The time for the Hive Evaluation Survey has come and we would be grateful if you could take some time to share your experience and views about the Hive space, events, and activities! It should only take
you around 10 minutes to complete the survey and, as a thank you, if you
provide your email address you will be automatically entered into a
prize draw to win one of two £20 book vouchers.
The results of the evaluation will be used to inform decisions about
the Research Hive, so your contribution is very much appreciated! We will also write up our findings on the Research Hive
blog.
The Library is looking for three Sussex doctoral researchers
who have the creativity, enthusiasm and initiative to develop the Research Hive
next year. The Scholarship will run from September 2015 to the end of June 2016
and attracts a bursary of £3250 (sponsored by SAGE Publications). The closing date for applications is midnight on Wednesday 3rd June.
Find further information and application details here.
While anticipating the Hive Doctoral Discussions event on Viva, we thought it's a good idea to re-post a brilliant piece written by Dr Sarah Robins-Hobden, Researcher Developer, Trainer, and Coach, on her own Viva. The piece was originally posted on the Doctoral School blog in 2010: https://doctoralschool.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/my-viva-experience. We find Sarah's notes and tips on her Viva experience priceless, so we'd like to share them with all of you who are preparing for their own Viva. Enjoy!
Notes on my viva
Just a note: I found my viva exam to be one of the
most positive experiences of my doctorate. If you’re looking for viva
horror stories, you’ll need to go elsewhere, sorry.
Firing up
I had not been nervous really until the actual day of the viva. Then
it started to come on in the morning, building slowly, until early
afternoon, when I started to feel drenched in fear. Immediately before
going in at 3pm, it was at its utter worst. The viva took place in my
internal examiners office, and as my Supervisor escorted me from the
cafe, I felt I was walking the walk of doom. I shook hands with my
examiners, and sat at the table, in front of a small bottle of water
with a plastic cup.
My internal examiner started off apologising for not having arranged
tea. He said that the viva would not be very long, and that it was
unusual for a candidate to be told this in advance. I wasn’t to read
anything into this, the fixed duration of the viva being set by the
train and plane times arranged for my external examiner. We had two
hours, and we kept up a good pace throughout the exam, and as it was, I
felt I could have discussed some topics for longer, though I must say
that I didn’t feel rushed or that we missed anything.
First gear
I was still exceedingly nervous at this point, and the first thing I
was asked, was to talk for 10 to 15 minutes about the background to how
my research came about, the journey that I took, and the highlights
along the way. I can sometimes waffle. Really waffle. Sometimes when
the handbrake on my mouth is released, and after several metaphorical
miles of talking, I can discover to my horror that my brain has been
humming away in neutral for the entire journey. I’m also blessed/cursed
with self-awareness, so I *know* I sometimes do this, and I *know* how
awful it is to find myself doing it. So I worry about doing it, and
become absurdly vigilant, often stopping mid-sentence and saying things
like “ok, I should shut up now”, or “…erm, that didn’t answer your
question, did it?”. Despite all this, and after a very cautious start, I
soon got into the rhythm of it, started to trust that my brain was
firing on all cylinders, and found myself weaving a fairly coherent and
competent narrative around the six experiments that form my thesis.
About 8 minutes in, I finally started to relax. I realised I *did* know
my work very well, that there was an interesting story to be told, and
that they story was mine to tell. And I started to realise that I had
an audience of two avid listeners, who were hanging on to everything I
said with genuine interest. This had not happened to me before.
I don’t want to paint an impossibly rosy picture, so know this: that
first question was the easiest. I did not fully relax at any point
during the 2 hours I was in there – but I think that must be right. It
is an exam. The culmination of five years of my life: 3 of active
research, and 2 of (on and off) writing. You cannot relax if you
stimulated, excited, alert and interested, and I was all of these.
Also, I was painfully aware that my thesis was not as tied up as it
should have been. For reasons I won’t go into here, I had run up tight
against the wire with submission times, and some sections were mere
vignettes rather than critical analysis. I was fairly confident that my
experimental methods and results were sound. But I knew that the
introductions and conclusions they were wrapped in were less so, and in
some cases almost insubstantial. I was fully expecting what we commonly
call “major corrections”, and praying not be offered an MPhil or failed
outright.
Full throttle
We progressed through my thesis, stopping here and there so my
examiners could question me further. This wasn’t the page-by-page slow
death I had previously imagined, and the questions seemed to fall into
three loose categories:
To explore in depth or recap something I had written about
To establish something I had not written about, and perhaps should have
To consider the what-ifs of my research (especially as my conclusions and discussions were not very strong)
This seemingly meandering route through my thesis took me by surprise
– a lot of the sections I had made notes on, and the majority of what I
thought were glaring holes in my critiques, methods or research, were
skated over or not touched on at all. A couple of points that I had
previously thought quite minor, we explored in great depth, and I found
myself doing some proper hard thinking. There was one particular
section that I knew was very thin, and I had been prepared to be grilled
on it quite hard. In the end, I was asked a couple of minor questions,
and it was left at that. It’s only now, with the benefit of hindsight
that I can see that I wasn’t pushed on that section because it wasn’t
central to my argument. And the sections I was stretched on, were very
central to my argument. Sounds obvious now, doesn’t it?
Throughout the viva, I felt I was being asked to look at my work from
other viewpoints, and it wasn’t always easy. Some of the questions I
had to ask to be rephrased because I didn’t understand them, and a
couple I started answering and had to be stopped because I had grasped
the wrong end of the stick and proceeded to beat myself over the head
with it. In one cringe-inducing instance, my internal examiner had to
paraphrase my mangled answer for me, so that the external examiner could
understand my response, whilst I sat nodding dumbly.
Most of the time though, it did feel like a discussion, with the
questions being prompts. My examiners posed some interesting ideas that
I hadn’t thought of myself, and many of which will be very useful when
revisiting my thesis. Getting another’s perspective on your own
research is useful, talking to two interested senior academics about
your research is valuable, and having that dialogue with the person who
is at least the UK, if not world expert in your field (the external
examiner), is priceless. Perhaps it is because I felt like this – I saw
my viva as an opportunity, and not as a trial – that I feel so positive
about the experience, and got so much from it.
Rear-view Mirror
I think It helped, too, that there had been a 5-month gap between my
thesis submission, and my viva – something that frustrated me a bit at
the time. This isn’t an unusual length of time, but it was enough that I
was able to let go of my thesis for a while, and it helped me get a
more objective stance on it (though of course you can never be
completely objective about an x-thousand-word thesis that took three
years to research). I went and reintegrated myself into other aspects
of my life for a while, and when I returned, I certainly found myself
being less precious about my research, more open to new ideas, and more
accepting of constructive criticism. Above all, I realised I was ready
to “kill my darlings”. I doubt I would have felt this way in the first
three months after submission. All things need time to mellow, and I’m
glad I had the time and space to do so.
Rejoining the highway
Back to the viva… Afterwards, I was asked to leave the room while the
examiners decide upon their recommendation to the exam board. They
came to get me shortly afterwards (15 mins or so?) and we returned to
the exam room. The examiners wanted me to know that I had viva’d well –
that I had given considered answers, that I had shown a good
understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of my research and thesis,
and how it might fit into the overall field. Then they worked through
the first three outcome categories allowed for on the Sussex form shown
here:
First 3 viva outcomes at Sussex
Category a) is rarely awarded. Both examiners said that they
disagreed with the way the outcomes are worded – they could no recommend
outcome b) because the amendments permitted under this category are
specific, and my thesis needed more revision than that. But they didn’t
agree with category c) either – they felt that there was too great a
gap between b) and c), and they both objected to the use of the word
“fail” that applies to category 3. (As it happens, I believe Sussex is
in the process of reviewing the wording on these forms, but the wheels
move excruciatingly slowly in HEIs). So, the recommendation from my
examiners was to be outcome 3, but they agreed that I need not sit
another viva, and that my internal examiner could approve the
corrections. This all sounds a bit flat when written down, but it was
actually very encouraging, and my external said that there was “at least
one, if not two papers” to be had from my thesis – and to this point I
had thought there was none! I was also advised that I should take some
time to immerse myself back into the literature before diving in to make
corrections – and I shall be heeding that advice closely.
Aftermath
Afterwards I felt elated, excited about my work, energised and
re-motivated. I also felt a little intellectually knackered. You know
that feeling your body gets the day after a hard workout when you’re not
used to it? That’s how my brain felt. Good stuff. :)
Questions I remember being asked (as I best remember them, not word-for-word):
Could you talk us through the background of how your research came
about, and the journey you took, including some of the highlights you
encountered along the way?
Your literature review on SSS[1] starts with Prof A’s 1981 paper,
and work on humans. I wondered if you’d considered going back to
earlier work with animals, such as that of Prof B, as it may be central
to some of your later work on learning?
There seems to be an absence of dissenting voices in your review –
have you come across the argument that SSS does not exist, that the
measurements might be a reflection of the wanting / liking dichotomy?
For example from Prof C, or Prof D?
The bulk of your research relies upon a single dependent variable.
What is your reasoning behind that, and how might it affect your
conclusions?
You refer here to phenomena Y, could you expand on this please?
On page xx you outline two opposing theories of Z – could you explain a bit more about how the theories contrast?
Could you tell me how Flavour-flavour learning works? Why, for
instance, would a novel flavour become more liked after exposure with a
sweet taste such as sugar? And how would that be attributed to flavour,
and not to energy learning?
You make the assertion of hypothesis H1 here, and it looks like you
base that on a single published paper. Is there any other reason you
might expect X to be the case?
All your experiments use a fixed portions of food. What made you
decide on this method? Can you think of any limitations using fixed
portions might have had on your results?
All your data is collected from VAS (visual analogue scales). Can
you think of any other measures that might have been appropriate to
take?
Experiment 1 presented some unexpected group differences at baseline – have you any thoughts on why this might be?
In Experiment 2, your results show a significant linear contrast,
and would probably show a significance for a quadratic contrast too.
But this relies on the way you have ordered your categorical
experimental conditions. How was this ordering decided, and was that
before or after you collected the data?
Experiment 3 is underpowered – could you talk us through how this came about, and why you decided not to use some of the data?
The effect you found in Experiment 2 is absent from Experiments 3
and 4 – do you have any thoughts on why this might be the case?
You did an additional ANCOVA (analysis of covariance) on the data
for experiment 4. Do you think that conducting a similar analysis on
experiments 2 and 3 might reveal some more answers?
Did you collect this sort of data from participants at different
time points in the experiment? So you could go back and look at that to
see if those data provide more answers?
It is interesting that you used materials and methods in experiment 6
that worked well for other researchers, but didn’t provide you with the
same effects in your work here. What are your ideas on reasons for
that?
How might expectancy effects have interfered with your results in the final two experiments?
What could be done to improve the design of this experiment?
If you were to go back to the beginning of your research, what would you do differently?
[1] phenomenon that is the focus of my research
We would like to thank Dr Sarah Robins-Hobden for letting us re-post her blog post.
The Research Hive is proud to present the Doctoral Discussions event on Viva!
Anxious about how to defend your thesis? Interested in getting the best
tips for surviving your PhD viva? The Sussex Research Hive is here to help you out with all
your viva-related questions! Come along to the last session in the Research Hive's Doctoral Discussions series to hear from
fellow researchers and share experiences.
We're looking forward to seeing you all on Tuesday 2nd June, 12.30-2pm, in Fulton 107.
There’s so much going on around the campus,
and as we all squirrel away on our research, it can be easy to lose sight of
what other people are up to. So to keep connected with what other researchers
are doing, we’re starting a new blog feature called ‘Spotlight on Research’!
Name: Jay Culligan
Year: 2nd
Department: School of Life Sciences
Thesis
title: A quantitative and qualitative analysis of Sepia officinalis (the common
cuttlefish) patterning and camouflage
When
I’m not writing my thesis I: take care of my
cuttlefish down at the Sea Life Centre in Brighton, and I take care of the
zebra fish on campus. With the little free time I find, I spend it with friends
and other researchers and make time for the gym and a good long run. As an
American, my travel through Europe hasn’t been too extensive, but I’m taking
advantage of England and seeing as much of the world as I can.
My
PhD is about: My research focuses on the remarkable
colour changing capabilities of cuttlefish species. They’re amazing creatures.
With their skin connected to their brain, they are capable of changing their
whole body colour in less than a second. This is faster and can produce more
patterns than the chameleon!
This capability becomes even more
fascinating when you consider that cuttlefish possess a visual system similar
to vertebrates. Cuttlefish are mollusks, making them more closely related to a
clam than humans. Studying this similar visual system opens up interesting
questions about how evolution crafted such a similar visual system in a species
so alien to our own. They have blue blood and three hearts, so they’re as alien
a species as you can get to humans!
So what do I do exactly? Well, I take
pretty pictures of cuttlefish and do some statistics on the images. What I do
with those statistics is the cool part. Research over the past few decades has
shown how altering environments can produce a range of patterns. I am
investigating the full pattern capability. What is their full pattern
repertoire? What can they produce that we haven’t seen yet?
Finding new ways to manipulate their
environment not only helps me understand how their patterning system works, but
answers unique questions about their visual system capabilities and how well
they camouflage to a large diversity of environments. Vision and camouflage
research is great and has wider application than the military. We can answer
questions on evolutionary pressures to visual systems, hypothesise how
evolution has shaped animals body patterns based on the visual capabilities of
their predators and prey, and how the cells and neural systems can encode the
large amount of information from our environment through the eyes.
I'm lucky to work with these animals and I can convince you they're the coolest things on the planet over a pint any day!
Would you like to share your research with our wide readership in a ‘Spotlight on Research’ post?
Just email a profile in the same structure as the one above to researchhive@sussex.ac.uk. The description of your PhD should be in a conversational style that is easy to understand for non-experts, and the whole thing should be under 500 words.
There’s so much going on around the campus, and as we all
squirrel away on our research it can be easy to lose sight of what other people
are up to. So to keep connected with what other researchers are doing, we’re
starting a new blog feature called ‘Spotlight on Research’!
Name: Lana Harper Year: 2nd Department: School of English, Centre for Early Modern and
Medieval Studies. Thesis title:Moving Indoors: Repositioning Theatrical
Practice in Seventeenth Century Politics. When I’m not writing my thesis I: Wheeze through my marathon
training, edit Sussex’s interdisciplinary journal ‘Excursions’, try to learn
French, eat vast quantities of chips and drink too much wine. Oh, and I dabble
with running this blog! So you might have seen me at some Hive events in my
role as Hive scholar. My PhD is about: My research is a broad sweep of the way that theatre changed
from the 1560s to 1700, both as an industry and as an art form. I’m doing this
by looking how the buildings that plays were performed in changed across that
time, and how this affected the types of plays that were written to be
performed in them. Since the first permanent commercial playhouses were only
built in London in the 1560s and 1570s, I’m really talking about the birth of
English theatres. One of the main shifts I’m looking at is how playhouses
changed from large, open-air theatres such as the Globe to much smaller, indoor
theatres. I also look at how they were originally built in the outskirts and
suburbs of London, and then started to move into the city centre and form the
origins of the modern West End, particularly after the Restoration of the
Monarchy in 1660.
My main focus is on English theatres – and this actually
means London theatres as no other city had a big enough population for a permanent
theatre at the time. But I also have a brief look at the drama in neighbouring
countries, such as Ireland, Scotland and France. Scotland had very little
theatre after James VI and I left for London when he became King in 1603, because
the Kirk was hostile to it. Ireland had a short-lived theatre in the late
1630s, just before the outbreak of the English Civil War. It catered to the
Anglo-Irish aristocracy and seems to have been a form of cultural imperialism
by the English. And France had its own rich and different tradition of theatre
that the English borrowed many elements from. But because the Monarchy were
closely associated with French courtly life, the French elements that were
absorbed into English drama (which originally grew from a much more home-based
tradition)ran roughly in parallel to
the gentrification of theatre as a form.
Overall, I argue that the move towards small, indoor,
central London theatres began to turn theatre from a popular and accessible
form of entertainment to the elitist one it still is today.
Would you like to share your research with our wide
readership in a ‘Spotlight on Research’ post? Just email a profile in the same structure as the one above
to researchhive@sussex.ac.uk.
The description of your PhD should be in a conversational style that is easy to
understand for non-experts, and the whole thing should be under 500 words.
March has been really productive for the Research Hive! Here are the
things we’ve done and are planning to do until the event of the month:
Doctoral Discussions event on
Teaching
Doctoral Discussions is a series of peer-support sessions on topics
that are particularly relevant to PhD students and researchers, and this one
was all about Teaching! Doctoral students and researchers from all around the
campus came along to share tips and experiences on how to be an effective and
confident tutor. We do believe that people got well informed and enjoyed a
lively and useful discussion. Next Doctoral Discussions event topic:
Collaboration - we’ll keep you updated for that one!
Wellbeing Week - Origami Hour
That was a great one! As part of the Wellbeing Week on campus (March
9th-13th), we put up an event on how to make Origami. We found out that folding
paper can be quite challenging but much fun at the same time. We’ve managed to
create some really nice designs (a few of them look pretty professional) and
decorated the Hive. You can have a look at our creations in the Hive during
this week, plus we’ve left plenty of origami paper and designs on the tables
for you to give it a go too! Check all the Wellbeing Week events here: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/wellbeing/newsandevents/wellfair
Hive zen
Shut Up & Write session
Last but not least, our Shut Up & Write session is planned for the
13th of this month (this Friday), 2-4pm, in the Quiet Room of the Meeting
House. February’s sessions proved very productive for all of us who were there,
so don’t miss the chance for a real productivity boost this month! Join our
special Shut Up & Write facebook group for more info: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1568896606700249/
As always, we’re more than happy to receive questions, suggestions,
and blog pieces from anyone that’s interested in the research community at
Sussex, so keep in touch through our social media pages or send us an email to researchhive@sussex.ac.uk
