EEE PHD RoughGuide

Rough Guide to an Electrical Engineering PhD
Keith Bell
Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering
University of Strathclyde
March 2007
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 2
2 CONSIDERING A PHD............................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 WHAT IS A PHD? .................................................................................................................................. 3
2.2 WHY DO A PHD? .................................................................................................................................. 3
2.3 WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A PHD? ....................................................................................................... 4
2.4 WHAT IS RESEARCH? ........................................................................................................................... 6
3 DOING A PHD............................................................................................................................................ 8
3.1 WHAT QUALITIES DOES A PHD STUDENT REQUIRE? ............................................................................. 8
3.2 WHAT CAN A PHD STUDENT EXPECT OF A SUPERVISOR? ...................................................................... 9
3.3 WHAT ARE THE STAGES OF A PHD?.................................................................................................... 10
3.4 WHAT ARE THE RESOURCES A PHD REQUIRES? .................................................................................. 12
3.5 WHAT HAPPENS IF THINGS GO WRONG?.............................................................................................. 12
4 GAINING A PHD ..................................................................................................................................... 14
4.1 HOW IS A PHD ASSESSED?.................................................................................................................. 14
4.2 WHAT SHOULD GO IN A THESIS? ......................................................................................................... 15
4.3 WHO ARE THE EXAMINERS? ............................................................................................................... 17
4.4 WHAT WILL THE VIVA BE LIKE?.......................................................................................................... 17
4.5 WHAT MIGHT BE THE OUTCOME OF A VIVA?....................................................................................... 19
5 SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS....................................................................................................... 20
6 FURTHER READING ............................................................................................................................. 21
© Keith Bell, 2007

1 Introduction
A PhD is quite a singular activity – sometimes lonely, often challenging but usually
rewarding. Core to it is an individual’s pursuit of knowledge, their management of their own
time, analytical and problem solving skills, their imagination and perseverance. They are
supported by a supervisor but the main research challenges, intellectual excitement and
rewards remain with the student.
Many guides to what a PhD involves do already exist. Some are referred to in the Further
Reading section below, but most are either very general or particular to arts or social
sciences. This ‘rough guide’ attempts to give a relatively brief but useful overview of what a
PhD is about for an engineering research student. It is ‘rough’ because, although it is the
product of the author’s discussions with colleagues as well as his own ideas, it makes no
pretence to be complete or completely objective. Nevertheless, it is intended to give some
insights that will help a PhD student to feel more confident about what they are doing and to
have a clearer idea of where they are trying to get to.
The guide proceeds in three main parts:
1. ‘considering a PhD’ – what is it and why should you do it?

2. ‘doing a PhD’ – what sorts of things do you need and what should you be doing?
3. ‘gaining a PhD’ – what are the main criteria for passing?
Some concluding remarks are then made and some further reading suggested.
2
2 Considering a PhD
2.1 What is a PhD?
A PhD – a ‘doctorate of philosophy’ – is a “postgraduate degree by research”. That is, it is a

further degree after a Bachelor’s or Master’s that is gained by undertaking research of a
certain quality (see later for what that ‘quality’ might be). In the UK, it normally requires a
minimum of three years of study. (In many other European countries, a minimum of 4 or 5
years is required and the student must already have gained a Master’s.)
In recent years, at least, it has not been necessary to sit any taught classes, but that is
changing in a number of places as institutions attempt to ensure that PhD students gain
relevant basic knowledge and skills as quickly and effectively as possible. In the Department
of Electronic and Electrical Engineering at Strathclyde that is being interpreted at time of
writing as meaning taking at least one Level 5 undergraduate class.
2.2 Why do a PhD?
Traditionally, a PhD has been a gateway to and a pre-requisite for an academic career as a
researcher and/or lecturer. However, in some science subjects such as biochemistry or
pharmacy it has also become more or less essential for a research position in industry.
In electrical and electronic engineering industries, it has never really been regarded as
essential. Indeed, many industrial employers have regarded it as an irrelevance; for others, it
has been worse than irrelevant, an actual hindrance – an unnecessary delay to entering the
workforce proper and a sign of a tendency to ‘geekiness’, over-analysis and aloofness.
Fortunately, this sort of attitude is becoming a thing of the past. Many companies are
recognising the value of highly developed technical knowledge, problem solving skills, the
ability to assimilate and interpret complex issues and data, qualities of self-management,
discipline and rigour, documentation and organisation skills, perseverance and the ability to
‘self start’ that good, successful PhD students should have gained from their studies. They are
increasingly inclined to recognise this in preferring to offer engineering positions to PhD
graduates over applicants who only have Bachelor’s or Master’s degrees, and sometimes
better starting salaries. Even if a better starting salary isn’t on offer, a good PhD graduate
should be able to progress through an organisation more quickly than their counterparts
without PhDs as they demonstrate these qualities of being able solve problems, be undaunted
by complexity, self-start and so on1.
A PhD remains a necessary – though not sufficient – qualification for an academic career.
However, while, as already noted, there are now wider career advantages, the main reason
why a student should do a PhD is – simply – that they want to. That is, they want the
intellectual challenge of solving difficult problems or of addressing important questions2, the
opportunity to deepen their own knowledge and the excitement and satisfaction of making a
1
I have very deliberately referred to a good PhD graduate as – shocking though it might seem – it has been
known for weak PhD candidates who exhibit few of these qualities to still gain a PhD.
2
If we’re honest, we would have to admit that difficulty and importance don’t always go together.
3
‘contribution’ to knowledge generally. There will be the chance to travel internationally and
attend conferences, meeting, sharing ideas with and sometimes challenging – and being
challenged by – other researchers and becoming part of a worldwide research community.
This can create friendships around the globe that can last a lifetime. In addition, when the
project has an industrial collaborator, it often provides easier access to senior and influential
people in that company than is found by the student’s contemporaries working full-time
there, and through the contact and exposure can accelerate the student’s career.
All these are good reasons for doing a PhD, and the reasons need to be quite good because
very few people find a PhD particularly easy3.
2.3 What is the purpose of a PhD?
The above has discussed some of the reasons why an individual might want to do a PhD, but
what does the PhD process actually deliver? What is the material outcome from the point of
view of the supervisor or a third party?
A PhD study will be an investigation into a particular research question, so what that is will
be very important. Is the discovery of the answer to that question the be all and end all of a
PhD? Or is the process of attempting to find it as important? Or, indeed, is the learning of
how to go about answering research questions in general the main purpose?
Different supervisors and – as importantly – examiners probably regard all those aspects as
important but will place different emphases on them. For example, for many, and for many
industrial sponsors of a PhD, the answer to the research question is the most significant thing.
In some disciplines, an offer of a PhD place is dependent on a prospective student having

already articulated an interesting research question and a promising strategy for how to
answer it. For others, a place may be offered for work in a very general area and the first few
months will be spent by the student trying to hone a specific question that allows a
contribution to knowledge to be made, and an approach to how to answer it. If they fail to
articulate a valid and interesting question and strategy, they are unlikely to be allowed to
proceed to their second year.
In electrical engineering, as will be discussed below, research should not only deliver a
contribution to knowledge but that contribution should be, in some way, ‘useful’, i.e.
something that can be applied or from which something might be developed that can be
applied. Most engineering academics will be conscious of this; if a student is lucky – or does
his or her research on prospective supervisors – they will find that a supervisor already has a
very clear idea on a research question that permits a ‘contribution’ and will be valuable, and a
good idea of the approach that is most likely to yield a successful answer. However, because
academics are generally at least a little distant from current industrial practice, it is often
difficult for them to articulate a research challenge beyond some generalities.
3
Of course, as a good friend of mine often says, “it’s all relative”. One of the reasons I myself did a PhD was
that it promised to be easier than becoming a school maths teacher, which was the alternative I was considering
at the time. I think I was right.
4
Because engineering is by its nature concerned with application, there will very often be
sponsorship and support available from industry and the company involved may have a clear
research challenge already in mind. The need for a PhD student to define a question that will
permit a research contribution is therefore much reduced, but it is rarely removed entirely.
While an industrialist may have something very clearly in mind, it will have arisen out of
their own industrial practice and experience, experience that the student and – crucially – the
student’s supervisor will not generally have. On the other hand, an industrialist may not have
had the opportunity or the skills necessary to keep up with the latest ideas and developments
emerging from conferences and the literature.
Usually, an academic is better placed than an industrialist or civil servant to be fully

conversant with the latest innovations4. In the end, this and the space afforded to thinking and
experimentation are two of the most important things a university engineering research group
can offer industrial, governmental and private clients5. However, while active engagement
from those clients can help define research and ensure its potential ‘usefulness’, it can also
cramp a supervisor’s and a student’s space. ‘Academic freedom’ is sometimes reduced and
there can be – from the point of view of the academics – a frustrating concentration on short
term developmental and implementation issues at the expense of progressive research6.
To emphasise the answering of a specific research question risks overlooking the pedagogical
dimension of a research degree. That is, in common with other degrees, the final qualification
– in this case a PhD – is a measure of having been educated and of having learned certain
things – knowledge and skills – that in a research degree are necessary to being a good
researcher. Thus, people trained in how to do research is the third thing that a university
research group offers industry and society as a whole. This is something that has not always
been recognised by industrial employers, but, as was suggested in section 2.2 above, this is
changing7.
4
At least, if undergraduate teaching and administration do not swamp their time and they retain some degree of
professional pride, they should be.
5
It still remains frustrating to forward thinking industrialists and the more self-critical kinds of academic that so
much that emerges from university research and finds its way into the literature goes no further than playing
with ‘toy problems’ that seem to contain no promise whatsoever of ever leading to progress in general
engineering practice. If the student, in tackling these problems, has learned something of how to be a researcher,
then the exercise will not have been totally without benefit, but more real engineering problems would have
given a keener edge to the research and a more complete proof of the student’s skills and knowledge. For one
thing, it has been my experience in interviewing PhD graduates for jobs in industry that those who have worked
only on ‘toy problems’ seem to have little understanding of the context of or motivation for their work and show
no advantage for their extra three or four years of study over their competitors who hold only Master’s or
Bachelor’s degrees. Moreover, the supervisors of such students seem to have weak industrial contacts. At least,
this is true of UK industry, but it should probably also be said that they sometimes have stronger contacts in less
industrialised parts of the world and that the research they lead – while of scant interest in the UK – is of
significant interest elsewhere and thus may still have ‘archival value’.
6
If gossip from other fields and in the newspapers is to be believed, things can be worse than this. For example,
it is said in other fields – pharmacy, pharmacology and medical science spring to mind – that there is enormous
pressure from industrial sponsors to bury undesired results or to distort, if not results, at least commentary on
results. Fortunately, I am aware of no cases of this happening in electrical engineering.
7
The Engineering Doctorate – or EngD – programmes now offered by a number of universities can be seen as
an attempt to get a better balance between the need for useful research and the objective of training an
individual. Close industrial engagement from a sponsoring company is a pre-requisite for an EngD as the
student will spend majority of their time located with the company. The programme also includes obligatory
taught classes on various business and management issues and – in order not to unduly limit the time available
for research – therefore last for a minimum of 4 years. The advantage for the student is a much more developed
industrial awareness and – normally – the annual stipend is higher than on a standard research council grant.
5
2.4 What is Research?
As should be evident from the discussion above, it is important for the research question – the
avenue of enquiry – to be adequately defined, to enable some kind of ‘contribution’ to be
made to knowledge, ideally, in engineering, a ‘useful’ one, and to provide a clear enough
focus for the PhD studies. The supervisor should be closely involved in this, but the final
responsibility rests with the student8.
Generally speaking, ‘research’ will be concerned with one or more of the following:
• solving a problem;
• improving a process, product or method;
• developing a new product, process or method;
• answering a question;
• uncovering or discovering ‘truth’;
• contributing to knowledge.
Engineering, being an applied science, will be particularly concerned with the first three of
those. Since engineering ideas should be applied or at least be applicable, truth for its own
sake is of less concern than it is in pure science or in the arts though a process, product or
method that works should, one would expect, be consistent with some underlying truth.
Engineering research, unlike that in arts subjects, is rarely about articulating some ‘truth’ in a
different way from before. At least, it is not solely about that. Sometimes, looking at a
problem from a different angle or describing it in a different way can uncover a route to a
new or improved product, process or method; if it does that, then the new perspective has
value.
‘Research’ should be concerned with uncovering, discovering or developing something new;

thus, there should be a significant element of originality in the outcome of the research and
perhaps in the methods used to reach it.
A common difficulty for engineers is to discern the distinction between research and
development. What is the distinction, and why does it matter? It matters because a PhD is a
degree by research, but much of what an engineer is about will concern development, even if
only of the research tools. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary describes ‘research’ as
being concerned with the ‘systematic investigation … and study … in order to establish facts
and reach new conclusions’. In other words, with uncovering or discovering ‘truth’. It goes
on to relate ‘research and development’ to innovation ‘in industry, etc.’ in products and
processes. Thus, it seems that aspects to do with new or improved products, processes or
methods are, by nature, quite developmental. Are such outcomes invalid for a PhD?
8
It is probably not too much of a generalisation to say that the two most common causes of failure of a PhD
student to finally gain their PhD are (i) failure to finish writing up their thesis either at all or to an adequate
standard, and (ii) failure to identify an appropriate research question. Actually, that’s probably only one and a
half reasons as often a failure to complete an adequate thesis is a consequence of failing to define an appropriate
research question.
6
I think the answer to that is not necessarily. But how can one tell valid from invalid? I think a
useful test is of the ‘archival value’. A good researcher will start their researches from what is
in the ‘archive’, i.e. the published literature from books, journals, conference proceedings
and, increasingly (though, in view of the relative lack of peer review, not always reliably)
online. Most academic disciplines are now so complex and the body of knowledge so rich
that it is extremely rare for an idea to emerge out of nowhere without being based on prior
knowledge or, as even a genius (an arrogant one at that) like Newton felt drawn to describe it,
‘standing on the shoulders of giants’. Familiarity with the literature – the ‘archive’ – is also
essential if a researcher is going to be confident of the originality of their work.
The literature – the written ‘archive’ – is thus obviously the main repository of knowledge. If
a contribution to knowledge has been made, it should find its place in this archive. Putting
aside the vagaries and inconsistencies of the peer review process and, especially, of
individual reviewers, and assuming that it is well presented, to find a place in the archive, a
piece of work requires (a) originality, i.e. to be different from what is already in the archive,
and (b) people who would want to read it.
It is in this second aspect that a difference between research and development can perhaps be
found. It is generally reckoned among engineering researchers that ‘development’ is merely
process, something that leads inevitably from A to B to C and all the way to Z without the
need for innovation or particular imagination on the way. In other words, it is not something
that people would resort to the archive to find out – once they know the location of A,
capable engineers can find their way to Z by themselves; ‘development’ therefore has no
place in the archive and no ‘archival value’.
7
3 Doing a PhD
3.1 What qualities does a PhD student require?
It seems to me that a PhD student requires really the same qualities that a professional
engineer requires albeit perhaps with different emphases. These include:
• analytical skills;
• independent decision making skills, or judgement;
• communication skills;
• creativity; and
• perseverance.
Those that can be emphasised for a PhD student include the ability to work independently
towards a long-term goal, making key judgements along the way, and perseverance.
An important part of judgement is being able to tell when the results needed for evidence of a
certain proposition are not quite ‘right’. This doesn’t mean that results should be ‘cooked’,
but since it is always possible that a mistake has been made in some analysis or an
experimental procedure, whether that be in hardware or in a computer simulation, a good
researcher will be able to sniff out inconsistencies either between different sets of results or
between the results and what the proposition suggested should be the results. This of course
requires an understanding of the theory upon which the proposition was based – either text
book theory or some theory, however vague, that the researcher has developed – and the
asking of the question “why are the results as they are?” Then, if it turns out that there were
no mistakes in the experiment, it would seem to indicate a need to modify the proposition.
Unfortunately, it is rarely the case that the required skills are actively taught on a PhD9.
Rather, the student is required to learn by doing, to pick up the necessary skills as they go
along. It is for this reason that the first year of a PhD study often seems hellish as the student
is, to a very large degree, thrown in at the deep end, and why perseverance is so important in
order to reach the excitement of finding solutions to problems and the creative momentum
that carries you on to greater understanding and more ideas. However, it also falls upon the
supervisor to offer a PhD place only to someone whom he or she thinks can rise to the
challenge, who has the potential to learn the necessary skills and develop the required
qualities.
The box overleaf suggests some further aspects of some of these skills that are found both in
a good professional engineer and a successful engineering researcher.
9
Actually, this is changing. A number of universities or the research councils that many PhD students are
funded by are now offering short courses in such things as time management, project planning and academic
writing. These are worth looking out for.
8
Analytical skills
By ‘analytical skills’, we might mean

• the ability to actively manage large quantities of information;
• the ability to understand detailed results, and how to get them;
• the ability to identify key ‘without which’ outcomes or issues.
The efficient exercise of these abilities depends on

• deep knowledge of the area of work;
• familiarity with tools;
• rigour;
• clear organisation of data, thoughts and process.
Decision making skills, or ‘judgement’
A good decision maker is very likely to be able to

• receive quantities of evidence and weight it appropriately.
• identify evidence that is presently missing but is (a) useful, or desirable in helping shape the decision; or (b)
essential to making a good decision; and identify the necessary precision of that evidence.
• understand the constraints on the decision, e.g. time, unavailable evidence.
• have a broad knowledge of influences on a decision and the context in which it will be placed.
Communication skills
By ‘communication skills’, we might mean

• the ability to express ideas or experiences, to articulate a position;
• the ability to persuade or influence.
Successful exercise of these abilities depends on

• verbal skills – the ‘gift of the gab’: one-to-one – conversation and discussion; and one-to-many –
presentations (with good graphic design abilities a useful extra).
• written skills – ‘wordsmithery’;
• empathy – the ability to put oneself in another person’s position, to understand their perspective, and to use
that understanding to (a) shape the emphasis of your argument; and (b) shape the style of your argument.
Creativity
All of the above depend on creativity, the generation of ideas, which, in an engineering context, might be any of
the following abilities:
• to articulate an original question or find a novel perspective;
• to imagine or mentally model the impact of each possible decision, action or description;
• to intuit that an apparently unrelated idea from another field or application might be relevant to a current
investigation or problem.
3.2 What can a PhD student expect of a supervisor?
Each PhD should have at least one supervisor. It should be possible to rely on them to
provide support, guidance, resources, contacts, opportunities (for example, to attend one or
more conferences) and advice but not the answers to the main research questions!
Different supervisors have different approaches and will commit different amounts of time to
meeting and working with their PhD students. Some will be very ‘hands-on’, engaging quite
9
closely with the detail of the research, closely reviewing results of experiments or
simulations, pushing the student quite hard and spending a few hours a week with them.
Others will be more ‘hands off’ or laid back, contenting themselves with trying to be sure that
the student is generally moving in the right direction, trusting them to make their own
judgments about results and what they mean and hence about what to do next. They will
make suggestions on things to try only from time to time and may only spend, on average,
half-an-hour a week or less in discussion with the student.
The relationship between student and the supervisor will be an important one as it should last
for at least three years and they have a lot invested in each other – the student depends on the
supervisor for good guidance and support and the supervisor depends on the student to realise
their research vision. Supervisors may take quite a ‘professorial’ attitude to the student, being
quite formal and ‘academic’ in an old fashioned way, perhaps always a little bit superior.
Others will be happy for a more friendly and equal relationship to develop, though even then
it is usually best for the student to still remember the respective formal positions.
It depends very much on the student what kind of approach is best. Some like the reassurance
of an experienced and knowledgeable academic taking a close interest and giving a strong
steer to the work and would feel lost without it. Others resent that, finding it invasive,
pressured and cramping of imagination and creativity. Since the relationship between the
student and the supervisor is so important, it is not just the subject of study that should be
considered by a student when choosing a PhD position or the intellectual ability of the
student when a supervisor decides whether to take them on, but also the personality and
whether they each think they will be comfortable with – or at least tolerant of – the other’s
style. Because being part of a research community can contribute so much to the experience
and the achievement of a PhD, account should also be taken of the supervisor’s success in
fostering a close and supportive group of researchers.
Probably there needs to be a balance between the ‘hands on’ and ‘hands off’ extremes of
approach in terms of the supervision of the work. Many supervisors will demonstrate both
with the same student, being quite closely involved and directive in the early stages of the
study and allowing the student more freedom later on. Certainly, if the research is going well,
the student should, before too long, find themselves knowing more about the particular
subject of the research than the supervisor does and the supervisor may well then look to the
student to become, in some way, the teacher and the supervisor the student. A mature
supervisor will recognise this as a good thing and their role changes to one of being more a
reviewer and challenger of the work in order to test its robustness than of a setter of direction
and proposer of solutions to problems. While their own knowledge of the particular field of
study may well have become exhausted, they should still have enough nous and experience to
often be able to sniff out any problems or inconsistencies with what has been done and to
suggest promising further avenues. However – because of limited time and limited
knowledge – they certainly can not be relied upon to spot all possible problems. The
responsibility for the quality of the work lies, in the end, with the student.
3.3 What are the stages of a PhD?
It is certainly an over-simplification, but it’s probably still a useful one to say that an
engineering PhD falls into three distinct phases that align quite closely with the three years of
study:
10
1. reading: learning from existing knowledge by a search through the literature, and
trying to articulate the research question more precisely;
2. development: use of the knowledge gained and own experimentation to develop a
prototype working solution to the research question;
3. refinement and presentation: refinement of the developed solution to make it robust,
gathering of evidence that it really is a solution to the question, and writing of a thesis.
As has already been noted, few workable ideas in a field as complex and well-developed as
engineering emerge ‘out of nowhere’. They must inevitably be built upon the explorations
and findings of others, taking that work further, perhaps reducing its limitations or widening
its scope, or working out how to apply elements of it in a new context. The question of
originality must be kept in mind and the need for it is likely to lead to a refinement of the
main objective of the research in light of what has been found in the literature and perhaps, as
awareness of the magnitude of the challenge grows, a limiting of its ambition.
The first phase outlined above can be tough, little about it is creative and much is hard slog,
trawling through reams of dry text and mathematics. If it is done well, however, it provides
essential foundations in terms of knowledge and – critically – confidence in that knowledge
for the blossoming that is the second phase.
The second phase – that of development of an answer to the main research question – is
usually the most creative and enjoyable. The knowledge built up in the first phase gives
confidence about the potential significance of the researcher’s ideas and that they are original.
That knowledge can also allow ideas to be generated in the first place since these often arise
from analogy – the spotting of some underlying and perhaps normally hidden similarity
between the researcher’s own field of study and another one, and of where an idea from that
other field might be useful to the researcher’s own field. Usually, the idea cannot be
transplanted directly but must be adapted or developed to be able to use it, and this is often
enough for a contribution with ‘archival value’ to be made.
The second phase is rarely straightforward. Although the experimentation required is often
fun just in itself, there can be many dramatic ups and downs of emotion as a new potential
solution to a problem is hit upon but is then proved to not quite work or to be incomplete
prompting more searching, head scratching and frustration until a new way forward emerges
from the fog10.
As time and testing progress, hopefully it will gradually become clear that there is at least one
idea that basically works. The rest of the time available on the PhD will be concerned with
smoothing rough edges and imperfections as much as possible. It may never be made to work
completely so some hard judgement is required: is it good enough, and in what terms? Good
enough to be a significant improvement on a present method, process or product? Good
enough to be a springboard for further research that can be expected to deliver a useful new
or improved method, process or product? Or good enough to get a PhD? What evidence is
required to be able to prove to an examiner that it is good enough?11
10
Or from the bog – when I did my PhD, sometimes that’s where the best ideas emerged (and where the worst
ended up).
11
This is often where a good supervisor can show most value – his or her experience being sufficient to be able
to tell when a student has done enough to earn a PhD.
11
When the student’s final answer to the original question is settled upon and the evidence that
it is a good enough answer to it has been gathered, the last stage of the final phase is the
presentation of the question, the answer and the evidence in a thesis.
3.4 What are the resources a PhD requires?
The resources required for a PhD study depend on what is being studied. For example, some
studies only require evidence from computer simulations, so appropriate software is needed.
Others require experimental observations from hardware, so the hardware is required.
All serious PhD studies, however, require a library, a desk and some peace and quiet for
thought. Nowadays, the ‘library’ need not mean solely the large forbidding building stuffed
full of books and large, forbidding librarians the door of which you only darkened
occasionally during undergraduate days to meet and try to chat up a girl or boy from the arts
or social sciences. It also includes the wealth of research papers, magazine and newspaper
articles, company reports, government surveys and statistics and international standards that
can be found on the internet. Because anyone can publish on the web, it also includes a fair
amount of rubbish.
Another resource that is not strictly essential but is extremely useful is a community of
researchers to be part of. The value of sharing and testing ideas with others cannot be
underestimated – knowledge can be shared, but the problem of how to be sure that your ideas
are good can also be addressed: in a group of similarly motivated and bright research
engineers, you have a ready – and perhaps rather blunt – access to ‘peer review’. While it can
sometimes be intimidating, the furnace of ‘trial by colleague’ can be just what is needed to
prove your idea or to get the juices flowing that can turn up a string of new, better ideas. And
if your colleagues’ criticisms turn out to be a little too harsh, while the research team should
normally be a friendly and supportive group, there should always be your supervisor to turn
to for a real (or virtual, bearing in mind ethics and the need for probity) ‘research hug’.
A final key resource that we might mention now is data – key parameters of an existing
system that is to be modelled or physical measurements produced by others that are to be
analysed or against which the ideas developed in the research are to be tested. It is often
difficult for university research groups to get access to adequate data that are often owned by
industrial, commercial or government organisations. As well as the financial support and
experience that an industrial sponsorship can provide, a relationship with a company can also
give access to data.
3.5 What happens if things go wrong?
It has to be admitted that not all PhDs follow the nice, smooth progression suggested in
section 3.3. What are the things that might go wrong?
The first thing is that the initial period of study and the literature review might fail to reveal a
promising avenue down which a ‘contribution’ can be made with the time and resources
available. Or at least it is not clear to the student, and the supervisor lacks the time or the
depth of knowledge and experience to identify it clearly.
12
The second thing is that the main original idea developed turns out not to be as robust as
originally hoped and it is too late now to find an alternative. This can be a result of lack of
understanding in the first instance, slowness in testing the idea or simply bad luck. A further
very real possibility is that it really was a good idea at the time but, unfortunately, it doesn’t
work. In this case, at least, all is not lost since the fact that this apparently good idea cannot
answer the original question can be a very important contribution to knowledge and can in
itself shed valuable light on what else might work that can be developed by someone else.
The third thing can be a failure to complete the thesis. This is normally a result of the
timescales getting out of hand – the development and evidence gathering stages taking longer
than expected – and the research funding running out before the student takes new full-time
employment. This is a problem since experience suggests that it is extremely difficult to
finish a thesis in your spare time, especially when away from the university resources such as
experimental facilities to fill in any gaps in the evidence or the library to complete the
contextualisation and recall some of the early reading. The other sad possibility is that the
student suffers some form of writer’s block in which case it’s best to seek help for cunning
strategies to overcome it if possible.
So why does time run out? It can be because of difficulties with the main idea or
experimental facilities. However, it might also be because of too many distractions, including
calls by the supervisor to work on other short projects. These can often be a good thing giving
experience of different methods, techniques and practices that can be very useful to the PhD
research, and contact with industry. However, it should not be to excess and the student may
sometimes need to be strong enough to call a halt and get back to the main topic.
Another reason for time running out for the write-up can be excess ambition on the part of the
student, i.e. trying to do too much, or too much perfectionism. After all, in spite of all the
riches that the research direction promises, the timescales are pretty fixed, and in the end all
that is required is something that is good enough to get a PhD. So long as that is achieved,
whether the work can be taken to full fruition and application can be addressed afterwards.
13
4 Gaining a PhD
4.1 How is a PhD assessed?
Whether the work a student has carried out is worthy of a PhD is judged by means of a
written thesis and an oral examination – a viva. In Britain, there are normally two examiners
who assess the thesis and conduct the viva – an internal examiner from the student’s own
institution and an external examiner.
The basic criteria are that the student should have presented their own original contribution to
knowledge in the form of a novel proposition, answer to a research question or a new or
improved process, product or method, and that that contribution should be supported by
sufficient evidence.
The difficulty with the simple summary just suggested is in determining what is ‘sufficient’
evidence and how significant the contribution should be. This has already been discussed
above in section 2.4 on what research is, and perhaps the key point to take from that
discussion is the importance of ‘archival value’: if the work has ‘archival value’, then it is
research of significance. Perhaps the best test of ‘archival value’ is whether it has already
been admitted to the archive, in particular a reputable peer reviewed academic journal12.
Every researcher should seek to contribute something to ‘the archive’ in any case, but
published papers have enormous practical value to the passing of a PhD: if the journal where
it is published is significant, for a paper to be published it will already have been judged by
competent and internationally recognised reviewers to represent a significant contribution to
knowledge and to be backed by sufficient evidence. While there could be improvements that
need to be made to the presentation of the work in a thesis, it would be a very brave PhD
examiner who would contradict the journal peer reviewers and assert that the research itself
and the evidence do not satisfy the requisite standards for a PhD. In other words, if a PhD
candidate has already published their PhD work in one or more papers in major journals, they
have already gone most of the way towards gaining a PhD. Thus, a PhD student should be
aiming to get at least one good journal paper accepted for publication no later than some time
through their third year.
By the time a student gets to the third year of study towards a PhD, provided they finish
writing their thesis, it is not unreasonable for them to expect to go forward to a viva.
However, it will be the case that some theses are weaker than others and an experienced
supervisor will be reluctant to let the student go to a viva without improvements. The student
would be well-advised to take the supervisor’s opinion seriously in such an instance even
though there will be tensions between supervisor and student and, because the student would
already have committed at least three years to the work, the supervisor will feel pressure to
let the student through.
Partly for that reason, it has become extremely important to nip any potential problems in the
bud, in particular to decide quite early on whether the student is likely to get through to
12
It is often surprising how apparently very minor advances can still be judged worthy of publication. A PhD
student daunted by how difficult a question is or how much work they think there is to do should take comfort
from that.
14
writing a decent thesis. In many institutions, that means placing significant weight on an end
of first year review.
In the electrical engineering department at Strathclyde, the first year review requires the
student to write a 20 to 30 page report summarising what they have learned in their first year
of study and found in the literature, and giving details on the main future focus of their
research, what ideas they intend to explore and where they see their contribution – the
‘archival value’ – eventually coming from. There will then be a short viva conducted by two
internal academics familiar with the relevant field. The importance of this arises from the
recognition described above that one of the reasons why a PhD study may get into difficulty
is failure to gain the necessary depth of understanding of the field and identify a suitable
opportunity for novelty13. If they judge that the student has failed to do that, they may give
the student more time – perhaps 2 or 3 months – to work on it more and ask to meet them
again. They may instead recommend that the student does no more than one further year of
work and aims to obtain an MPhil degree rather than a PhD. In an extreme case they may feel
that it would be in the best interests of the student that they recognise that a research degree is
not the best way they could be spending their time and that they withdraw from their studies.
4.2 What should go in a thesis?
The thesis is the main record of the research and therefore the main ‘deliverable’. Some
details of the general structure of a thesis vary from between different disciplines, but it
should address something like the following:
• What was the main research question that you tried to answer?
o Why is it interesting, or – particularly important for engineering – useful?
o From where has the question arisen? What have others done that is relevant?
What other work will you build upon? Where will your particular contribution
to knowledge lie?
• What have you done in order to try to answer the question?
o What tools or techniques did you use? Which have you had to develop
yourself? Why did have to develop them?
o Are the tools or techniques you have used sound?
• What is your answer?
o What is the evidence for your answer?
Another way of viewing what the thesis should address considers the ‘thesis’ itself as an
original proposition that the student wishes to make and defend. As already suggested, this
could be an answer to a question, or it could be that a certain method, product or process
developed by the author is an advance on what has been available before, at least in certain
terms that the author wishes to emphasise14. The method, product or process should be
described and evidence presented for why, in the author’s chosen terms, it represents an
advance and why or under what circumstances those terms are significant.
13
In engineering, we may qualify that by asking for useful novelty, though not all engineering academics find
that necessary.
14
But be sure to know what the ‘archival value’ of your method, process or product might be!
15
Whichever of the above models you prefer, the basic elements of a thesis should include:
• an introduction, to the written thesis and to the main proposition that will be made
and defended or the question that will be answered;
• a description of the background to the work, its context and its motivation;
• a summary – with appropriate references – of the present state of relevant
knowledge, in particular that which has been used or built upon;
• a description of the research procedure, methods or tools used in the development
and testing of the main proposition or the discovery of the answer to the main
research question;
• presentation of the main proposition, answer or, if a new method, product or
process has been developed, a detailed description of it;
• presentation of evidence supporting the proposition or answer, i.e. results from
experiment, simulation or analysis, and discussion of that evidence and its
meaning;
• discussion of any limitations to what has been developed or proposed, and
proposals for future work;
• a summary of the main conclusions.
The main body of an engineering thesis is often between 150 and 200 pages long (on A4
using 12pt type with spacing and a half or double spacing between lines). As much out of
respect for the examiners who have to read it as anything else, while being thorough, serious,
precise and ‘scholarly’, it should make a decent read and there should be a clear thread
running through the different chapters so that each builds on the last and it will be clear why
the material in each chapter is being included and where the overall thesis is going. To ensure
that, it can be useful to think of it as like a novel, ‘telling a story’ (albeit a true one) that is
unafraid to develop different plot lines where necessary but where the direction of the overall
‘narrative’ is clear and various strands of the story are eventually brought together15.
In order not to interrupt the flow of the main ‘narrative’, but to ensure that there is enough
information to allow a reader to test the proposition thoroughly for themselves16, there may
be a number of appendices in which supporting information or data are included.
Following on from the discussion about publications in section 4.1 above, it may be noted in
passing that some PhDs are awarded ‘by publication’. That is, a bunch of publications
stitched together are taken as sufficient evidence of the work being worthy of a PhD instead
of a thesis (though a viva is usually still required). However, this is not currently common.
Moreover, simply to copy and paste published journal papers into a thesis does not generally
suffice to make a good thesis since, due to the need for brevity in a paper, there is normally
inadequate discussion of background and motivation, insufficient description of the research
method and often a failure to ‘tell a story’ in a readable flow. Thus, even if the research
outcome is strong, the candidate may find themselves having to make improvements to the
written thesis.
15
On the other hand, it would not be wise for a student spend too much time writing the perfect thesis – the
main objective in the end is to produce a thesis that is good enough to get a PhD and timescales, funding and
what should happen next in the student’s life should be kept in mind.
16
In general, in science and engineering, enough information should be provided for the reader to be able to
make a decent stab at reproducing the author’s results.
16
4.3 Who are the examiners?
When it comes to the final assessment, choice of the external examiner is one of the
supervisor’s most important roles. The examiner should be someone who is sufficiently
expert in a similar field to that of the PhD work to be able to assess it rigorously but fairly
and should also be someone who can be trusted to conduct the viva in an appropriate
manner17. Provided the work is strong enough, the viva can represent a good opportunity for
the student meet and have a good discussion with a leading international expert, and who
knows what future research opportunities that encounter might lead to.
The internal examiner – also nominated by the supervisor – should also be reasonably
familiar with the field of study. The external is normally expected to be the main opinion
former, so, to an extent, the internal examiner’s role is one of guaranteeing fair play and
consistency with the normal standards of the institution. (The external should ensure
consistency with standards outside).
4.4 What will the viva be like?
An engineering PhD viva in the UK is a discussion between the external and internal
examiners and the candidate18. It usually lasts between 1 and 3 hours, though it can be longer.
Different examiners will take a different approach to the viva and their basic objective will
depend on how they themselves respond to the question asked earlier about the purpose of a
PhD: is it about the research or is it about the candidate becoming an ‘autonomous
researcher’? In other words, is it about the text – the thesis – or the person? In the latter case,
the viva assumes a greater importance since the candidate’s conduct in it will be taken as a
sign of whether they have succeeded in becoming a competent researcher capable of
conducting a detailed and accurate discussion of research matters. They would also be
expected to describe something of the process they went through in doing the research. On
the other hand, if the examiner feels it is more about the research, the text itself, i.e. the
thesis, provides the main evidence of the standard reached and the examiner will already have
formed their opinion on whether it is worth a PhD. The viva is then really about proving that
it was the candidate who wrote it and that they understand what they were writing about.
Indeed, if the examiner somehow already feels confident that it really was the candidate who
wrote the thesis and they understood what they were writing about, and they are satisfied with
the thesis, it has been known for them to start the viva by saying that they intend to
recommend the award of PhD; they then go on to discuss it. Whether or not they have already
formed an opinion on whether a PhD should be awarded, the best examiners will at least
make it seem as if they are genuinely interested in the work to which the student has
dedicated the last three years of their life and will stretch them in the discussion.
17
Most academic research communities are actually not very big so if an examiner doesn’t conduct an
assessment in a reasonable manner, word will soon get around and they will not be asked to do it again!
18
In other parts of the world, the approach is different. For example, in parts of northern Europe, it is normal for
the student to be required to undertake a public ‘defence’ of their thesis in front of a panel of academics,
including one or more externals, and anyone else, including their peers from the department, who cares to turn
up. Apparently, though, while such an event seems daunting – and surely is – the main verdict is already
decided with the champagne and cake ready to share with the candidate’s parents who are likely to be present,
and at least one of the academics will be ready to leap to the defence of the candidate in the face or any over-
eager interrogation.
17
One interesting further thing that supervisors, students and examiners need to think about in
the context of an engineering PhD is the extent to which it is or should be a test of
competence not just as a researcher but also as an engineer. Certainly, the perspective of a
potential industrial employer will be that a PhD degree should be an indication of engineering
competence. While hard line or lifetime academics might seek to diminish that consideration,
if the candidate ever wishes to get a job in industry it will be a very real issue for them and so
cannot be neglected.
Depending on the institution, it may or may not be customary for the supervisor to be present.
Even though the supervisor will not participate in the discussion unless invited to by the
examiners, a candidate may appreciate the implied moral support of the supervisor. On the
other hand, they may feel sufficiently sure of the candidate’s abilities to not feel the need to
be present, and the candidate may find reassurance in that vote of confidence.
Again depending on the institution, there may be a separate chairperson present. This would
normally be someone from the host institution but not the internal examiner. Their role is not
to assess the work or the candidate but to ensure that due process is followed, including the
recording of the outcome.
Most engineering PhD examiners, while wishing to be rigorous in their assessment, adopt a
non-confrontational style and, knowing that the candidate will be nervous, try to put the
candidate at their ease. On the other hand, it has been known for external and internal
examiners to team up in bringing down to earth candidates who seem too cocky or who seem
to think they have solved all known problems to do with their work. A little humility is
therefore useful on the part of the candidate. Having said that, an important thing for nervous
candidates to remember is that no-one – including the international expert who might be their
examiner – knows more about their work than they do. The trick will be communicating that
knowledge and being able to respond to the examiners’ questions.
The styles adopted by examiners will include working through the thesis, not necessarily
page by page, but certainly from start to finish pausing to explore in more detail certain
things they have noted about what is written, perhaps to discuss a different angle on it, to
explore its further implications or simply to ask for clarification. Others may not actually
refer directly to the thesis at all but will lead a wider discussion around the area of work and
its significance. Yet others will do mixture of the two.
The sorts of questions that might get asked at the viva include the following:
• Can you explain…?

• Which parts did you do, or were your own ideas?
• How did you go about developing your ideas?
• Why did you do it this way? Did you consider…?
• How do you envisage this being used?
• What are the weaknesses?
• If you were to do this again, in what ways – in any – would you do it differently?
• After the particular product you’ve developed has been superseded, what ideas
that it encapsulates do you think will still be of interest?
• What do you think is the ‘archival value’?
18
Normally, the candidate should be in a good position to answer any of the above questions
about the work, and if they feel at all nervous they should remember that they know more
about the new method, product or process that they have developed than anyone else,
including the examiners, even if they examiner might have a broader knowledge of the
context into which it fits. One specific risk, however, concerns others’ work that the
candidate has leaned on and perhaps does not know in detail. One example of this might be
some statistical analysis undertaken by a statistics specialist. It probably is not worth trying to
bluff if it is not really understood, but at the same time the candidate should have dug into it
enough to have convinced himself or herself that what has been done is valid.
4.5 What might be the outcome of a viva?
The best possible outcome for the candidate would be acceptance of the thesis without any
corrections and recommendation by the examiners that the candidate be awarded a PhD (a
recommendation which it depends on the university senate to accept and is rarely – if ever –
not accepted).
More normal is that some ‘corrections’ are required. The corrections might be simply quite
minor corrections of errors in the text, or addition or revision of some material to help clarify
certain aspects. If the corrections are relatively minor, the external examiner will be happy for
the internal examiner to verify that these have been done, and the candidate will be
recommended for award of a PhD. More extensive corrections may require the external’s
approval as well.
A less happy outcome is that the examiners feel that more work needs to be done, to develop
a more significant contribution to knowledge, a more coherent main argument or proposition,
or more robust evidence in support of that proposition. This additional work and the
reflection of it in a revised version of the thesis may take between 6 and 12 months and a
further viva may be required. Clearly this presents a difficulty to the student in terms of
funding for the time to do it and possibly a conflict with new employment that is due to start
soon or might already have started. In such a case or if the additional work takes longer than
12 months there is the strong possibility that the student will never succeed in finishing their
thesis to the examiners’ satisfaction.
An experienced supervisor should normally never allow a thesis to be presented when there is
a risk that the examiners would require significant extra work. However, as was discussed in
section 4.1 above, it is possible that a student can pass the first year review and, the longer
time goes on, the harder it might become for the supervisor to deny the student the
opportunity of a viva even when they feel the work is not strong enough.
19
5 Some concluding remarks
This ‘rough guide’ has taken a meander through a good number of aspects – though certainly
not all – of PhD study: what it is, why to do it, and how to do it. Although much of it comes
from my own personal perspective, from discussion with colleagues I think there is little that
diverges significantly, if at all, from some commonly held views.
Although it doesn’t pretend to answer all the questions you might have, I hope this rough
guide will have been useful.
I felt it was important to make a prospective or present student aware of some of the
challenges and potential difficulties so that they can respond to them constructively and
overcome them. However, I am aware that by doing that I might have put some people off or
made it sound more daunting than it really is. I think it is important to remember (a) that all
jobs that have much to interest an intelligent individual (and a PhD, being a commitment of
three or more years of your life in basically one activity is like a job or, in some sense, more
than a job) have significant challenges and difficulties, and (b) that you should do it because
you want to, because you want the intellectual excitement, the skills and knowledge it helps
you gain and, possibly, the career enhancing opportunities it opens up. Even though research
might be, as I think Einstein once said, 95% perspiration and 5% inspiration, it should be a
creative and fun time – while I certainly found it hard at times, it was for me, and I’m really
glad I did it. I hope you will be, too.
20
6 Further reading
1 The Quality Assurance Agency, Code of practice for the assurance of academic
quality and standards in higher education – Section 1: Postgraduate research
programmes, September 2004, available
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeOfPractice/section1/default.asp
Produced by the QAA along with a number of other codes in response to a couple of
government enquiries into Higher Education in the UK, its authors describe it as an
“an authoritative reference point for institutions as they consciously, actively and
systematically assure the academic quality and standards of their programmes,
awards and qualifications”.
2 School of Graduate Studies, University of Toronto, Graduate Supervision – Guidelines
for Students, Faculty, and Administrators, September 2002, available
http://www.sgs.utoronto.ca/current/supervision/guidelines.pdf
Similar in motivation to the QAA document above but more user friendly even if
targetted at a Canadian audience.
3 Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Supervision Guidelines,
available
http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/PostgraduateTraining/InformationForStudents/SupervisionGui
delines.htm
EPSRC is the main funder of engineering postgraduate research in the UK. Its guide is
like a light version of this rough guide, though it does have extra material on effort
required to write a thesis.
4 UKgrad, Researchers, available
http://www.grad.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/Researchers/p!eaLbdjg
According to the website, “the role of the UK GRAD Programme is to support the
academic sector to embed personal and professional skills development into research
degree programmes (RDP). Our vision is for all postgraduate researchers to be fully
equipped and encouraged to complete their studies and to make a successful transition
to their future careers.” Looking beyond the pitiful HR speak, the website does contain
a wealth of interesting material and the organisation runs “gradschool” training
courses specifically for 2nd or 3rd year PhD students. They are free to EPSRC funded
students and well worth attending.
5 Roberto Cipolla, “Guidelines on PhD research and supervision”, University of
Cambridge, August 1995, available http://svr-
www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~cipolla/phdguide.html
A nice brief alternative to this rough guide.
6 University of Strathclyde, Policy and Code of Practice for Postgraduate Research
Programmes, available
http://www.mis.strath.ac.uk/Secretariat/Publications/general/procedures/pgr-code-
pract.pdf
This builds on the recommendations made in the QAA document noted above and puts
them into a Strathclyde context.
7 University of Strathclyde, “General regulations for Higher Degrees by Research”, part
3, section 20 of the University Regulations, available
http://www.mis.strath.ac.uk/Secretariat/Publications/general/publications/
The Strathclyde rules that govern a PhD.
21
8 Society for Research Into Higher Education, Guides on Postgraduate Issues,

http://www.srhe.ac.uk/publications.gpi.asp
The SRHE in association with The Times Higher Education Supplement publishes a
number of guides that can be ordered via the website. The SRHE also runs various
workshops and carries out surveys. However, when I last looked, most of the events
seemed to designed to give specialist educationalists an excuse for showing their
funders that they have successfully disseminated their work, with little of interest to
anyone else.
9 Gina Wisker, The Good Supervisor, Palgrave, 2005.
Aimed more at supervisors than students, the chapter on “writing up the thesis” is
probably worth a look.
10 Rowena Murray, How to Survive Your Viva, Open University Press, 2003.
Seems amazing to me that someone managed to find the time to write an entire book
just about doctoral or Master’s vivas. You should not feel obliged to read the whole
thing, but there are some copies available in the Strathclyde university library and you
might find that a glance through is sufficient to pick up some useful tips.
22

EEE PHD RoughGuide

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EEE PHD RoughGuide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rough Guide to an Electrical Engineering PhD

© Keith Bell, 2007

The guide proceeds in three main parts:

1. ‘considering a PhD’ – what is it and why should you do it?

A PhD – a ‘doctorate of philosophy’ – is a “postgraduate degree by research”. That is, it is a

2.2 Why do a PhD?

2.3 What is the purpose of a PhD?

In some disciplines, an offer of a PhD place is dependent on a prospective student having

Usually, an academic is better placed than an industrialist or civil servant to be fully

2.4 What is Research?

‘Research’ should be concerned with uncovering, discovering or developing something new;

By ‘analytical skills’, we might mean

The efficient exercise of these abilities depends on

Decision making skills, or ‘judgement’

A good decision maker is very likely to be able to

By ‘communication skills’, we might mean

Successful exercise of these abilities depends on

3.2 What can a PhD student expect of a supervisor?

3.3 What are the stages of a PhD?

3.4 What are the resources a PhD requires?

3.5 What happens if things go wrong?

4.2 What should go in a thesis?

4.3 Who are the examiners?

4.4 What will the viva be like?

• Can you explain…?

4.5 What might be the outcome of a viva?

5 Some concluding remarks

8 Society for Research Into Higher Education, Guides on Postgraduate Issues,

You might also like