Graduate Handbook

2010–11

Department of History and Philosophy of Science

University of Cambridge
Free School Lane
Cambridge CB2 3RH

Tel: 01223 334500 Fax: 01223 334554

hps-admin@lists.cam.ac.uk
www.hps.cam.ac.uk/students
Contents
Introduction 3

General information 4
Departmental staff 8

MPhil in History, Philosophy and Sociology of Science,

Technology and Medicine
Introducing the MPhil 9
The MPhil course 17
Part III-MPhil seminars 2010–11 21
How the MPhil is examined 23
Continuation to the PhD 27
A note about plagiarism 28
MPhil essay and dissertation topics 30

PhD in History and Philosophy of Science

Welcome to new PhDs 32
The PhD programme 34
Supervising undergraduate students 41

Graduate training 45

2
Introduction
This handbook is intended for current graduate students in the Department of History and
Philosophy of Science. A separate booklet, available from the departmental office, sets out
details of undergraduate teaching in History and Philosophy of Science, including lectures,
supervisions and preliminary readings. Prospective graduate students should refer to our
graduate studies website (www.hps.cam.ac.uk/studying/graduate), which also includes
information about funding for graduate students.

Here you will find information on departmental resources, and on members of staff and their
research interests. Details of the MPhil course and teaching, and a sample list of MPhil essays
and dissertations submitted in past years are included. This handbook also outlines PhD
supervision arrangements.

The Department’s Degree Committee is responsible for managing graduate admission, teaching
and examination, and details are provided here of administrative matters, including schedules for
degree registration, supervision arrangements, and examination of dissertations.

If you have any suggestions of further information that should be included in this handbook, let
us know. Contact the department office on 01223 334500 or email hps-admin@lists.cam.ac.uk.

If you would like to join the Department’s lively email discussion group please send an email to
hps-admin@lists.cam.ac.uk and ask to subscribe to the list.

3
General information
The Department
The Department is the largest of its kind in the UK, with an outstanding international reputation.
It is built around the Whipple Museum, which contains a world-class collection of scientific
instruments, the gift of R.S. Whipple to the University in 1944. The Whipple Library, founded
on Whipple’s gift of his rare scientific books, is the largest specialist library in the history and
philosophy of science and medicine in the country. It functions as the departmental library and
provides the basis for research and teaching at both undergraduate and graduate level.

There are nine established University Teaching Officers, including five Professors and two
Readers. The Department has strong links with other departments and faculties in the University.
Total undergraduate numbers are in the range 100–140. There are approximately 20 MPhil
students per year. PhD students at any one time total around 45. There are many Research
Fellows and Visiting Scholars also attached to the Department.

The Whipple Library

The Library is open to all undergraduates, graduates, visiting scholars and senior members of the
University, and others on application to the Librarian. The Library aims to support teaching and
research in the Department and holds copies of all readings used in the MPhil seminar. It also
has computers for accessing the Library Catalogue, the internet, electronic journals and other
subscribed electronic resources. See the website at www.hps.cam.ac.uk/library for further
details. There is available for use in the Library a scanner, a microfilm reader printer/scanner and
photocopier: £1 card (16 copies), £5 card (88 copies). User education sessions are held during
Michaelmas Term.

Please register at the Library desk on your first visit with your University Card/University
Library Card. Graduate students may borrow up to ten items for up to three weeks, excluding
items which are ‘on reserve’, which can be borrowed from 4.00pm until 10.30am the next day
(weekends from Friday evening to Monday morning). A notice giving details of vacation
borrowing will be displayed on the notice boards towards the end of each term. Opening hours:
9.30am - 5.30pm (9.30am - 5.00pm in vacation time), closed Saturday and Sunday.

Other University libraries

Cambridge has some of the finest research libraries in Europe. The University Library is entitled
under the Copyright Act to a copy of every book published in Britain and Ireland, including
American books with a British imprint. It contains about 6 million volumes, including many
early printed books, and over 127,000 manuscripts and 860,000 microforms. These include the
manuscripts of Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, James Clerk Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, George
Stokes, J.J. Thomson, William Bateson and J.D. Bernal. The Library also preserves the papers of
several of the major scientific institutions of Cambridge University and, currently, the papers of
the Royal Greenwich Observatory. Many other archives are held on microfilm, and college

4
libraries and other collections hold papers of such scientists as William Herschel, John Herschel,
Joseph Larmor, Ernest Rutherford, Frederick Gowland Hopkins, James Chadwick and John
Cockroft. Several university museums are also important resources for studies in the field,
including the Sedgwick Museum of Geology and the Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology.

The Whipple Museum

The HPS Department in Cambridge is the only one in the world to have teaching programmes
connected to a world-renowned collection of scientific instruments, models and books
(designated as one of only 26 pre-eminent non-national collections in the country by the
Museums and Galleries Commission). Students are encouraged to have hands-on experience of
studying and working with the extensive collection. This provides an exciting opportunity for
students to work in-depth on objects in the museum and MPhil students in particular are
encouraged to produce case studies which can be displayed in the museum gallery.

Research seminars and reading groups

The Department runs seminars and reading groups on a weekly or fortnightly basis throughout
the year. These are normally open to anyone who wishes to attend. They form an important part
of the Department’s research activities and ensure that the Department is a hive of intellectual
activity throughout the academic year. Seminar Programmes, produced at the beginning of each
term, are available from the departmental office and on the website (www.hps.cam.ac.uk/
seminars). Permission must be sought from the Head of Department to set up a new reading
group or seminar.

Computing facilities
The Department’s computer room, open to graduate students, affiliates and visitors, has several
Macs and PCs, all of which have ethernet connections, as well as a colour scanner and a laser
printer. Wireless is available in the library, the coffee room and GITS. There are also some
connection points, which allow students to connect their own laptops to the network; contact the
computer officer for further information. Users are required to submit evidence of their
competence and must pay an annual fee to become a registered user.

In addition to this, most colleges provide computing facilities, and students may also use the
Phoenix Room Public Workstation Facility (provided by the University Computing Service),
which is at the back of the Department. The Whipple Library has computers with CD drives and
users may book CDs (in particular the Philosopher’s Index) for use in their research. The
machines in the Library may also be used for searching on-line catalogues and can access the
Union Catalogue (which contains information on all the Cambridge Libraries). There is also a
videodisk available which contains thousands of images from medical history and two short
films of historical interest.

5
Email
The Department conducts an increasing amount of its correspondence by electronic mail, so
make sure you check your e-mail regularly as this will be the main way we will contact you. We
put all our students’ email addresses on the HPS Discussion list, which we use for disseminating
information. If you find that you have not been put on the list, please send a message to hps-
admin@lists.cam.ac.uk. A list of the email addresses of everyone in the Department is
available from the office. If you do not have an email address you can get an application form
from the Computing Service Reception.

Noticeboards
The noticeboards that run up the stairwell of the Department are an important information
resource. They contain official notices, such as changes to the lecture timetable and examiners’
reports, as well as details of postgraduate opportunities, and news of lectures and seminars
around the University and the country that may be of interest.

Pigeonholes
Staff pigeonholes are located in the main office; associate and student pigeonholes are located in
the corridor outside the office. You should check your pigeonhole regularly as you will receive
official notices, other messages and post.

Coffee room
Located in the upper echelons of the building, the students’ coffee room is a lively and
interesting place in which to meet other students, and there may be the odd member of staff who
is brave enough to venture there. Facilities include comfortable sofas, computer terminals for
reading e-mails and surfing the net, a microwave oven, kettle, fridge and dishwasher.

Monitoring Committee (aka Staff-Student Liaison)

The Monitoring Committee is a forum for discussion of matters directly affecting students. The
Department finds that obtaining feedback from students is a valuable way of monitoring the
quality of teaching. Providing consistent, effective feedback to students as to what has been done
as a result of their comments can also be very beneficial. In this department the Committee
normally meets once a term and discusses departmental teaching, notably co-ordination of
supervisions with lectures, and the organisation and taking of action on questionnaires. All staff
and students have an open invitation to attend all or any monitoring committee meetings.

Election and appointment of student representatives

In November each year there is an election of student members of the HPS Board: two
undergraduates and one graduate are elected by the other students in the Department. As well as
sitting on the Board, which meets twice a term, the student representatives sit on the Monitoring
Committee. Other students are welcome to attend the Monitoring Committee.

6
Student representatives have the following responsibilities:
 attending HPS Board meetings as Junior Members;
 organising questionnaires for Part III, Part II and Part IB students (between the end of the Lent
and the beginning of Easter Term, with the results made available at the next meeting of the
Committee);
 attending the Prospective Part II meeting at 6pm one evening at the end of February;
 helping to organise the Student Garden Party in June.

Equal opportunities
The University is committed to providing an environment conducive to learning and free from
discrimination. It is committed to an Equal Opportunities policy for both students and staff,
which means that persons with disabilities are considered on the same terms as any other person.
The University has produced guidelines on harassment and guidelines for persons with
disabilities and these are available from the Departmental Office. If you have any concerns about
these issues you may contact your College Tutor or the Department’s Disability Liaison Officer.

Complaints against supervisors

We very much hope that students will not have problems with their supervisors but if there is a
problem then HPS students should contact, in the first instance, any of the following: the
Director of Graduate Studies, their Advisor, the MPhil Manager, the Head of Department or their
college tutors. With any of these, the students may wish to discuss whether they want to continue
along the more formal lines of complaint proposed by the Board of Graduate Studies.

Board of Graduate Studies

The Board of Graduate Studies has overall administrative responsibility for graduate students.
The Board’s website – www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/gradstud/current/ – contains useful
information on such topics as funding and submission of dissertations. You are advised to make
yourself familiar with it.

You can access the Cambridge Student Information System (CamSIS) via the Board of Graduate
Studies website. You should use CamSIS for administrative tasks such as applying for leave to
work away from Cambridge, updating your personal data (address, phone number etc.) and
reading your supervision reports.

7
Departmental staff
Administrative and Computing Staff Location Tel No
Ms Jenny Fox (Receptionist) Room 2 34500
Ms Tamara Hug (Administrative Officer) Room 4 34540
Ms Agnieszka Lanucha (General Assistant) Room 2 34500
Mr Mark Rogers (Computer Officer) Mond Building 62865
Mr David Thompson (Administrative Assistant) Room 3 34552
Library Staff
Mr Tim Eggington (Librarian) Whipple Library 34547
Ms Dawn Moutrey (Library Assistant) Whipple Library 34547
Museum Staff
Mr Steve Kruse Room A2 31103
Mr Derek Scurll Room A2 31103
Ms Alison Smith Museum Gallery
Ms Claire Wallace Room A2 31103
Teaching Officers
Prof Hasok Chang Room 14 34551
Prof John Forrester (Head of Department) Room 13 34548
Dr Nick Hopwood (Part IB Manager) Room 24 34542
Dr Lauren Kassell (Part II Manager) Room 11 67173
Dr Tim Lewens (Director of Graduate Studies, Michaelmas) Room 29 62867
Dr Eleanor Robson (MPhil & Part III Manager) Room 6 34555
Prof Simon Schaffer (Director of Graduate Studies, Lent & Easter) Room 15 34543
Prof Jim Secord (Acting Head of Department, Lent & Easter) Room 22 34544
Prof Liba Taub (Director and Curator of the Whipple Museum) Room A1 34545
Research Fellows, Teaching Associates and Affiliated Staff
Dr Salim Al-Gailani Room L3 31104
Dr Alexi Baker Room 11 30570
Dr Marie-Françoise Besnier Room 7 62868
Dr Elma Brenner Room L2 67174
Dr Kevin Brosnan Room L5 31105
Dr Jacqueline Cahif Room L3 31104
Dr Andrew Cunningham Room 5 34553
Dr Graham Cunningham Room 7 62868
Dr Marina Frasca-Spada Room 25 30466
Dr Vanessa Heggie Room 15 60893
Prof Nick Jardine Room 20 34546
Dr Stephen John Room 27 30465
Dr Natalie Kaoukji Room L2 67174
Dr Francis Neary Room L3 31104
Dr Jennifer Rampling Room L4 67175
Dr Nicky Reeves Room 11 30570
Dr Greta Van Buylaere Room 7 62868

The research interests of the Department’s teaching officers and associates are listed in the
booklet Dissertation and Essay Supervisors.

8
MPhil in History, Philosophy and
Sociology of Science, Technology
and Medicine
Introducing the MPhil
Greetings from last year’s MPhils and welcome to the HPS Department! The following is a
brief and very subjective introduction to the course, written from the student’s point of
view.

Structure of the course

The HPS MPhil consists of three 5,000-word essays and a 15,000-word dissertation. The essays
form the basis of half your mark (or ‘grade’) and are done during the first two terms of the year.
You have about 6-10 weeks to work on each essay, but be sure to keep an eye on the exact dates
as the amount of time allowed for each essay is not equal. The dissertation makes up the
remainder of the mark and is to be completed by the middle of June (approximately the end of
Easter Term).

The spacing of the submission dates for the essays and the dissertation makes it easy to focus
entirely on one project at a time. However, it is preferable to keep your mind on the next project,
and even begin preliminary work on it, especially for the dissertation. It is strongly advisable to
arrive in Cambridge with an idea (however vague) for your first essay, which you will begin
work on almost immediately, with little time to hunt around for a topic. In terms of essay topics,
a good rule to always remember is: the smaller and more specific, the better. The essays provide
an opportunity to work on interesting and unfamiliar topics, which can be a lot of fun. But be
aware that the first essay can be of particular significance for those intending to apply for a PhD
(and PhD funding). This is the only piece of coursework already marked when applications are
made in February. Additionally, the third essay deadline is typically quite tight – finding a topic,
and starting work on it early, can be very useful.

It is essential to start thinking about dissertation topics, and to discuss these with potential
supervisors, early in the year. Such advance planning helps a great deal; it is really easy to
underestimate the amount of time and energy the dissertation requires (trust us on this!). A final
word on time management: be prepared to work over the holidays. The course is very short, and
nobody can afford to go home and forget about work for the entire vacation (though it is
important to make sure you take some time off). We would add that completing each essay, and
especially the dissertation, is extremely rewarding. It is worth remembering that you can very
quickly become expert in your field, and may even end up knowing more about it than your
supervisor!

9
Supervisions and seminars
The Cambridge teaching system revolves around supervisions. For each paper you will have a
supervisor who is ideally an expert on your chosen topic and who will guide you in the
construction of your essay. Generally, meetings with supervisors (‘supervisions’) involve
submitting a piece of work, however preliminary, and discussing it and any ideas/problems you
may have. It is up to you to decide how often you meet with your supervisor; it is sometimes
tempting to avoid supervisions if you feel you have not done enough work. However, these
meetings can be an extremely useful way of solving a problem or getting the ball rolling. It is
very important to make good use of your supervisor. As an expert in your research area, s/he is a
wealth of information that can be difficult to come by otherwise. Do not be afraid to ask
questions or to get things wrong – that is how you learn! The supervisor’s role is not to judge
you, but to help you. This is particularly important to remember if you do not have a background
in HPS or are new to the Cambridge system. The MPhil manager should be able to help you if
you have any trouble finding a supervisor, so get in touch if there’s a problem.

MPhil students are also required to attend at least three seminars: the weekly Part III-MPhil
seminar, the departmental seminar, and one (or more) in a specialist area of your choice. The
Part III-MPhil seminar is generally the only seminar that has a required reading list. Sometimes
it is tempting to view the Part III-MPhil seminar as irrelevant to your own research. The weekly
meetings and readings are designed to address issues in both history and philosophy, and it is
very easy to categorise yourself as either an ‘historian’ or a ‘philosopher.’ However, it is worth
remembering that the more effort you put in to doing the readings and talking in seminars, the
more worthwhile they will be. The various other seminars and workshops are extremely
important in helping you to develop a knowledge of HPS as a whole, as well as to pursue your
own interests by attending specialist talks given by respected academics.

There are also a great number of seminars that go on in other departments, and relevant ones are
generally well-advertised on the HPS Discussion list. It’s also worth keeping an eye on
talks.cam.ac.uk for talks going on in the University. As a member of the University you can
attend any undergraduate lecture course. The HPS Department offers numerous lecture courses,
and you may also find relevant lectures in other departments. Undergraduate courses are an
excellent source of background knowledge and potential essay/dissertation topics. If someone is
offering a course related to your research, attend their lectures, and don’t feel shy about
approaching him or her as a potential supervisor. Undergraduate lectures are often the best
general introduction to a research area. As an MPhil student, lectures are not compulsory, but are
definitely worth attending. The bonus is that you do not have to do additional work – you can
just listen and take notes for your own benefit! A word of warning though: don’t devote all your
time to attending lectures and forget to work on your essays!

Best of all, the Department not only houses the world’s foremost scholars (and scholars-in-the-
making) of HPS, they are also fantastically open and friendly people. Although it may seem
informal, especially to those new to the Cambridge system, don’t hesitate to share your work
with members of the Department (even if they aren’t your official ‘supervisor’ for a project),
PhD students, and your fellow MPhils. Most are delighted to help, and this sort of one-on-one

10
feedback can be invaluable. To really make the most of the expertise around the department, we
particularly recommend aiming to have a draft of each piece of work ready at least a week before
the deadline so that you can give people something to comment on.

Socialising
The HPS Department is small and notoriously friendly. There is a coffee/tea room for you to
lounge in, check your email, chat and share your woes with other students and the occasional
departmental staff member. One of the most important factors in having an enjoyable MPhil year
is to get to know your fellow MPhils, discuss your work and share your experiences and
concerns. Whilst it is tempting to restrict your social life to college activities, socialising after the
weekly Part III-MPhil seminars and on other regular occasions is a great way to ensure a
rewarding experience. In addition, the Department’s staff and students always go to a local pub
(The Eagle or the Bath) following the weekly departmental seminars, and afterwards move on to
a restaurant for dinner. This is a great chance to meet speakers, discuss research ideas, meet
people, and just have fun. It can seem a bit intimidating socialising with your lecturers and
supervisors, but it is a good way to feel at home in HPS.

The Department is a great place to make friends and to do research. Plan ahead, be organised,
involve yourself in the Department, and you can’t go wrong. If you do have any problems or
concerns, talk to your supervisor, the MPhil Manager, or the Director of Graduate Studies. If
you have any suggestions for improvement of the course, make use of your student reps. The
Department does actually listen to student recommendations, and changes have been made
accordingly in the past. Finally, have a great year!

Knowing the classics of HPS

Over the years, incoming graduate students, who come to HPS from a diverse variety of
academic backgrounds, have often expressed a wish to a have a list of core texts in the HPS
canon that they might use to augment their general knowledge of HPS. Their wishes met some
resistance from staff members who expressed some scepticism about the validity or even utility
of a ‘canon’. So some years ago the MPhil students put one together themselves, which we
included in previous versions of this Handbook. This year the teaching staff (who also come
from diverse backgrounds) are supplementing the MPhils’ version of an HPS canon with a list of
books and articles which they themselves have learned a great deal from over the years and
would like other Departmental members, both students and staff, to read. (They were each asked
to supply their Top Ten, and nearly all their responses have been included below. You will be
interested (surprised? relieved?) to hear that there was some duplication in their responses.) The
MPhils’ suggestions are mixed in seamlessly with those of the present members of staff. So the
list that follows should by no means be taken as complete or authoritative – it is simply based on
a canvass of students and staff in the recent past.

The list is split between ‘History of Science & Sociology of Scientific Knowledge’ and
‘Philosophy of Science’, though in many cases the distinction is an arbitrary one. The order is by
alphabet, not importance. We hope this will be helpful. We will continue to refine it in the
future, so suggestions are welcome.

11
Not quite non-fictional books about the sciences
George Eliot, Middlemarch (1874)
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World (1932)
A.A. Milne, Winnie the Pooh (1926)
W.C. Sellar and R.J. Yeatman, 1066 And All That (1930)
Mary Shelley, Frankenstein (1818)
H.G. Wells, The Time Machine (1895)

History of Science & Sociology of Scientific Knowledge

Svetlana Alpers, The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century (London, 1983)
Lisa Appignanesi and John Forrester, Freud’s Women [1992], London: Orion, 2005
Walter Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction [1936], transl. J.A.
Underwood (Penguin, 2008)
Claude Bernard, An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine [1865], transl. Henry Copley
Greene (New York: Dover, 1957).
Mario Biagioli, Galileo, Courtier (Chicago, 1993)
Mario Biagioli (ed.), The Science Studies Reader (Routledge, 1999)
Stuart Clark, Thinking with Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe (Oxford, 1997)
Harry Collins, Changing Order (Chicago, 1992)
H. M. Collins, ‘The Seven Sexes: A Study in the Sociology of a Phenomenon, or The Replication of
Experiments in Physics’, Sociology 9 (1975), 205-224
Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch, The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science (Cambridge,
1993)
Cunningham, ‘Getting the Game Right: Some Plain Words on the Identity and Invention of Science’
Studies in the Hist & Phil Science, 1988, 365-89
Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison, ‘The Image of Objectivity’ Representations, 40, 1992, 81-128 [See
also the book of the classic article, Objectivity, Brooklyn: Zone, 2007]
Jacques Derrida, ‘Freud and the scene of writing’ Yale French Studies 48 (1972) pp. 74-117
Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger [1966], (Routledge, 2002)
Richard Drayton, Nature’s Government (Yale, 2000)
Barbara Duden, The Woman Beneath the Skin: A Doctor’s Patients in Eighteenth-Century Germany,
trans. Thomas Dunlap (Harvard, 1991)
David Edgerton, The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History since 1900 (Profile, 2006)
Elizabeth Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change (Cambridge, 1979)
Steven Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley: Univ. of
California Press, 1998).
E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Witchcraft, Oracles, and Magic among the Azande (Oxford, 1937)
Patricia Fara, Newton: The Making of Genius (Picador, 2003)
Ludwik Fleck, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, ed. Thaddeus J. Trenn & Robert K. Merton,
transl. Fred Bradley and Thaddeus J. Trenn (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1979).
Paul Forman, ‘Weimar culture, causality, and quantum theory: adaptation by German physicists and
mathematicians to a hostile environment.’ Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 3 (1971), 1-
115 (a briefer version is ‘The Reception of an Acausal Quantum Mechanics in Germany and Britain’,
in Seymour Mauskopf (ed.), The Reception of Unconventional Science (1978))
John Forrester, ‘If p then what? Thinking in Cases’, History of the Human Sciences, 9, No. 3, 1-25 (1996)

12
Michel Foucault, The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception (London: Tavistock,
1973).
Michel Foucault, The Order of Things [1966], (Routledge, 2002)
Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish [1975], (London: Allen Lane, 1977)
Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, Vol. I: An Introduction (New York: Pantheon, 1978)
Paul Rabinow, The Foucault Reader (Penguin, 1991)
Geertz, C. ‘Thick Description: Toward an Interpretative Theory of Culture’ In The Interpretation of
Culture, 1975, 3-31
Geertz, C. ‘Deep play. Notes on the Balinese cock-fight’ In The Interpretation of cultures. London:
Hutchinson, 1975
Geertz, Clifford, ‘I-Witnessing: Malinowski’s Children’ in: Geertz, Works and Lives. The Anthropologist
as Author, Cambridge: Polity, 1988, pp. 73-101
Ginzburg, Carlo ‘Morelli, Freud and Sherlock Holmes: Clues and Scientific Method? in: Umberto Eco
and Thomas A. Sebeok, (eds.) The Sign of Three. Dupin, Holmes, Pierce, Indiana U.P., 1983, pp. 81-
118. An original version (‘Morelli, Freud and Sherlock Holmes: Clues and Scientific Method’ Hist
Workshop J 9 (1980): 5-36) is available electronically on Oxford Journal Archive
(http://hwj.oxfordjournals.org/archive/1980.dtl)
Jan Golinski, Making Natural Knowledge (Cambridge, 1998)
Anthony Grafton and Lisa Jardine, ‘“Studied for Action”: How Gabriel Harvey Read his Livy’, Past and
Present, 129 (1990), 3-51
Ian Hacking, The Social Construction of What? (Harvard, 1999)
Ian Hacking, The Emergence of Probability (Cambridge, 1975)
Ian Hacking, ‘Making and molding of child abuse’ Critical Inquiry 17(2), 1991, pp. 253-288
O. Hannaway, ‘Laboratory Design and the Aim of Science: Andreas Libavius versus Tycho Brahe’, Isis,
77, (1986), 585-610
Donna Haraway, ‘Teddy bear patriarchy: taxidermy in the Garden of Eden, New York City, 1908-1936’,
Social Text 11 (1984), 20-64
Donna Haraway, Primate Visions (Routledge, 1989)
Steven J. Harris, ‘Long Distance Corporations, Big Sciences, and the Geography of Knowledge’
Configurations 6 (1998): 269
Boris Hessen, ‘The social and economic roots of Newton’s Principia’, in Science at the crossroads (1931)
Ken Hollings, Welcome to Mars: Fantasies of Science in the American Century, 1947–1959 (Strange
Attractor, 2008)
Nicholas Jardine, Scenes of Inquiry (Oxford, 2000)
Nicholas Jardine, Jim Secord and Emma Spary, Cultures of Natural History (Cambridge, 1996)
N.D. Jewson, ‘Medical Knowledge and the Patronage System in Eighteenth-Century England’, Sociology
8 (1974), 369-85
Adrian Johns. ‘Science and the Book’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 29, 1998, 167-194
Adrian Johns, The Nature of the Book (Chicago, 1998)
Evelyn Fox Keller and Helen Longino, Feminism and Science (Oxford, 1996)
Alexandre Koyré, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe (Johns Hopkins, 1957)
Alexandre Koyré, ‘Galileo and Plato’, Journal of the History of Ideas 4 (1943), 400-28
T.S. Kuhn, ‘The function of measurement in modern physical science’, Isis 52 (1961), 161-93
T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [1962], 2nd ed. Chicago, 1970 with ‘Postscript’
T.S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change (Chicago, 1977)

13
Bruno Latour, ‘Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world’, in Karin Knorr-Cetina and Michael
Mulkay (eds.), Science Observed (1983), 141-70
Bruno Latour & Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The social construction of scientific facts [1979]
(Princeton, 1986)
Bruno Latour, Science In Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Open
University, 1987)
Bruno Latour, ‘Drawing Things Together’, in Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar (eds), Representation in
Scientific Practice (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990), pp. 19-68.
Bernard Lightman, Victorian Science in Context (Chicago, 1997)
Geoffrey Lloyd, Magic, Reason and Experience: Studies in the Origin and Development of Greek Science
(Cambridge, 1979)
Geoffrey Lloyd, The Ambitions of Curiosity (Cambridge, 2002)
Michael Macdonald, Mystical Bedlam: Madness, Anxiety and Healing in Seventeenth-century England
(Cambridge, 1981)
Donald MacKenzie, ‘From Kwajalein to armageddon? Testing and the social construction of missile
accuracy’ in: Trevor Pinch, David Gooding and Simon Schaffer (eds), The Uses of Experiment:
Studies in the Natural Sciences (Cambridge, 1989)
Donald MacKenzie and Judy Wajcman (eds), The Social Shaping of Technology, 2nd edn (Buckingham:
Open University Press, 1999). Includes Nelly Oudshoorn ‘The decline of the one-size-fits-all
paradigm’, pp. 325-40.
Herbert Mehrtens, ‘Irresponsible Purity: The Political and Moral Structure of Mathematical Sciences in
the National Socialist State’, in Monika Renneberg and Mark Walker (eds), Science, Technology and
National Socialism (Cambridge: CUP, 1994), 324-38.
Carolyn Merchant, The Death of Nature (Harper & Row, 1980)
Joseph Needham, ‘Mathematics and Science in China and the West’, Science and Society 20 (1956), 320-
343
Joseph Needham, ‘Science and society in East and West’ (1964) in: The grand titration. Science and
society in East and West, London: Allen & Unwin, 1969
Nelly Oudshoorn, Beyond the Natural Body: An Archaeology of Sex Hormones (London: Routledge,
1994)
Katharine Park and Lorraine Daston, ‘‘Unnatural Conceptions: The Study of Monsters in Sixteenth can
Seventeenth-Century France and England’, Past and Present, 92 (1981), 20-54 [See also the book of
the classic article, Wonders and the Order of Nature, 1150-1750, Brooklyn: Zone 1998]
John V. Pickstone, ‘Ways of Knowing: Towards a Historical Sociology of Science, Technology and
Medicine’, BJHS 26 (1993), 433-58.
Mary Poovey, A History of the Modern Fact (Chicago, 1998)
Roy Porter, Madness: A Brief History (Oxford, 2002)
Roy Porter, Flesh in the Age of Reason (Allen Lane, 2003)
Derek de Solla Price, Little Science, Big Science, (Columbia, 1963)
Ruth Richardson, Death, Dissection and the Destitute (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1988).
Philip Rieff, Freud. The mind of the moralist [1959], Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979
Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb (Simon & Schuster, 1986)
Lyndal Roper, Oedipus and the Devil: Witchcraft, Sexuality, and Religion in Early Modern Europe
(Routledge, 1994)
George Sarton, A Guide to the History of Science (Ronald Press, 1952)

14
Simon Schaffer, ‘Astronomers Mark Time’, Science in Context 2, (1988), 115-145
Londa Schiebinger, The Mind Has No Sex? (Harvard, 1989)
James A. Secord (special ed.) British Journal for the History of Science 26(4) (1993) Special Issue: ‘The
Big Picture’
James A. Secord, Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception and Secret Authorship
of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (Chicago, 2000)
Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump (Princeton, 1985)
Steven Shapin, ‘The Politics of Observation: Cerebral Anatomy and Social Interests in the Edinburgh
Phrenology Disputes’, in Roy Wallis (ed.), On the Margins of Science (Keele, 1979), 139-178
Steven Shapin, The Scientific Revolution (Chicago, 1996)
Steven Shapin, ‘Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle’s literary technology’, Social Studies of Science
14 (1984), 481–520
Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth (Chicago, 1994)
Barbara Shapiro, A Culture of Fact (Cornell, 2000)
Quentin Skinner, ‘Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas’, History and Theory 8 (1969), 3-
53
Pamela Smith, The Business of Alchemy (Princeton, 1994)
C.P. Snow, The Two Cultures [1959] (Cambridge, 1993)
S.L. Star and J.R. Griesemer, ‘Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and
Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39’, Social Studies of Science 19
(1989), 387-420
Max Weber, ‘Science as a vocation’ in From Max Weber. Essays in sociology, ed. H.H. Gerth and
C.Wright Mills, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1948, pp. 128-56
R.S. Westman, ‘The Astronomer’s Role in the Sixteenth Century: A Preliminary Study’, History of
Science 18 (1980), 105-147
Max Weber, ‘Science as a Vocation’ [1918], transl. Michael John, in Peter Lassman and Irving Velody
(eds), Max Weber’s ‘Science as a Vocation’ (London, 1989), pp. 3-31.

Philosophy of Science
Paul Benacerraf, ‘Mathematical Truth’, The Journal of Philosophy 70 (1973), 661-679
David Bloor, Knowledge and Social Imagery (Routledge, 1976)
Richard Boyd, Philip Gasper and J.D. Trout (eds.), The Philosophy of Science (MIT, 1991), esp. Richard
Boyd, ‘On the current status of scientific realism’ (ch. 11)
Alan Chalmers, What is This Thing Called Science? (University of Queensland, 1976)
Tim Crane and D.H. Mellor, ‘There is no question of physicalism’, Mind 99:394 (1990), 185–206
Martin Curd and J.A Cover (eds.), Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues (Norton, 1998)
Donald Davidson, ‘On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme’, Proceedings and addresses of the
American Philosophical Association 47 (1973-74): 5-20
Duhem, Pierre (1906). The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory (Translated in Princeton Science Series,
1991; esp. chapter VI, ‘Physical theory and experiment’)
John Dupré, ‘Are Whales Fish?’ in D.L. Medin and S.Atran (eds), Folkbiology (MIT, 1999), pp. 461-476
John Dupré ‘Natural Kinds and Biological Taxa’, Philosophical Review 90 (1981), 66–91
Paul Feyerabend, Against Method (Verso, 1975)
Arthur Fine, ‘The Natural Ontological Attitude’ (1984) in D. Papineau (ed.), Philosophy of Science
(Oxford, 1996)

15
Bas van Fraassen, The Scientific Image (Oxford, 1980)
Mary Hesse, Models and Analogies in Science (Sheed & Ward, 1963)
Ian Hacking, ‘Language, Truth and Reason’, in M. Hollis and S. Lukes (eds.), Rationality and Relativism
(Oxford, 1982)
Ian Hacking, Representing and Intervening (Cambridge, 1983)
H.L.A. Hart and Tony Honoré, Causation in the Law (2nd edition, Oxford, 1985)
David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
David Hume, ‘Of personal identity’ A Treatise of Human Nature (1739) Book I: Of the understanding,
Part IV: Of the sceptical and other systems of philosophy, Section VI.
Saul Kripke, Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language (Blackwell, 1982)
Thomas Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago, 1962)
Martin Kusch, Knowledge by Agreement (Oxford, 2002)
Imre Lakatos, Proofs and Refutations. The Logic of Mathematical Discovery (Cambridge, 1977)
Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge, 1970)
David Lewis, ‘Causation’ and ‘Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow’, in Philosophical Papers
Volume II (Oxford, 1987)
Peter Lipton, Inference to the Best Explanation [1992] (Routledge, 2004)
Peter Lipton, ‘The Epistemology of Testimony’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 29 (1998),
1-31
W.H. Newton-Smith, The Rationality of Science (Routledge, 1981)
Robert Nozick, Philosophical Explanations (Harvard, 1981), Part 3 ‘Epistemology’
Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Hutchinson, 1959)
Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Routledge, 1963)
Karl Popper, ‘Science: Conjectures and Refutations’ [1957], re-printed in Timothy McGrew, Marc
Alspector-Kelly, Fritz Allhoff (eds.), Philosophy of Science: An Historical Anthology (Wiley, 2009)
Stathis Psillos, Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth (Routledge, 1999)
Hilary Putnam, ‘Realism and Reason’, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical
Association 50 (1977), 483-498
W.V. Quine, ‘Main trends in recent philosophy: two dogmas of empiricism’, Philosophical Review 60
(1951), 20–43
Hans Reichenbach, ‘The philosophical significance of the theory of relativity’ and ‘The logical
foundations of quantum mechanics’ in S. Sarkar (ed.) Logical Empiricism and the Special Sciences
(Basic Works of Logical Empiricism) (Routledge, 1996)
Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy [1912], (Oxford, 1997)
Jonathan Schaffer, ‘Contrastive causation’, Philosophical Review 114 (2005), 327–358
John Searle, ‘Minds, Brains and Programs’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3(3) (1980), 417–457
Timothy Williamson, The Philosophy of Philosophy (Blackwell, 2007), especially Chapter 5 ‘Knowledge
of Metaphysical Modality’
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations [1953] (Macmillan, 1968)

16
The MPhil course
MPhil teaching
The MPhil programme is administered by a senior member of staff, the MPhil manager, who
meets all new MPhil students as a group in early October, then sees each of the students
individually to discuss their proposed essay and dissertation topics. The manager is responsible
for helping you find appropriate supervisors for each of these topics; the supervisors are then
responsible for helping you to do the research and writing needed for the essays and the
dissertation. The MPhil manager will see you at regular intervals during the year to discuss
progress and offer help and advice.

Your supervisors will see you on a very regular basis, but it is up to you to schedule those
meetings according to your needs. As a rule of thumb, you can expect 3–4 hours of supervision
on an essay and 4–6 hours for a dissertation. Supervisions are designed to provide you with the
opportunity to set your own agenda for your studies. The supervisor’s job is to support your
research, not to grade your work; your submitted essays and dissertation will be examined by
others. Your supervisor for any one piece of work is never allowed to examine it too.

If problems arise with research or supervision, you should talk to your supervisors, the MPhil
manager or the Secretary of the Degree Committee. The Director of Graduate Studies will be
happy to advise MPhil students planning to go on to PhD research, and there is a Graduate
Training Workshop about this too at the end of Michaelmas Term (see page 45).

You must be resident in Cambridge throughout the duration of the nine-month MPhil course.
The word ‘vacation’ has a technical meaning in Cambridge. It does not mean ‘holiday’ but
‘research time’ and you will be expected to work for most of those periods (though of course you
should take a break for a week or so over Christmas and Easter).

Subject areas
Your three 5,000-word essays and your 15,000-word dissertation must each be on a subject
approved by the Degree Committee. The essays should each fall within the following specified
subject areas, and it is normally expected that no more than one essay shall be submitted in any
one of these areas. But with permission from the Degree Committee, up to two essays may be
submitted in the same subject area, or one of the essays may be offered in an area not listed
below but related to History and Philosophy of Science. You are encouraged to explore a range
of different topics, balancing them so that they are both relevant to your interests and also span
the subject of History, Philosophy and Sociology of Science, Technology and Medicine.

17
1. Classical Traditions in the Sciences
Ancient, medieval, and early modern history of natural philosophy, natural history, mathematics, and
technology. Scientific instrumentation and technical change. Disciplines, institutions, cultural roles,
philosophies, and methods of inquiry in the ancient, medieval, and early modern periods.

2. Natural Philosophies: Renaissance to Enlightenment

Development of natural philosophy, chemistry, natural history and the mathematical sciences in the
period from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. Histories of the Earth, geography and exploration,
enquiries into the animal and vegetable kingdoms. Instrumentation, methods of inquiry and technical
change. Disciplines, institutions and cultural roles.

3. Science, Industry and Empire

Disciplinary, institutional and cultural developments of the sciences between the French Revolution and
the aftermath of the First World War. Mathematics, physical sciences, life sciences, earth sciences and
human sciences. technology, scientific instrumentation and methods of inquiry.

4. Metaphysics, Epistemology and the Sciences

The ways in which scientific inquiry proceeds and what it can be taken to achieve; causation, laws, truth,
explanation, understanding, observation, experiment, inference, and conceptual change; conceptual
problems in the physical and biological sciences; general issues in epistemology and metaphysics.

5. Science in Society
Social variables of scientific knowledge, mathematics, medicine and technology (including social
variables of their production and dissemination). The co-production of science, technology, medicine and
society. Gender and race in relation to science, technology and medicine. Science, technology, medicine
and development. Science, technology, medicine and the media. History and philosophy of science and
technology studies.

6. History and Philosophy of Mind

Philosophy and history of psychology and the cognitive sciences. Historical and philosophical aspects of
psychoanalytic and psychiatric theory and practice. Philosophical psychology and its history. The history
and philosophy of the neurosciences and artificial intelligence.

7. Medicine from Antiquity to the Enlightenment

Medical knowledge and practices in the ancient, medieval and early modern periods. Understandings of
the body and of disease; the status of medical knowledge; patient-practitioner relationships; the medical
marketplace; surgery and herbals; medicine and religion; medicine and law. Medical places, including
households, universities, courts and hospitals. Medical books, pictures and other objects.

8. Modern Medicine and Biomedical Sciences

Medicine and biomedical sciences between the late eighteenth century and the present day, especially the
emergence of the medical institutions, professionals and practices of industrial societies. Sciences of the
body and the mind, and of health and disease; medical technologies; doctor-patient relationships; history
of medical ethics and bioethics; relationships of Western medicine to other medical systems.

9. Images of the Sciences

Philosophies and methodologies of the sciences; rationalism and empiricism; Kant, Kantianism and the
sciences; positivism and neo-positivism; naturalism and pragmatism. Histories of the sciences and their
uses; continuity and discontinuity in the sciences; theories of creativity; conceptions of objectivity.
Definitions of science; the Two Cultures; the Science Wars. Scientific utopias and dystopias; the sciences
and their practitioners in art and literature; rhetoric and aesthetics in the sciences.

10. Science and Technology from the First World War

Disciplinary, institutional, cultural and political changes in the sciences from the First World War to the
present. Physical sciences, life sciences, information sciences, technology and engineering. Science and
politics, science policy, the organization of science and its funding, the publics for science. Bioethics.
Risk. Critical attitudes to science and technology.

18
Seminars and lectures
MPhil students are expected to attend the Part III-MPhil seminar, which meets on Wednesdays
during term at 3pm. During the first term, and for the first two weeks of the second term, these
seminars are led by different senior members of the Department, and focus on selected readings
in history and philosophy of science and medicine. During the second half of the second term,
and during the third term, the seminars provide opportunities for MPhil and Part III students to
present their own work.

In addition, MPhil students should attend the Research Topics & Resources seminars held at
4pm on the first two Thursdays of Michaelmas Term. They should also go to the Departmental
Seminar and regularly attend at least one of the other seminars and reading groups arranged by
the Department.

A wide range of Graduate Training Workshops is offered throughout the year (see page 45). You
are strongly advised to attend all of those particularly targeted at MPhil students, but you are
very welcome to come to others that are of interest to you too.

The Department offers a full programme of undergraduate lectures for Part II in the Natural
Sciences Tripos. Many of these lecture courses are relevant to, and appropriate for, MPhil
students. Indeed the nine Part II papers map on to the first nine MPhil subject areas very closely.
You are strongly advised to attend relevant Part II lectures. The MPhil manager and the
supervisors will help indicate the lectures and seminars close to each student’s interests. For
more details of these lectures, see the Department’s teaching timetable, available from the
departmental office and on the website.

Timetable for completing MPhil work

Michaelmas Term
6 October 2010 Meeting for all new graduate students at 2pm
1 November 2010 Submit title of first essay
12 November 2010 Last date for changing title of first essay
22 November 2010 Submit first essay before 12noon
6 December 2010 Submit title of second essay
Examiners’ meeting to recommend marks for first essay

Lent Term
21 January 2011 Last date for changing title of second essay
31 January 2011 Submit second essay before 12noon
14 February 2011 Submit title of third essay
15 February 2011 Deadline for applications to continue as a PhD student

19
 25 February 2011 Submit title of dissertation
Last date for changing title of third essay
14 March 2011 Submit third essay before 12noon

Easter Term
21 April 2011 Examiners’ meeting to recommend marks for second and third essays
13 May 2011 Last date for changing dissertation title
6 June 2011 Submit dissertation before 12noon
4 July 2011 Degree Committee approves final MPhil marks

Please note that these are provisional dates intended as a guide. Deadlines for submitting essays
and the dissertation will be distributed to all MPhil students and appear on the Department’s
calendar on the website. If you are uncertain as to the correct dates for submitting work, contact
the MPhil manager or the Secretary of the Degree Committee.

20
Part III-MPhil seminars 2010–11
Michaelmas Term
Week 1: Theory Choice (Tim Lewens, Director of Graduate Studies)

 Duhem, Pierre, The aim and structure of physical theory (1914; 2nd ed., Princeton, 1991), Pt
II, Chapter VI: ‘Physical theory and experiment’ (pp. 180–218).
 Lipton, Peter, Inference to the best explanation (2nd ed., Routledge, 2004), Chapter 4:
‘Inference to the best explanation’ (pp. 55–70) and Chapter 9: ‘Loveliness and truth’ (pp.
142–163).
Week 2: Scientific Cultures (Eleanor Robson, MPhil and Part III Manager)

 Geertz, Clifford, ‘Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture’, in The

Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (New York, 1973), 3–30.
 Traweek, Sharon, Beamtimes and Lifetimes: the World of High Energy Physicists (Harvard,
1988), chapter 4: ‘Pilgrim’s progress: male tales told during a life of physics’, pp. 75–105.
Week 3: Foucault (John Forrester, Head of Department)

 Foucault, Michel, The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception (London:
Tavistock, 1973), Chapter 8, pp. 124–148.
 Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish (London: Allen Lane, 1977), pp. 195–228, Section
on ‘Panopticism’.
 Foucault, Michel, ‘Nietzsche, genealogy, history’, in Paul Rabinow (ed.), The Foucault
Reader. An Introduction to Foucault’s Thought (Penguin, 1986), pp. 76–100.
 Foucault, Michel, ‘About the concept of the “dangerous individual” in nineteenth-century
legal osychiatry’ [1978] in Faubion, James D. (ed.), Michel Foucault. Essential Works 1954–
1984. Vol. 3: Power (London: Penguin, 2001), pp. 176–200.
Week 4: Ethics and Evolution (Kevin Brosnan)

 Kitcher, Philip, ‘Four ways of “biologizing” ethics’, in E. Sober (ed.), Conceptual Issues in
Evolutionary Biology (MIT Press, 2nd ed., 1995), pp. 439–450.
 Ruse, M. and Wilson, E.O. ‘Moral philosophy as applied science’, in E. Sober (ed.),
Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology (MIT Press, 2nd ed., 1995), pp. 421–438.
 Sober, E., From a Biological Point of View, Chapter 5 (Cambridge University Press, 1994).
 Street, S. ‘A Darwinian dilemma for realist theories of value’, Philosophical Studies 127
(2006), pp. 109–166.
Week 5: Race, Sex and Evolution (Jim Secord)

 Charles Darwin, Evolutionary Writings (Oxford, 2008), 231–347; this includes chapters 2, 3,
5, 7, 8, 19–22 of The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1st ed, 1871), as well
as reviews. The entire first edition is at http://darwin-
online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_TheDescentofMan.html
 Richards, E., ‘Will the real Charles Darwin please stand up?’ New Scientist 100 (1983), 884–
7 (photocopies in Whipple).
 Adrian Desmond, ‘Darwin the Abolitionist’, Prospect (Feb. 2009), http://www.prospect-
magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10581

21
 R. Richards, Review of C. Darwin, The Descent of Man, ed. by J. Moore and A. Desmond,
British Journal for the History of Science 39 (2006), 615–617.
Week 6: Scientific Progress (Hasok Chang)

 Popper, K.R. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Harper &
Row, 1965, 2nd ed.), chapter 10: ‘Truth, rationality and the growth of scientific knowledge’,
pp. 215–248.
 Kuhn, T.S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, 1996, 3rd
ed.) Chapter XIII: ‘Progress through revolutions’, pp. 160–174 (mandatory). Optional, but
strongly recommended: chapter X: ‘Revolutions as changes of world view’, pp. 111–136.
Week 7: Patients and Practitioners (Lauren Kassell)

 Duden, Barbara, The Woman Beneath the Skin: A Doctor’s Patients in Eighteenth-Century
Germany, trans. Thomas Dunlap (Harvard, 1991), ch. 1 (pp. 1–49).
 Macdonald, Michael, Mystical Bedlam: Madness, Anxiety, and Healing in Seventeenth-
Century England (Cambridge, 1981), pp. 13–40.
Week 8: Material Culture and Museums (Liba Taub, Director of the Whipple Museum)

 Warner, D.J. ‘What is a scientific instrument, when did it become one, and why?’, British
Journal for the History of Science 23 (1990), 83–93.
 Söderqvist, Thomas, Adam Bencard and Camilla Mordhorst. ‘Between meaning culture and
presence effects: contemporary biomedical objects as a challenge to museums’, Studies in
History and Philosophy of Science 40 (2009), 431–438.
 Alberti, S.J.M.M., ‘Objects and the museum’, Isis 96 (2005), 559–571

Lent Term
Week 1: Biomedicine (Nick Hopwood)

 Oudshoorn, Nelly, Beyond the Natural Body: An Archeology of Sex Hormones (London:
Routledge, 1994), pp. 42–81 (notes pp. 158–61).
 Epstein, Steven, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1996), pp. 181–234 (notes pp. 407–17).
Week 2: Scientific Imaging (Simon Schaffer)

 Shapin, Steven, ‘The politics of observation’, in Roy Wallis (ed.), On the margins of science
(KB.WAL 1), 139-78 or in H.M. Collins (ed.), Sociology of scientific knowledge (KB.COL 2)
 Lynch, Michael, ‘Discipline and the material form of images’, Social Studies of Science 15
(1985), 37-66 (online via JSTOR)
 Beaulieu, Anne, ‘Images are not the (only) truth’, Science, Technology and Human Values 27
(2002), 53–86 (online via UK Access Federation)
 Latour, Bruno, ‘Drawing things together’, in M. Lynch and S. Woolgar (eds.), Representation
in Scientific Practice (KB.LYN 2), 19-68 (pdf online)

22
How the MPhil is examined
The dissertation and essays
Our MPhil is a nine-month course running from October to June. The course requires you to
submit three essays, each of no more than 5,000 words, and a dissertation, of no more than
15,000 words. The essays and the dissertation should be submitted in duplicate with numbered
pages, securely stapled or bound, with footnotes and bibliography. The word length includes
footnotes and appendices, but excludes the bibliography. You are also required to upload your
examined work as a .doc or .rtf file to the HPS MPhil/Part III site on CamTools. Examiners may
use this to check word count or derivative passages.

You are permitted to write your dissertation in the same general area as one of your essays, but
the dissertation and essay must address different questions, and the dissertation must give
evidence of a substantial new research effort. Any use of the essay in the dissertation has to be
appropriately referenced, just like any other primary or secondary source, as if the essay were
written by a different person. There is no provision for submitting a revised dissertation.

The Senior Examiner will advise the Examiners’ Meeting of any late submissions and, unless
there are exceptional circumstances, this will normally entail the loss of one mark for each day’s
lateness beyond the published deadline. Given that problems can and do occur (such as
computers crashing and printers breaking), students are advised that their work should be ready
almost a week in advance of the formal deadline. The Department adheres strictly to the rule that
permission to submit essays or dissertations late will only be granted by the Degree Committee
(or by the Degree Committee’s chair taking chair’s action) if a formal request is received from
the candidate’s college, with medical or similar reasons given in documentary form. Please note
that the Department will retain a copy of your dissertation and essays unless you make a written
request to the contrary to the Departmental Administrator.

Changing the title of an essay or the dissertation

While permission to change titles is not automatically granted, it does often happen that students
need to refine their titles from those initially submitted. The following procedure for changing
title must be followed: the title form which was originally submitted should be retrieved from the
Departmental Office and a new title written beneath it, with the supervisor signing to indicate
their approval of the change, and drawing attention to any need for change in examiners. You are
advised to follow the deadlines for title changes give on page 19; no changes will be allowed less
than a week before submission of the essay or dissertation.

Policy on editions, translations, bibliographies, etc.

An essay or dissertation should be self-contained, including or citing all information needed for
an examiner to follow its argument.

The word limit normally includes text and footnotes but not the bibliography. However, in
certain cases permission may be obtained for materials strictly relevant to the argument of the

23
essay or dissertation to be footnoted or appended for the information of the examiners, with such
materials not contributing to the word count. Materials falling into this category may include not
readily accessible primary source materials, translations, questionnaire responses, statistical
tables, descriptions of objects, analytical bibliographies, etc.

Normally material included in the word count should mainly consist of the candidate’s own
discussion and analysis. Exceptionally, when a critical edition or translation, an analytical
bibliography, or a technical description of objects and their provenances is based on substantial
original scholarship and is central to the argument of an essay or dissertation, permission may be
obtained for its inclusion within the body of the essay or dissertation, hence contributing to the
word count. Normally no more than one third of an essay or dissertation should consist of such
material.

Applications for such permissions should be sought, in consultation with the supervisor, from the
Degree Committee at the time at which the title of the essay or dissertation in question is
submitted for approval.

Criteria for marking MPhil essays and dissertations

Each essay and dissertation is read by two senior members or associates of the Department,
neither of whom will have supervised the work being marked. Both will submit independent
reports. The three essays must cover a range of topics and, taken together, must show evidence
of a broad knowledge of history and philosophy of science and medicine. They are not required
to present original research.

In order to pass, the dissertation must be clearly written, take account of previously published
work on the subject, and represent a contribution to learning. It must show evidence of
independent research.

In Cambridge, higher degrees are not formally classified. The MPhil is publicly classed only in
Pass/Fail terms. No marks are made publicly available. The minimum pass level for the
examination is the equivalent of Class II.I in Part II of a Tripos, extrapolated for one year of
graduate study. On the basis of the mark scheme adopted by the NST, the HPS Degree
Committee has determined the following mark scheme for the MPhil in History, Philosophy and
Sociology of Science, Technology and Medicine:

80 and above First Class (Starred Distinction)

75–79 First Class (Distinction)
70–74 First Class (Boundary for PhD)
65–69 High Performance
60–64 Pass
59 and below Fail

Candidates are required to pass in each part of the examination separately (i.e. the essays and the
dissertation), except in the following special circumstances:

24
  a candidate whose failure in the essays is marginal should be allowed to submit a
dissertation, and a high performance in the dissertation may be taken into account by the
Degree Committee in determining their recommendation to the Board of Graduate Studies.
Students whose overall essay mark is a marginal fail will be warned by the MPhil manager
in May;
 where a candidate’s failure in the dissertation is marginal, a high performance in the
essays may be taken into consideration by the Degree Committee in determining their
recommendation to the Board of Graduate Studies.

At the end of the course, examiners may decide to hold an oral examination. Such an
examination will in any case be necessary if the dissertation is judged to be a marginal failure or
if there is a very marked discrepancy between the two examiners’ independent reports on the
dissertation.

A distinction in the MPhil is normally necessary and often sufficient for continuation as a PhD
student in the Department.

Prizes
The Jennifer Redhead Prize, which was endowed by Professor Redhead when he retired as Head
of the Department, is awarded each year to the MPhil student who has the best overall
performance in the MPhil essays.

The Rausing Prize, endowed by the Rausing family, is awarded annually to the MPhil student
who writes the best dissertation.

Results
You will be able to obtain informal verbal feedback on your MPhil performance from the MPhil
manager after the Degree Committee meeting on Monday 4 July. Please note that at this stage
the MPhil manager is allowed only to indicate the grade of the performance (i.e. pass, high
performance, distinction, first class distinction), not the marks or examiners’ comments.
Transcripts and copies of the examiners’ reports will be available after your marks have been
formally ratified by the Board of Graduate Studies on 12 July. Congregation is held on Saturday
23 July.

25
The marking scheme in more detail
Mark 80+ An outstanding and memorable performance in which all, the qualities deemed to
constitute first-class work are present in a remarkable degree. The work should be
First Class
well researched and substantially original, bearing in mind that originality has many
(Starred dimensions: it may reside, for instance, in the thesis defended; or in the way a
Distinction) known thesis is presented and defended. Such work might well form the basis for
publication. Potential for outstanding PhD work.

Mark 75–79 Work which is of high calibre both in the range and in the command of the material
and in the argument and analysis that it brings to bear. The examiner would expect
First Class some elements of originality – which may consist in putting together material in
(Distinction) novel ways – although originality alone would not guarantee marks in this range.
Work in this class will generally meet the following criteria: the argument may be
Mark 70–74 sophisticated, incisive or demonstrate flair; there may be a wealth of relevant
information, showing exceptional knowledge and understanding of the issues
First Class involved; the approach may be unorthodox in the best sense, suggesting new and
(Boundary for worthwhile ways of considering material. The submitted work may display evidence
PhD) of extensive research imaginatively and convincingly deployed.
Work which receives a mark of 70 to 74: A solid performance in which some of the
criteria for first class work will clearly be present but not necessarily all. Shows
potential for PhD work.
Work which receives a mark of 75 to 79: A very strong performance demonstrating
clear originality, and in which the qualities deemed to constitute first-class work are
consistently well represented. Clear potential for good PhD work.

Mark 65–69 Clearly proficient with a proper coverage of relevant material. Work may indicate
broader range than the Pass category and should be reasonably well presented. Solid
High
but on occasion unimaginative. Ambition of work clearly visible but not always
Performance carried through. The analysis and argument are generally good. Work at the upper
end of this category shows evidence of a good and broad-based engagement with,
and understanding of, the relevant material and organised in a clearly-argued, well-
illustrated and relevant fashion. The essay or dissertation will usually contain
material which displays evidence of high intelligence, and which is regularly, but
not consistently, sophisticated in analysis, impressive in its display of relevant
knowledge, and occasionally demonstrate flair.

Mark 60–64 Work which is basically competent, and, in the case of dissertations, reasonably
independent. Interesting and provocative ideas may not be not carried through fully
Pass convincingly. The main thesis may be vague, too general, too unambitious or else
over-ambitious. There may be gaps in the bibliography, deficiencies in the overall
structure; and weaknesses of analysis and argument. A piece of work which is not
always clearly written.

Mark 0–59 Work that, while it may show reasonable knowledge of the material, and serious
effort, reveals deficiencies in understanding, organisation or breadth of reference.
Fail Work that is derivative or irrelevant, ignorant or extremely superficial. Work
showing minimal understanding of material or serious deficiencies in argument.

26
Continuation to the PhD
MPhil students wishing to continue to the PhD must complete the GRADSAF form (available to
download from the Board of Graduate Studies website) and attach a research proposal of at least
600 words. The recommended deadline for the application form and research proposal is 15
February of the MPhil year. It is essential to meet this deadline if you wish to be considered for
PhD funding.

Continuing students will be interviewed in early July. The interviewers will usually be the
prospective supervisor and an examiner of the student’s MPhil dissertation. The student’s
research proposal will be discussed at the interview.

The normal preconditions for continuing to the PhD are an overall mark of a distinction in the
MPhil and a satisfactory performance in the interview. However, the Degree Committee reserves
the right to admit continuing students who fail to receive an overall distinction mark, or who fail
to perform satisfactorily in the interview. The Department also reserves the right not to interview
a candidate and make its decision solely on the basis of the performance on the MPhil.

Students can defer their application to continue by up to two terms, but not across an academic
year. If students wish to continue in another academic year, they will need either to make a new
application to continue or to ask for their original continuation papers to be resubmitted as a new
application.

A Graduate Training Workshop for MPhil students interested in continuing to the PhD will be
held in late November (see page 45).

27
A note about plagiarism
In general, plagiarism can be defined as
the unacknowledged use of the work of others as if this were your own original work.

In the context of an examination, this amounts to

passing off the work of others as your own to gain unfair advantage.

Such use of unfair means will not be tolerated by the University; if detected, the penalty may be
severe and may lead to failure to obtain your degree.

The scope of plagiarism

a) Plagiarism may be due to:

 Copying (using another person’s language and/or ideas as if they are your own);
 Collusion (unauthorized collaboration)

b) Methods include:

 quoting directly another person’s language, data or illustrations without clear indication that
the authorship is not your own and due acknowledgement of the source;
 paraphrasing the critical work of others without due acknowledgement – even if you change
some words or the order of the words, this is still plagiarism if you are using someone else’s
original ideas and are not properly acknowledging it;
 using ideas taken from someone else without reference to the originator;
 cutting and pasting from the Internet to make a ‘pastiche’ of online sources;
 colluding with another person, including another candidate (other than as might be permitted
for joint project work);
 submitting as part of your own report or dissertation someone else’s work without identifying
clearly who did the work (for example, where research has been contributed by others to a
joint project).

c) Plagiarism can occur in respect to all types of sources and all media:

 not just text, but also illustrations, musical quotations, computer code etc;
 not just text published in books and journals, but also downloaded from websites or drawn
from other media;
 not just published material but also unpublished works, including lecture handouts and the
work of other students.

28
How to avoid plagiarism
The stylistic conventions for different subjects vary and you should consult your supervisor
about the conventions pertaining in a particular subject area. However, the main points are:

 When presenting the views and work of others, include in the text an indication of the source
of the material
e.g. ...as Sharpe (1993) has shown,....
and give the full details of the work quoted in your bibliography.
 If you quote text verbatim, place the sentence in inverted commas and give the appropriate
reference
e.g. ‘The elk is of necessity less graceful than the gazelle’ (Thompson, 1942, p 46)
and give the full details in your bibliography as above.
 If you wish to set out the work of another at length so that you can produce a counter-
argument, set the quoted text apart from your own text (e.g. by indenting a paragraph) and
identify it by using inverted commas and adding a reference as above.
 If you are copying text, keep a note of the author and the reference as you go along, with the
copied text, so that you will not mistakenly think the material to be your own work when you
come back to it in a few weeks’ time.
 If you reproduce an illustration or include someone else’s data in a graph include the
reference to the original work in the legend:
e.g. (figure redrawn from Webb, 1976)
or (triangles = data from Webb, 1976)
 If you wish to collaborate with another person on your project, you should check with your
supervisor whether this might be allowed and then seek permission (for research degrees, the
permission of the Board of Graduate Studies must be sought).
 If you have been authorised to work together with another candidate or other researchers,
you must acknowledge their contribution fully in your introductory section. If there is likely
to be any doubt as to who contributed which parts of the work, you should make this clear in
the text wherever necessary.
e.g. I am grateful to A. Smith for analysing the sodium content of these samples
 Be especially careful if cutting and pasting work from electronic media; do not fail to
attribute the work to its source. If authorship of the electronic source is not given, ask yourself
whether it is worth copying.

The golden rule

The examiners must be in no doubt as to which parts of your work are your own original work
and which are the rightful property of someone else.

29
MPhil essay and dissertation topics
Here is a sample of essay and dissertation topics recently submitted for the MPhil:
A close examination of the pseudo-Aristotelian
Mechanical Problems
A new period in postwar Britain: the
normalisation of menstruation in Growing Girls
(1949)
An analysis of astrological medical manuals in
England in the late seventeenth century
Animals in the diagnostic laboratory: the rise
and fall of living pregnancy tests in Britain and
beyond, 1929–1964
Choice and reproduction: the choice agenda and
prenatal diagnosis
Cube roots: A.H. Frost’s model of a magic cube
in the Whipple Museum
Darwin and contemporary evolutionary debate
Edmund Selous and his ‘bird life glimpses’: a
study in birdwatching as observation, 1899–
1933
Embodied electricians and disembodied
electrometers: precision, accuracy and bodily
expertise in five models of electrometers at the
Royal Society (1765–1797)
Environmentalism, Sarah Forbes Bonetta, and
the racial constitution of disease in Victorian
England
Eugenics in the medical press in the early years
of the twentieth century
Foucault’s epistemology of ‘mental illness’
Genealogy of Cambridge HPS
High performance prosthetics for the active male
amputee, 1976–1988
History, anthropology and the study of
witchcraft
Hormones in the field
Hunters and gentleman: the naturalist explorers
Alfred Russel Wallace and Paul Du Chaillu
‘I cannot reconcile myself to vegetating
animals.’ John Ellis’s attempts to demonstrate
the animal nature of zoophytes
Kant’s theory of agency
Kant’s Transcendental Deduction and the
cognitive sciences
30
Layers of meaning: Erasmus Wilson’s
investigations of nineteenth-century skin
Losing the moon, gaining the solar system:
manned space flight and the limits of STS for
NASA policy
Making ‘pregnancy hormones’, 1927–43
‘Manufactories’ of attention: discipline, fatigue
and reading in late Victorian and early
Edwardian elementary schools
Mapping the St Lawrence in the Seven Years’
War
Measuring Britons in Barley: a local case study
of the British ethnographic survey, 1893–98
Mechanical elephants and clockwork Turks:
foreign lands and the Baroque automaton
‘Messages for mothers’: breastfeeding and the
management of expertise in the World Health
Organization, 1977–1985
Modelling nature: the case of the Whipple
Museum’s pomological models
Palestine and the politics of DNA
Paying the astronomer: John Crosley and
making an assistant visible
Placing the image of the medical student suturer
within the UK’s episiotomy debate of the early
1980s
Psychoanalysis and the practice of criminal
detection
Putnam’s pragmatism and the fact/value
dichotomy
Reconsidering the pseudo-Aristotelian Problems
Robin Hill’s cloud camera: an analysis of the
development of the fisheye lens at Cambridge
University
Sunspottery: the Kew Observatory and Victorian
science
Telescopic tracings: astronomy, art and the
Varley family
The ‘physiologies’ of Albert Smith
The cultural geography of Hume’s Treatise: the
nature of scepticism in the eighteenth century
The four-colour theorem and empiricism in
computer-assisted proofs
The memetic gambit: lessons from chess for
conceptual evolution
The playing cards of Thomas Tuttell
The reference of theoretical terms: the case of
the positron
The Spitalfields Mathematical Society: the
boundaries of practising mathematics
The tree as evolutionary icon – Tania Korats’
‘TREE’ in the Natural History Museum
‘Toolish and organic: untoolish and inorganic’:
Samuel Butler on mechanical creation
Transmutation of the Tree of Life
Unveiling nature: wonder and the art of
deception in eighteenth-century London
What is evidence-based medicine and what does
philosophy have to offer?
What makes a building fail: the construction of
Cambridge University’s Interdisciplinary
Research Centre in Superconductivity in the late
twentieth century
White maps of Africa
31
PhD in History and Philosophy
of Science
Welcome to new PhDs
It’s a daunting task to write a welcome note for PhDs in this department – we come from such a
range of places and disciplines that I couldn’t possibly fit in everything that you might need or
want to know. The rest of this handbook gives you lots of details about the technical ins and
outs of Cambridge HPS, so I just want to use this space to highlight a few points that might help
you to settle in as you start your PhD.

Whether you’ve come through the Cambridge undergraduate and MPhil degrees or have only
just arrived in town, doing a PhD is an entirely different experience, and one that the HPS
Department supports very well. When I was considering graduate studies I was warned at length
that the life of a researcher could be very lonely, particularly at PhD level when the minimal
structure of MPhil life disappears almost completely! Thankfully, the Department is a very
friendly and open place. The party at the start of the year is a great opportunity to get to know
members of the Department, from undergraduates to fellows. Throughout the year there are
other Department-wide parties where you can meet people informally like this, as well as
graduate socials and field trips. While it might sound cynical, it’s a good idea to get to know
people early on so that you have support in the Department if you do run up against work
troubles!

At the start of term there are also two research methods seminars, which all new graduate
students should attend. These cover pretty broad topics and it can be tempting to think that they
aren’t relevant to your work. To be honest, this may be true of some of the topics, but the
sessions are still a good way to find out more about what’s going on in the Department beyond
your field of expertise. More importantly, the speakers are generally pretty fun and occasionally
amusingly crazy, so the seminars are always entertaining!

These two seminars provide the basic structure for the start of the year, but there’s lots more that
you can get involved with. Throughout the year there’s the weekly Departmental Seminar, with
tea and biscuits beforehand, and an almost overwhelming range of other seminars and reading
groups on offer in term time. Regularly going along to one or two of these a week is not only a
good way to keep your interests broad, but also allows you to meet new people, and I’d really
recommend taking the time out to get involved with something like this. There are also similar
groups in other departments that you might be interested in going to, as well as more structured
training courses across the University (for example at the University Computing Service or the
Language Centre). Don’t forget as well that graduate students of all levels are welcome to Part
II lectures in HPS, which are often excellently presented and can help to provide structure and
good broad coverage of topics on the undergraduate syllabus.

32
When talking about support here, I’ve tried to mention parties, seminars and reading groups, but
I seem to keep coming back to people and the people around you, however you meet them, are
obviously going to be pretty important. As well as other new PhD students, I’d recommend
talking to some of the graduates further through their studies. This gives you a way to get
practical advice based on personal experience and also means that you increase your chances of
meeting people with similar interests. I’ve also found that getting to know some of the MPhil
students has kept me sane – they not only have relatively broad academic interests, but also have
tight deadlines, so the chapter you have to submit three months down the line starts to look
comparatively painless! MPhils and PhDs of all years can often be found in the coffee room,
which is on the top floor of the Department at the end of the corridor. There’s wireless internet
access, as well as three Macs, a couple of couches and tea and coffee for a nominal fee in the
honesty box.

Another very important person in your academic life is your supervisor. It really is impossible to
generalise here, since academics have such varied supervising styles. It’s a good idea to meet
with your supervisor early on to discuss a viable way of working. Most people find it helpful to
meet with their supervisor every couple of weeks, at least in certain stages of their research.
Most importantly, I’d advise that you keep in regular contact about your work, so that any
problems can be identified early on.

For all your administrative needs you can contact Tamara in the office on the ground floor, who
is supremely helpful in times of form-induced stress. Try to remember to sort out these things
well in advance to keep everyone’s panic levels to a minimum! You can also buy paper from the
office for the printers in the Basement Information Technology Suite (the snappily acronymed
BITS) and the Graduate Information Technology Suite (the slightly less well thought through
GITS) on the first floor.

Finally, there is a PhD representative who you might find it helpful to make contact with. In
HPS, a notoriously happy department, the representative’s role tends to be largely social, with
responsibility for organising social events for the graduate students throughout the year. The
representative is also responsible for liaising with the Department on behalf of the PhD students.
There will be an opportunity for formal feedback three times per year and you can also approach
the representative at any time with feedback about specific issues.

Exhausting though that was, I’m sure it’s by no means exhaustive and there’s lots more
information in the rest of this book. Above all, remember to ask for support when you need it
and in most cases someone in the Department will be able to help you, or at least know someone
else who can. Cambridge HPS is a great department for graduate study and if you take a little
time to get to know the people and the place I’m sure you’ll have a fantastic experience here!

Katie Taylor, PhD rep 2008–2009

33
The PhD programme
Supervision
As a new PhD student, you will be assigned a supervisor who is responsible for guiding your
studies. You are, however, expected to have the capacity and enthusiasm to organise your own
research and to work on your own initiative. You are expected to submit written work at regular
intervals for discussion with your supervisor. At the end of each year, your supervisor will
complete a report on your progress; and, if you are in receipt of an AHRC award or the
equivalent, your supervisor must report to the funding agency by the end of June each year. The
AHRC will not renew an award for the next academic year until the report has been submitted
and assessed.

The doctoral programme is administered by the Department’s Degree Committee, which

appoints the supervisor in the first instance. You may consult the Director of Graduate Studies or
the Head of Department if there are any problems with supervision, for example, if your
supervisor is on leave for an extended period; your research takes a new direction; or for
personal reasons.

Registration for PhD

If you have been admitted to the PhD programme without taking the MPhil course in your first
year you are officially described as ‘not at first registered’. By the end of your first year of study,
normally by 30 June, you should submit a substantial piece of written work of about ten
thousand words, plus a detailed outline of the scope of your PhD thesis and a schedule for its
completion. These materials are submitted to two readers, usually your supervisor and advisor,
who will normally hold an oral interview with you. On the basis of their reading and the
interview, these readers will report to the Degree Committee with a recommendation about
registration. A positive recommendation will normally lead to registration backdated to the start
of your course. If the readers cannot make a positive recommendation at the first submission,
they will produce a concise but reasonably detailed statement of what improvements are required
to reach registration standard that will be given to your supervisor to pass on to you. Failure to
be registered at the first meeting of the Degree Committee in the fourth term of your course will
produce severe funding difficulties. It is therefore advisable that registration documents be
submitted by the end of the third term of the course to allow time for any revisions, if necessary,
that may be suggested. The substantial piece of written work required for registration should
represent the equivalent of a coherently argued and fully documented chapter of your
prospective doctoral thesis and should be closely related to the scheme of the whole thesis. It
should reach at least the standard of an MPhil dissertation that is awarded a distinction. The
Board of Graduate Studies requires that the registration procedure should be completed by the
end of your fourth term of study, that is, normally by the end of the Michaelmas Term of your
second year.

34
Ongoing assessment of PhD work
PhD advisors
At the end of the first term of your PhD course the Degree Committee will appoint an advisor for
you. You should be actively engaged in selecting your advisor. You are encouraged to submit
written work to the advisor at any time, and should meet your advisor at least once a year.

Progress log
You are required to keep a progress log, in which you should keep a record of actions plans,
meetings with your supervisor and advisor, and your attendance at seminars, conferences and
courses and any other graduate training you have participated in.

Annual meetings
At the end of each year you will need to submit a substantial piece of work (approx 10,000
words), a thesis plan, a progress report and an updated PhD log to be read by your supervisor and
advisor. They will then hold a meeting with you to discuss your work. Following this meeting,
your supervisor and advisor will write a report on your progress. Their report will be sent to the
Degree Committee.

Work away from Cambridge

You should be resident in Cambridge for at least three terms, not including any terms spent as an
MPhil student. The normal expectation is that if you do not have leave to work away, you will
spend nine terms undertaking supervised research in Cambridge. You are expected to reside in
Cambridge for the full duration of your studies, unless there are academic reasons for you to be
elsewhere.

It is sometimes possible to obtain permission to work away from Cambridge for one or more
terms provided that there are good academic reasons and adequate arrangements can be made for
supervision in another institution. This permission will not normally be granted for the whole of
your first year of doctoral research. Application must be made on forms available from the
Board of Graduate Studies, and should be accompanied by your supervisor’s comments. Such
applications will be considered for approval by the Degree Committee. If you are working away
you should notify your college well in advance. You are also responsible for notifying in
advance your grant-giving body, and obtaining the necessary approval from it.

Extension to study period

Graduate students can make a new type of application called ‘extension to study period’. If
granted, the 4-year period to end date will be adjusted accordingly. The work must be directly
relevant to the research of the student but not contribute to the research for the degree – they
should be auxiliary courses. Please be aware when making this application that the status
‘working away’ will more often than not be more appropriate than ‘extension to study period’.

35
Intermission of doctoral study and exemption from fees
If for any reason you have to stop research for a period, you can apply to intermit your studies
and during that period you do not have to pay fees. You should apply through the Board of
Graduate Studies, and give as much notice as possible to your college. You are responsible for
notifying your grant giving body.

After you have been registered for nine terms, you can apply through the Board of Graduate
Studies for exemption from the University composition fee.

Deferral of submission of PhD thesis

Your PhD thesis cannot normally be submitted until you have been registered for eight complete
terms, and must be submitted once you have been registered for ten complete terms. You can
apply for deferral of submission if you have very good reasons for such a delay, the application
being through the Board of Graduate Studies. Deferrals beyond four years of PhD research are
not permitted.

Students who have not submitted within the four-year period will be removed from the Register.
Students intending to submit a PhD after removal from the Register should apply well in
advance through the Board of Graduate Studies for reinstatement on the Register.

The PhD thesis

The doctoral thesis must be entirely your own work, clearly written, take due account of
previously published work on the subject, and represent a significant contribution to learning, for
example through the discovery of new knowledge, the connection of previously unrelated facts,
the development of new theory or the revision of older views. The thesis should contain material
of sufficient originality to merit publication and this material should be adequate to form the
basis of, for example, two articles together amounting to 15,000-20,000 words or of a short
monograph.

The thesis must be a connected account of your research. It may not consist of a number of
disconnected or unrelated papers containing portions of your work which have been published,
but it may include published work provided it is part of a connected argument and it is in the
same format as the rest of the thesis. The thesis may also include Appendices which are relevant
to the material contained in the thesis but do not form part of the connected argument. You may
also submit with your thesis unconnected or unrelated work which you have published; such
work may, at the discretion of the examiners, be taken into consideration.

It is important that you state clearly, in footnotes or a bibliography, the sources from which you
have obtained your information and the extent to which you have made use of the work of
others. You are required to include a declaration that it is entirely your own work and that it is
not substantially the same as any work you have submitted for another degree, diploma or
similar qualification. You should also include a declaration of the length of your thesis, which
should be no more than 80,000 words, including footnotes but excluding the bibliography. If you

36
need an extension to the word limit, or wish to submit an appendix that does not count towards
the word limit, you will need to apply to the Degree Committee for permission, using the form
available on the Board of Graduate Studies website. An appendix should consist of material
strictly relevant to the argument of the thesis, such as primary source materials that are not
readily accessible, questionnaire responses, statistical tables, descriptions of objects or analytical
bibliographies.

The dissertation should be in English, and quotations from other languages should usually be
given in translation, with the originals, where appropriate, given in footnotes or appendices.

The thesis should be in typescript on one side only of A4 paper in portrait format. The text
should be adequately spaced, with a font size no smaller than 11 point for the main text and 10
point for footnotes. You must include a title page giving your full name, your college, the full
title of the thesis and the degree for which it is submitted. A summary, as described below,
should also be included.

Please note that the form in which your dissertation is presented, and the care with which it has
been prepared and illustrated, are in themselves evidence of your capabilities and will receive
consideration as such. You are strongly advised to check carefully for typing errors, spelling
mistakes and poor use of English. Correcting such errors may be a condition of approval for the
degree.

In planning your thesis you should take account of the criteria for recommending award of the
PhD set out in the Board of Graduate Studies’ Guide to Examiners. In particular, in planning the
scope of your thesis you should note that the examiners are instructed to take account of ‘what it
is reasonable to expect a student to complete within three years of full-time research for the
PhD’. Further recommended criteria are:

 the dissertation is clearly written,

 takes due account of previously published work on the subject,
 and represents a significant contribution to learning, for example through
 the discovery of new knowledge;
 the connection of previously unrelated facts;
 the development of new theory;
 or the revision of older views.

Collaborative research
Inclusion in the thesis of work carried out in collaboration is unusual and requires the approval
of the Degree Committee and Board of Graduate Studies. If you have been given leave to work
in collaboration with others you should indicate clearly which parts of your thesis relate to this
work and should state the names of those with whom you have collaborated and the extent to
which they have assisted you.

37
Submission of the thesis
As already noted, dissertations should normally be submitted within 10 terms of PhD research,
though deferral may be granted by the degree committee for a further two terms. In deciding
when to submit your dissertation you should be guided by your supervisor and by your annual
reviews. Before you submit, send the Board of Graduate Studies a form applying for the
appointment of examiners (downloadable from the Department’s website), with two copies of a
summary of your thesis. The summary should take the form of an abstract of the thesis and be
about 300 words in length. It should be presented on one side of A4 paper with your name and
the exact title of the thesis at the top.

The Degree Committee, in consultation with your supervisor, will then consider the summary
and the thesis title so as to appoint two examiners, neither of whom may be your supervisor. You
will also be expected to indicate when the thesis will be submitted for examination. On
submission, you must provide the Board of Graduate Studies with two copies of your thesis,
which may be hardbound or softbound. Please also complete a Soft-Bound Declaration Form,
available on CamSIS, if you are submitting a softbound thesis.

The copies are then forwarded to the Secretary of the Degree Committee, who sends them to the
examiners. For further information on how to submit your thesis please consult the Board of
Graduate Studies website: www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/gradstud/current/submitting/

After the examination, you will be required to provide one copy of your thesis to be deposited in
the University Library and one copy to be deposited in the Whipple Library. These should be
clean copies, permanently stitched and bound in stiff covers, with your name and the title clearly
inscribed on the cover and incorporating any corrections required by the examiners. At the same
time, you should submit a further loose copy of your summary to be filed in the University
Library and the Whipple Library. You will also be asked to sign a declaration regarding your
right to be identified as the author.

PhD theses may also be deposited on DSpace, the University’s online repository for digital
content, but this is not compulsory.

You will not be able to collect your degree until you have submitted the two hardbound copies of
your thesis. You are strongly recommended to retain one or more copies for your own use.

The viva
After each examiner has made a full independent report on the thesis, the examiners will contact
you to arrange an oral examination. Normally, only you and the examiners will be present at the
examination where you will be examined on the subject of your thesis and the general field of
knowledge within which it falls.

38
Examination of PhD thesis
After the oral examination, the examiners will jointly make one of the following
recommendations:

a) that the PhD degree is awarded

b) that the PhD degree is awarded, subject to minor amendments and corrections being
made to the thesis
c) that the PhD degree is not awarded, and that you can choose whether to be awarded an
MLitt degree or submit a revised thesis for examination for the PhD degree
d) that no degree is awarded, but that you may submit a revised thesis
e) that an MLitt degree is awarded, without you being given the option of submitting a
revised thesis
f) that no degree is awarded and you are not allowed to submit a revised thesis.

The last two of these recommendations will only be made in exceptional circumstances, where
the examiners are convinced that the candidate has no chance of reaching the required standard,
and only on the first submission of a thesis.

If the examiners recommend (c) or (d), they will prepare a statement of the revision that is
required. You will then normally be expected to submit a revised thesis within a year. If the
same examiners are appointed to examine the revised thesis, a second oral examination may not
be required.

Examiners’ reports
The Examiners’ reports will be made available to you when you are informed by the Board of
Graduate Studies of the outcome of the examination.

Review procedures
University regulations limit the justifiable grounds of complaint about the conduct of a
candidate’s examination to the following:

 that there existed material circumstances relating directly to the examination (excluding
circumstances relating to the candidate’s course of research or course of study) of which the
examiners were not aware
 that procedural irregularities occurred in the conduct of the examination, which were of such
a nature as to cause reasonable doubt as to whether the examiners would have reached the
same conclusion had the irregularities not occurred
 that there is demonstrable evidence of prejudice, bias or inadequate assessment in the
examination process.

When representations are made, they will first be considered by the Board of Graduate Studies,
which will consult the Degree Committee, which may in turn choose to consult the examiners. If
the complaint is accepted by the Board, it may, together with the Degree Committee, agree upon

39
the remedial action to be taken. However, a further option open to the Board, after consulting
the Degree Committee, is to refer the complaint to an independent Review Committee. If the
Board rejects the complaint as unjustified, the candidate has one opportunity to make further
representations directly to the Review Committee itself. All representations must be made
within six months of the decision of the Board to which they relate and are to be addressed to the
Secretary of the Board of Graduate Studies.

40
Supervising undergraduate students
The Department organises supervisions for undergraduates taking our courses in the Natural
Sciences Tripos. Often these supervisions are given by PhD students in the Department, who are
paid by the undergraduates’ colleges for this service. The Part IB and Part II managers are
responsible for co-ordination of undergraduate teaching, and you should consult them if you
wish to work as an undergraduate supervisor.

The University is ensuring that all graduate students with supervisory or teaching responsibilities
are appropriately trained. All graduate students intending to supervise are now required to
complete an online training package that will provide foundation (generic) information about the
Cambridge supervision system. Graduate students intending to supervise in this department must
also attend the Graduate Training Workshops on supervision that are held at the start of
Michaelmas Term (see page 45).

Be warned – supervisions are time-consuming and can distract you from your own research, but
supervisions can also provide excellent teaching experience and rewarding intellectual
opportunities. Here is a guide to how these supervisions work.

Undergraduate supervision is provided for students who have opted to take HPS in their second
year (Part IB) or third year (Part II). See the Undergraduate Studies section of the HPS website at
www.hps.cam.ac.uk/studying/undergraduate for more information about these courses.

How supervisors are appointed

Supervisions for the IB course are arranged through the Colleges. Most colleges have a Director
of Studies (DoS) specifically for HPS. The DoS will appoint a supervisor for IB History of
Science and one for IB Philosophy of Science by the start of the year. The DoS can arrange an
initial meeting with all students at the college taking HPS IB and with the supervisors, or else
send the students to see the supervisors in person. Supervisions for the Part II course are co-
ordinated by the managers of each paper in co-operation with the lecturers on each course that
makes up that paper. Each lecture course will normally be separately supervised by a designated
supervisor, appointed by the lecturer.

When and where supervisions happen

Supervisions take place at a regular, agreed time. They should last about an hour, and usually
involve two or three students. For IB supervisions these times will normally be arranged at the
initial meeting with the DoS and the students. Sometimes they are arranged immediately
following one of the early IB lectures. You should therefore come to these initial meetings
prepared with a schedule of available times. IB supervisions should take place alternately, once a
fortnight for history of science and once a fortnight for philosophy of science, with about ten
supervisions in either subject during the year. Wherever possible, you should try to arrange
rooms in college for supervisions. There is a grave shortage of supervision space in the
Department.

41
Part II supervisions vary in frequency according to the particular course supervised. Do not,
unless under exceptional circumstances, arrange to supervise on a given course more frequently
than once a fortnight. Discuss frequency and timing with the lecturer and the paper manager,
especially on papers where the students are not expected to take every lecture course or papers
where the same supervisor is covering more than one course.

What supervisions are for

You set students topics and questions, and assign readings, on the basis of which the students
then write essays which are assessed by you and discussed in the supervision. Supervisions help
prepare the student for the Tripos, are co-ordinated with the appropriate lectures, and develop the
student’s disciplinary skills. These skills include using a quantity of written sources, evaluating
their significance and use in answering questions, and ordering argument and reasoning
succinctly, clearly yet with sensitivity. The purpose of the supervision is to clarify, focus and
extend the work the student has been set. You should normally attend the lectures you are
supervising so you can also use supervisions to discuss problems raised in the lectures.

Topics
You should discuss essay topics with the lecturers who can often provide you with lists of
possible topics. You can sometimes rely on past exam papers, though take care, because the
content of lecture courses changes every year, some courses vanish and new ones appear.
Remember that one (but not the only) function of supervisions is to get students ready for the
exams. Each topic is defined by a question or statement set by you at the previous meeting. Take
care framing questions, and don’t make them unnecessarily ambiguous. They don’t have to be as
narrowly focused as exam questions often are. Students read for the essay, so the broader the
question the more they will be encouraged to read. But students from a science background often
find broad questions daunting and assimilating lots of reading can be really hard for them at first.

Readings
You supply students with reading lists for each topic. You can use the reading lists handed out
during the lectures, and make your own lists too. There is no harm in setting a list longer than the
students can manage at the time, because at the end of term and in revision they will need this
help with bibliography. Make sure the readings are easily available for the students in the
Whipple Library or the College Library. If you are assigning a text which is much used, have it
put on reserve in the Whipple Library. Try to avoid assigning the same readings to a large
number of students simultaneously, because this puts too much pressure on the library. We are
desperately trying to get all College libraries to stock HPS texts, so tell your DoS about the
readings which are heavily used. IB students need lots of help with selecting readings and using
them. Go through the list beforehand pointing out especially relevant works. There are
arguments for and against specifying particular pages in longer works. Try to help the students
learn how to read critically and with a focus.

42
Essays
The essay should be handed in well ahead of time. You have a pigeonhole in the Department
where the essay can be left. Write comments on the essay before handing it back. Some
supervisors give marks, some don’t. If a student doesn’t hand in the essay on time, you can
refuse to teach until it appears. You are also within your rights to refuse to reschedule the
supervision. But try to be flexible. Essay length is negotiable. Students who get enthused by a
topic and write at length can certainly be encouraged, but verbosity is to be avoided and is bad
training for writing under time pressure. The opposite problem is at least as common: students
need training in what counts as an adequate answer which covers all the important aspects of the
problem you set. They also need training in the best way of using the sources they’ve read. It
seems to take some time to learn the difference between copying, quotation, summary and
argument, and this is a skill on which you need to concentrate. You can best judge the right style
and direction essays should take. Think about the skills that are valued at the research level as
well as those which count in exams. In a recent History Faculty questionnaire many women
students reported that they found that argumentative self-assertion seemed more highly valued
than cautious and sympathetic approaches, and that this preference revealed a distinctively
masculine approach to writing in the field. It has also been pointed out that male students can
often dominate discussion during supervision, and you need to be sensitive to these issues.

What happens during supervisions

There is no one way of supervising. Useful feedback is very important, but too much hostility
and criticism can be damaging. You are supervising students who have often been trained to
think in terms of a single ‘right’ answer, and this means they may react with hostility to your
comments and also find it difficult to accept the plurality of viewpoints in the field.
Argumentation is more important than grammar and spelling, but examiners are often very
concerned with the latter. You will often lead discussion, and students often find it helpful to
take notes during the meeting. But supervisions are not lectures. Students need to know the
worth of the essay they wrote, their understanding of the topic and the further areas they might
then explore. This information comes out best in discussion, not only with you but also between
the students themselves. You can change the mix of students if the supervisions are not going
well. Some students find it very useful to swap essays and provided this does not lead to
plagiarism it can be encouraged. Unselfconfident students are often encouraged that their more
assertive colleagues are not necessarily more acute.

Reports and payments

For IB students, make sure you confirm as early as possible with the DoS the names of all the
students you are supervising from that college. You should also give our Departmental Office a
list of all your IB supervisees (and their colleges).

Part II students should give a list of their supervisors’ names to their DoS, but they often don’t.
So find out the DoS of each of your students and contact them directly with a list of the students
under their direction whom you are supervising.

43
The Cambridge Colleges’ Online Reporting for Supervisions system (CamCORS) should be
used by all supervisors to write supervision reports and claim payment for supervisions. Ask
your college to register you to use the system. CamCORS can be accessed at
www.camcors.cam.ac.uk. It is easy to use, and has an extensive online help facility.

Trouble
In case of genuine trouble, as for example if a student keeps on missing supervisions, or
consistently fails to produce work, or they are obviously having major problems with workload,
you can and often should contact the student’s DoS, rather than leaving the problem until the
end-of-term report. Use your discretion and make sure you do not breach the confidentiality of
the student. For students’ emotional and personal problems, remember that each student will also
have a college Tutor, who is responsible for their personal welfare. On some occasions you may
feel it is necessary to talk to the Tutor, and, again, use discretion and preserve confidentiality.
You should always tell the student beforehand if you do decide to contact either their DoS or
their Tutor. Lecturers can also help with problems connected with the course and the teaching.
The DoS has the duty to discipline students, or remove them from your supervision, if they judge
the problem requires this. Remember that you are in a position of real responsibility for the
students under your supervision. Problems of abuse, harassment and misconduct are viewed with
the gravest seriousness. The Department’s Harassment Officer and College Tutors can also
intervene in such cases, and students have every right to appeal to these people for help. The
College DoS also has the right to stop you supervising their students if they judge you are part of
the problem.

Towards the end of the year, students will be provided with questionnaires on which they can
report on the quality of the supervisions they have received. The Department’s Monitoring
Committee receives these questionnaires and applies their results to future planning.

44
Graduate training
The Department offers a wide variety of training for all graduate students and postdoctoral researchers, to
support your research work, help you develop a range of academic skills, and increase your
employability. They are given by all the Department’s core teaching officers and are supported by a range
of resources on the HPS website (www.hps.cam.ac.uk/students/training). The Director of Graduate
Studies and MPhil/Part III Manager welcome suggestions for additions and improvements.

Overview
Term For everyone For Part IIIs & For PhDs For PhDs and
MPhils postdocs
Michaelmas 7, 14 Oct: Research Topics 22 Oct: How to 19 Nov: How to get 15 Oct: How to
and Resources I & II research and write a a PhD supervise coursework
Part III/MPhil essay (postdocs only)
29 Oct: How to research
HPS online 26 Nov: How to 8 Oct: How
apply for a PhD supervisions work
5 Nov: How to use rare
books and special 12 Nov: How to
collections supervise essays
Lent 21 Jan; 4, 25 Feb; 4 Mar: 18 Feb: How to 11 Mar: How to 28 Jan: How to write
How to use printed books as prepare a Part beat the mid-PhD a book proposal
original sources (series) III/MPhil slump
dissertation
11 Feb: How to give a
research talk
Easter 26 Apr: How to get a job in 27 May: How to 13 May: How to apply
academia finish your PhD for a research grant
10 Jun: How to publish an
article
All three Every Weds: HPS History Supervisors’ buddy
terms workshop and Philosophy scheme
workshop
Seminar talk buddy scheme
Language training

Most workshops are held on Friday lunchtimes. Feel free to bring food and eat as you work.

Training seminars, schemes and workshops for all graduate

students and postdocs
4pm, Thursday 7 and 14 October: Research Topics and Resources I & II (Tim Lewens,
Eleanor Robson)
HPS encompasses a bewildering range of topics. These seminars cannot hope to give you a complete
overview of the field and how to research it, but they will introduce you to some basic topics and
methodologies, stimulate you with lively examples of work by fellow graduate students and postdocs, and
inspire you to carry out original and insightful work of your own. These seminars are complemented by
an online guide (www.hps.cam.ac.uk/research).

45
1pm, Friday 29 October: How to research HPS online (Tim Eggington)
Today’s electronic resources expand research possibilities to an almost unimaginable degree. These
resources are however only useful if you know how to use them and if you know they are there! This
session will introduce you to a range of crucial HPS-relevant electronic resources, helping you to exploit
them in both conception and execution of your research projects.

1pm, Friday 5 November: How to use HPS-related rare book and manuscript collections in
Cambridge (Tim Eggington and others)
Cambridge University’s libraries contain a staggering wealth of rare book and manuscript collections,
many of them little known. This workshop will provide an introduction to Cambridge’s HPS-relevant
collections and show some of the ways in which collections-based study can present an enriching and
stimulating avenue for research. Part of the session will be devoted to the Charles Darwin and other
manuscript collections at Cambridge University Library.

1pm, Friday 21 January, 4 and 25 February, 4 March: How to use printed books as
original sources (Roger Gaskell and Tim Eggington)
You think you know how to use books because they are so familiar. In fact we all subconsciously mediate
texts, interpreting a text message in a different way to a newspaper article or academic textbook, for
example. For printed books from earlier periods, we do not automatically possess the required knowledge
for a full interpretation and must make a conscious effort to understand the context in which they were
manufactured and used. This series of four workshops uses books from the sixteenth to the twentieth
centuries in the Whipple Library to show how physical evidence in printed books can be used for an
historically informed reading of the text. Topics will include format, typography, illustration, binding,
provenance, annotation and other marks made by former owners.

1pm, Friday 11 February: How to give a research talk (Nick Hopwood)

Most of us in HPS are much more skilled at research and writing than we are at talking about our work in
public. So we spend a lot of time giving and listening to research seminars that could easily be much
better. Here is a chance to share ideas about how to give a good talk. This workshop will help you reflect
on the ingredients of a good presentation, from planning the content and preparing visual aids to
delivering a clear, engaging performance and handling awkward questions with aplomb.

1pm, Friday 26 April: How to get a job in academia (Eleanor Robson)

Student life can't last forever... This workshop will give you lots of practical advice on how to make
yourself employable; where to look for suitable jobs and fellowships; how to prepare job applications and
cover letters; how to find referees; and how to plan interview and job-talk tactics.

1pm, Friday 10 June: How to publish an article (Nick Jardine, Marina Frasca-Spada)
Your supervisor or examiners may have suggested that an essay of yours might be a good basis for a
published article. What better way to spend your summer? This workshop, led by two journal editors, will
talk you through the reasons for publishing; where and when to publish; how to transform a good MPhil
essay or PhD chapter into a publishable article; how to respond to editors’ queries and referees’ reports;
and how to submit the final version and deal with page proofs.

46
Graduate training workshops particularly for Part III and
MPhil students
1pm, Friday 22 October: How to research and write a Part III/MPhil essay (Lauren
Kassell)
As you embark on your first piece of coursework, you probably will have a plethora of questions to ask;
most people do. What's my supervisor for, and how do I make the most of her? Where I do find the
resources I need? How much can I say in 5000 words? What are the parameters of good academic style?
How do I manage my time so that I’m not still writing a draft 24 hours before submission? How do I cite
my sources? An experienced Part III/MPhil supervisor will reveal the secrets of how to get an excellent
essay in on time without too much loss of sleep or fingernails.

1pm, Friday 26 November: How to apply for a PhD (Tim Lewens)

Whether you are considering applying for a PhD place in Cambridge or elsewhere, deadlines will soon be
looming. Prepare yourself by coming to this workshop, run by the Director of Graduate Studies. It will
cover topics such as choosing a workable topic; writing a convincing proposal; looking for sources of
funding; and the Department’s PhD admissions requirements and process.

1pm, Friday 25 February: How to prepare a Part III/MPhil dissertation (Eleanor Robson)
Although your final submission date is still months away, now is a good time to start planning what your
finished dissertation will look like. In this session the MPhil/Part III Manager will take you through the
qualities that examiners typically look for in a high-quality piece of work and – equally importantly – the
sure fire ways to lose marks too. It will also cover formalities such as word counts, appendices, and
bibliographical style.

Graduate training workshops particularly for PhD students

1pm, Friday 19 November: How to get a PhD (Tim Lewens)
As a PhD student at the end of your first term, you’re beginning to find your way around the Department
and your research topic. Now it’s time to start thinking ahead. This session will describe the formal
requirements for your PhD, help you plan your work, explain what to expect at your Annual Review, and
advise you how to make the most of your PhD log book.

1pm, Friday 11 March: How to beat the mid-PhD slump (Hasok Chang)
It's the tail-end of winter, you haven’t seen the sun in months, and you want to throw your half-finished
PhD out of the window... Believe it or not, this is absolutely normal. Come and share your woes, and find
out how to get motivated again, in this workshop packed with practical advice on keeping your research
and writing moving along.

1pm, Friday 27 May: How to finish your PhD (Vanessa Heggie)

Come along to this workshop to discuss your experiences of PhD research so far, and to find ways to
manage the last stages of your project. Topics will include reviewing work done so far, assessing and
prioritising remaining work, realistic time management, and the formal requirements for PhD submission.
It’s never too early to start finishing!

47
Graduate training workshops for PhD students and
postdoctoral researchers
1pm, Friday 15 October: How to supervise coursework (for postdocs only; Simon Schaffer)
Supervising a piece of research work over several weeks or months takes a rather different set of skills to
supervising undergraduate essays. In this workshop a senior UTO will lead discussion on helping students
to: choose viable and worthwhile topics; find and utilise appropriate resources; plan and carry out their
research and writing; manage the constraints of deadlines and word limits. We will also consider
strategies for coping with various problem scenarios: how and when to ask for help; questions of
confidentiality; and how not to end up doing all the work yourself! Whether you've been supervising
MPhil essays and Part II dissertations for years, or are likely to be taking on research students for the first
time this year, do come along to share your experiences, concerns and questions. This workshop is only
for postdoctoral members and affiliates of the Department.

1pm, Friday 8 October: How supervisions work (Nick Hopwood)

All PhD students and postdocs are encouraged to supervise undergraduates in HPS. If you have never
supervised before, this workshop is an essential prerequisite. It will explain the relationship between
lectures and supervisions, Department and College, and cover practical topics such managing reports and
payments through CamCORS.

1pm, Friday 12 November: How to supervise essays (Kevin Brosnan and Nicky Reeves)
This workshop builds on the previous session but is also useful for more experienced supervisors. It will
cover more theoretical issues such as the pedagogical functions of supervisions and effective ways to plan
and deliver them. There will be a particular focus on how to mark and comment on essays, based on real-
life examples.

1pm, Friday 28 January: How to write a book proposal (Jim Secord)

So you want to transform your PhD into a book. Or you want to write something completely different.
How do you persuade a publisher to offer you a contract? This workshop will discuss good strategies for
approaching publishers, how to present your proposal effectively, and what to expect in return from the
publisher.

1pm, Friday 13 May: How to apply for a research grant (Eleanor Robson)
Research fellowships and postdoctoral grants are not prizes for writing a splendid PhD. How do you
convince a college, university or funding body that your proposed research is worth funding – and that
you are the person that should be funded to do it? This workshop will give you lots of practical tips on
writing a succinct, engaging, and convincing research grant application.

Events and resources for everyone, every term

HPS History Workshop and Philosophy Workshop (alternating Wednesdays, 1pm)
The HPS History Workshop (www.hps.cam.ac.uk/seminars/hsw.html) is a seminar group, run by and
for graduate students and postdocs, devoted to peer discussion of work in progress on the history and
historiography of science, for example PhD chapters, dissertations, articles intended for publication or
conference papers. The seminar aims to provide an informal arena for the exchange of ideas among
students of the history of science in HPS and elsewhere.

48
The Philosophy Workshop (http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/seminars/pw.html) is a fortnightly peer group
seminar devoted to the discussion of on-going work by graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in
philosophy. Short papers will normally be circulated by email one week in advance of each meeting,
where the author will give a brief synopsis. The aim of the seminar is to provide a forum for informal,
constructive interaction amongst those currently engaged in philosophical research.

Seminar talk buddy scheme

The Department offers a voluntary buddy system for graduate students and postdocs who are giving
presentations in Department seminars and reading groups, and one for those who are supervising
undergraduates. A similar but obligatory scheme operates for those who give undergraduate lectures in
the Department.

The MPhil/Part III Manager facilitates the pairing up of participants, each of whom attends the other's
presentation with the express purpose of observing and commenting on the delivery and performance,
with the aid of a check-list of things to look for. Once both participants have presented, they meet
privately to swap feedback, which should include at least three good points and three which could be
improved on. They notify the MPhil/Part III Manager that they have done so.

Language training
The Latin Therapy and Greek Therapy groups each offer informal weekly sessions, led by an expert tutor,
to help you improve your reading skills in these languages. For more details see
www.hps.cam.ac.uk/seminars/.

English language support

If English is not your first language and you find yourself struggling to read, write and communicate
effectively in an academic environment, come and talk in confidence to the MPhil Manager or Director of
Graduate Studies. The Department can offer a range of 1-1 support for you, tailored to your needs.

Externally provided courses

All graduate students and postdoctoral researchers are encouraged to attend relevant training courses
offered by other bodies, most of which are free to members of the university:
 School of Humanities and Social Sciences
<http://www.cshss.cam.ac.uk/students/skills/postgrads/courses.html>
 Joint Schools Research Methods in Social Sciences <http://www.jsss.group.cam.ac.uk/>
 Careers Service resources for arts, humanities and social sciences postdocs
<http://www.careers.cam.ac.uk/pdocAHSS/welcome.asp>
 Computing Service <http://training.csx.cam.ac.uk/>
 Language Centre <http://www.langcen.cam.ac.uk/>
 Centre for Personal and Professional Development
<http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/hr/cppd/graduates/>
 Disability Resource Centre <http://www.cam.ac.uk/disability/university/training.html>

The University’s website on transferable skills for graduates also lists a lot of useful courses and
resources: http://www.skills.cam.ac.uk/postgrads/.

Cambridge University Skills Directory <http://webservices.admin.cam.ac.uk/rskills/>

The Skills Directory is a searchable online resource that holds information on opportunities for
postgraduate and research staff to develop a broad skill set that will serve them in both their current

49
vocation and their future endeavours. It lists events from a large array of sources within the University.

Tiny travel grants

A small number of grants for travel to conferences is available for graduate students giving papers at
conferences (not for attendance only). Ask the Department Administrator for details.

Tiny training grants

If you have a particular training need that is not catered for here, the Department may be able give you
financial assistance towards it. Ask the Department Administrator for details.

50