This is not mine (but is important): PhD Thesis Writing

This is not mine but is really important for your thesis work:
Make it clear what is yours
Source: © 1996. Modified 2/11/06 Joe Wolfe / J.Wolfe@unsw.edu.au, phone 61- 2-9385 4954 (UT + 10, +11 Oct-Mar). School of Physics, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

If you use a result, observation or generalisation that is not your own, you must usually state where in the scientific literature that result is reported. The only exceptions are cases where every researcher in the field already knows it: dynamics equations need not be followed by a citation of Newton, circuit analysis does not need a reference to Kirchoff. The importance of this practice in science is that it allows the reader to verify your starting position. Physics in particular is said to be a vertical science: results are built upon results which in turn are built upon results etc. Good referencing allows us to check the foundations of your additions to the structure of knowledge in the discipline, or at least to trace them back to a level which we judge to be reliable. Good referencing also tells the reader which parts of the thesis are descriptions of previous knowledge and which parts are your additions to that knowledge. In a thesis, written for the general reader who has little familiarity with the literature of the field, this should be especially clear. It may seem tempting to leave out a reference in the hope that a reader will think that a nice idea or an nice bit of analysis is yours. I advise against this gamble. The reader will probably think: "What a nice idea---I wonder if it's original?". The reader can probably find out via the net or the library.

If you are writing in the passive voice, you must be more careful about attribution than if you are writing in the active voice. "The sample was prepared by heating yttrium..." does not make it clear whether you did this or whether Acme Yttrium did it. "I prepared the sample..." is clear.

PHD Route (According to St Andrews University)



A typical PhD might progress as follows: 

Year One. Time is spent on in depth research into your chosen field of study. By the end of the year you will have completed at least one chapter of your thesis, participated in the annual postgraduate conference and study day, drafted a full plan for your thesis (chapter breakdown) and worked out your timetable for completion. This is a good year in which to hone language skills, and perhaps to take extended research trips overseas (including in the past, trips by former students to Hong Kong, Russia, Turkey, South Korea, etc). 
 
Year Two. Written at least two or three further chapters. Gained experience as a seminar tutor throughout the year. Participated in, and perhaps organised, the annual postgraduate conference and study days. Written book reviews. Delivered conference papers at other institutions, either nationally or internationally.

Year Three. Completed your first full draft of the thesis. Consolidated your teaching experience as a seminar tutor, perhaps also delivering some lectures. Participated in, and perhaps organised, the annual postgraduate conference and study days. Worked up a draft of a journal article for submission to a reputable refereed journal. Delivered conference papers at other institutions.

Year Four (writing up year). Completed and submitted final draft of thesis. Delivered full length, one hour paper on your research as part of the Centre for Film Studies Seminar Series. Continued work on publications, conferences and even applications for funding, as you enter the job market. 

Intellectual generosity?

"The lessons of scholarship begin with intellectual generosity to the scholars who precede us. Ironically – although perhaps not – candidatures also conclude there" . Mrs. Brabazon


Read the full article:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=410208

Pst: I have to confess that I am not agree with her advice, but sometimes is nice to think how terrible a bad supervisor could be. The most amazing thing in this article, from my point of view, is how many arguments some of them need to write to believe that they are powerful. Just be careful, because, in fact... they are!