic development requires such a questioning of "faith". Even if one is joyfully immersed in some topic impending defense of one's thesis makes one consider things one would, perhaps, not otherwise have given thought to. It's a crude analogy, but contrary to many popular beliefs special operation forces (in the US, Force Recon Marines, SEALs, special forces, whatever ISA is going by these days, etc.; in the UK the SAS & SBS, and son on) the intense training is designed to make volunteers quit. The idea is to make one really determine whether or not this is what they are interested in, why they are, and what they are prepared to do to stick to it. Any good scientist looses faith to some extent in some degree (or should) because science is about questioning the presumptions we were not aware we had. Also, many a student goes into graduate school (or even college) mostly because they are pushed. To give up on research and academia when you do not have a passion for long hours, little pay, and a "publish or perish" environment is what most people would do had they chosen to follow other paths to begin with. For those who remain tied to academic pursuits, challenges which question one's career decisions are important, as one either comes out more assured to find whatever truth one can, or decides to question whether research is suitable.

I'm agree with Andrew. Research is an endurance race in which what matters is to have decision when defending the ideas that one holds and being open to dialogue at the same time

The important thing is to accustom students at the university to be challenged to defend their work, ie, to take a more active attitude and understand that is how things works in the academia You also need to identify those students who have skills, and desires for research and instill this discipline of work.

I agree with Inigo. Students must be challenged throughout their university years.

I think it is our job as instructors to train our students to defend their research and justify their positions. Even should they pursue a career away from academia, this capacity to articulate clearly their work and justify their positions will be a great boon.

How do you train students? Training should be done in every class and every opportunity.

For undergrads, I teach a first year business modeling course. Part of every assignment is to answer a question based on their results: "What decision should Mr. Smith take? Why?"

As a graduate student, my professors would ask us "Why?", "What is the basis of this statement?". "What does this result mean?"

For students destined to academia, then they should be encouraged to attend research presentation, seminars and conferences and ask questions. We were also strongly encouraged to attend thesis proposal defense and thesis defense, to provide helpful comments.

I think this is an interesting topic. Sadly i found that not many students are interested in doing (or even reading) research. They see research as something too muhc theoretical, and they only wan't to apply knowledge, not produce it.

Research is an importan activity. We can't do research in all courses, but we can make our students to read research, and try to transmit them te importance of research in teh develpment of our fields.

I do agree with Francine that it is our job to train/ scaffold our students to conduct research and defend their findings. Developing students’ skills is a process that requires continuous training and developmentally appropriate scaffolding. Also, we need to act appropriately at earlier stages (k-12).

We need make them learn that t heir research, if sincere and truly relevant is not entirely separated form their own lives. Hence, defending their research becomes a s much as defending (at least) part of their dreams and most inner endeavors.

@Andrew Messing

An instructor who criticizes their student frankly and without reservation, but who will take the time out to see you any time you drop by to make sure that you have been taking their constructive criticism to heart and effectively acted on their advice is the greatest asset in the world to an undergraduate scholar. I am very lucky to have an instructor who cares enough to ensure that I am prepared for any peer- or IRB-review.

As she reminded me once, if she didn't actually care she would spend the obligatory 15 minutes making smalltalk and a few pen marks before shooing me out. I feel much more prepared than most of my peers for that reason.

So in short, if you want one of your prodigies to succeed, make sure they know how to write a concise and relevant piece of research that won't fall apart under the withering inquisition of an IRB... by treating them to the same level of scrutiny and pressure during the writing process, but while always be willing to spare a small part of your day to act as a true mentor when they need you to offer counsel.

In our case, part of the research subject is orientation. We also set priority areas for research and let the students align their interest with these priorities. They are also made to convince the thesis evaluators of the importance of their research. With this situation, I would say that our students are adequately trained to defend their research.

I htink we can get inspired by some of the practices of certain top universities who make it a requirement that their Doctoral students are trained in what is called "SOFT SKILLS".

Often these involve adressing diverse training needs through the PDP (personal development planning). Such training can involve topics such as writing skills, critical thinking and argumantation, oral presentation skills, using specific software packages, graduate teaching assitant training, preparing lecture notes...etc

To my knowledge, the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom excells in such training.

Some excellent ideas have been presented.

With the current state of higher education at most institutions of higher education in the US, graduate students are being recruited because they are "profitable." Grad students are cheap labor. If department drives out the uncommitted, the university will respond negatively to retention rates.

I believe that research should be applied. Students should be able to clearly see how the work that they do is contributing to answering important questions or solving significant problems. If they can't, I suspect that they are not being mentored effectively, or, at the risk of a false dichotomy, maybe their work really isn't very important. If all a student does all day is crunch numbers, transfer cultures, mount slides, grade undergraduate papers, etc., then no wonder they can't see the big picture.

Sometimes I wonder if the problem is not about knowing the significance of the work, but about being able to articulate a cogent response. I strongly dislike the term soft skills, Mohamed, because it makes those skills appear to be less valuable or of lower priority (I know you are not taking that perspective). The opposite is true. Of course, given my background, I would recommend that students be pushed to work on their presentation skills. Most undergrads have to take a speech course, but the assignments are designed to be general (certainly not a conference-style research presentation). Contact a member of your university's communication department, and I am confident that someone would be willing to host a seminar in communicating technical information effectively. If not, let me know, and I will help if I can. If your university has a speaking center, encourage your students to receive individual tutoring.

@Andrew: I agree completely. Questioning what we're doing in the profession (of research or anything for that matter) is paramount. But do you think that students need to be made to realise the importance of this questioning or do dedicated students stumble upon the thought? I'm asking since I know of people who've completed their doctorates and still wouldn't be able to defend or explain why they researched a particular area.

@Inigo and Francine: Thanks for the inputs; I do agree :)

@Phil: It's relieving and encouraging to know that your instructor is available for your and your work's development. What kind of training/cross-questioning makes you feel better prepared than your peers?

@Steven: A very interesting argument really. Some students may know the worth of their work, but may not be able to articulate it adequately. But my fear is that more often than not, they enter research areas without knowing why they're there. Your thoughts?

I do think that students should be pushed to question and defend their ideas, conceptions, arguments, etc., in general. That is, although students need to be able to learn to question their assumptions and defend them "throughout the research cycle" (as you say), being pushed to do this is the foundation of learning. There is a reason that, 2,400+ after Socrates, the Socratic method and Socratic dialogue remains a viable (albeit not inviolate) teaching method. The only way one can advance beyond what they are told, whether in research and the advancement of a field, or personal discovery, is by learning to assimilate information into a framework that one can use as the basis to pose questions and seek answers. I have met individuals without colleges degrees whom I'd love to have as collaborators and post-docs who seem to me (whether I'm right or no) to be stuck in some epistemological rut often via an ideological approach to their field they received from the very advisors whose task it was to help them to go farther than they. As an author I enjoyed when I was younger put it: "This is how humans are: We question all our beliefs, except for the ones that we really believe in, and those we never think to question" -O. S. Card

I would say that we don't question most of our beliefs in general, and that a central goal of education is to impart not merely the importance of doing so but how to do so (i.e., how to think analytically, reason, evaluate and argument critically and logically even or especially one's own, etc.). But this is of general importance and not limited to researchers. It is certainly necessary for research, it's just something that should begin earlier in one's education.

Interesting! By the way, could anyone suggest questions that might be asked to such students ? I'm going to face a defence proposal soon. Any tips?

Dear Fatimah,

I do not think there are standard questions. But I must stress the following:

1. Your thesis defense takes place on an equal to equal basis. You will not be defending your work as a student, but rather as an equal to your panel members,

2. Nobody knows your work better than you. This should give you all the confidense in the world to defend your thesis on very solid grounds,

3. You must know very clearly the type of arguments you have built in your thesis, your results, and your contributions.

I wish you a very good luck.

Some doctoral students lack the soft skills required to give value to their work. These skills can range from oral presentation skills, to the competent use of specialised software, to academic writing skills. Often, some very talented researchers produce excellent research but fail to give it its due value because they downplayed the importance of these very soft skills. So I think it is important that they go through a skill screening process right at the beginning of their research, as this would allow them to adress any weaknesses.

@ Shafig, there is no need to train students. Students will be good if they receive good and close guidance form their supervisors.

@Mahfuz: I agree that close guidance *should* enable adequate defence. But if that does not occur, do you think about kind of training will help?

There are many ways to enable a student how to defend his or her research inclusive the comments from previous scholars like supervisor's guidance, preparing a long & comprehensive list of possible Q&As etc.  I find another good training method is to expose the student to colloquiums organized by the university / other universities in which what the student had prepared & presented will be challenged by other students and panel of professors.  This will broaden the student horizon & depth on his or her topic and enable him or her to see issues from different angles / lens.  The colloquium not only can help in the thesis proposal defense and conference proceeding preparation but also in the final thesis viva.