NOTES: Entry Filters -- how is a PhD different from a Masters?

Compare and contrast the scope, remit and threshold requirement from Masters to PhD. 

  • Masters - mainly taught components (lectures and seminars, etc)
  • PhD - may include taught or training modules in the first year, then majority of the time is spent in independent study, guided by supervisors. (So, think "dissertation component of Masters" but extended over three years, or six years if a part-time or distance learning PhD).

There is also a significant ‘step change’ in the standards and expectations of PhD research: normally, PhD applicants only accepted on the back of a very good to excellent Hons undergrad degree (i.e. a First) PLUS a very good to strong Masters (i.e. 'merit' or 'distinction'). 

A PhD proposal *may* build from a Master dissertation *topic* BUT admissions tend to view unfavourably, because an undergrad or MA dissertation is usually an exercise in synthesis, i.e. not original but mostly drawn from other published materials plus perhaps some new data. 

A PhD requires much greater scope, scale and questioning. Perhaps the MA work identified a copy in a field or issues with current research, which may prompt the aim of the doctoral research proposal, but you need to say what NEW contribution your research will make in that field, and be able to make a case for it. 

As a professional with employment history, I will need to draw on (and highlight) transferrable skills and experience, such as research and report writing, and be able to demonstrate application of those skills in the field of study, in my case, history.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NOTES: Plan & Write a Literature Review (3.11-3.12)

You will need to provide a list of references of all the material you have drawn on at the end of your proposal. The quality of the material you have discussed is just as important as the quantity. demonstrate that you have a fair sense of current trends in the area. show that you can think your way through the literature, synthesise a range of work, indicate where there are debates, and ground your own ideas in an existing tradition (which can include showing how your work challenges or is set against a given tradition)  convince the reader that you are creative thinker, who is not simply reproducing what has been done before, but someone actively wishing to participate in moving scholarly work forward in a chosen or specific area STRUCTURE = storyline HEADLINE : the problem to be addressed [succinct, forceful] present your research problem clearly, grounded in the literature INTRODUCE THE LITERATURE Only discuss literature and research context that  are directly relevant to ...
Read more

NOTES: Literature Review - Purposes & Where to Start (3.1-3.2)

Show you have engaged (or *can* engage) with the scholarship around your topic and have some idea of relevant theoretical and/or methodological approaches.  Provides overall context as to what your trying to do, which helps in assessing feasibility and establishing criteria for success/failure. Narrow in on succinct statement of the tradition of the work in your area that you feel is relevant/important, and of your scholarly values.  Enables you to define series of research questions to guide and frame your work.  Don't just list and evaluate work done by others to date. Write a  ‘problem-oriented’ narrative   beginning - identify the main issue middle - add in scholarship to date and develop a framework  end - pose a set of focused RQs. Start with what you know identify related theories and authors who publish around the topic you are interested in snowballing - look at works cited by the authors you know, track them down --> build up picture of researc...
Read more

NOTES: Organising notes as you're reviewing literature (3.10)

What is the main research problem for the authors and why is it an issue? How have they chosen to frame the problem? Might there be other ways to do this? What literature do they point to in developing their research questions? How do these questions relate to what other people have done? What are the research questions posed? How clear are they to you? If there is an empirical component, then what kinds of methods do they adopt? Are there other alternatives? What are their key findings? And just as importantly, what did they not find? What is absent? What conclusions do they draw from the findings? Do these appear to be valid? Overall, what might you think is the contribution of the paper to the research literature? (This last one is not easy at this stage – after all, you are only just starting out and so cannot easily say if a paper is right and what its full contribution or value might be – thus think about whether the ideas or arguments  convince  you). BASED ON THE NOTES...
Read more