Transcription
Hey guys, welcome to another episode of Grad Coach TV, where we demystify the oftentimes confusing world of academic research. My name is Derek, and today I am going to be speaking with one of our trusted coaches, David Fair. David has got a BSC, an MSC and of course a PHD. Over the last five years, David has been involved in tutoring and lecturing students regarding all sorts of research related matters, and he has also been directly involved in supervising research projects such as dissertations, and theses. So, long story short, David really knows what he is talking about when it comes to all things research related.
In this video we are going to be talking about nine questions that you need to prepare for if you have got a dissertation or thesis defense, also called a viva coming up. These are also pretty useful questions to consider if you are going to just be defending a research proposal, whether that is for a dissertation, a thesis, or any other sort of research project.
This discussion is based on one of the many, many, articles over on the Grad Coach blog, so, if you are in the process of crafting a dissertation, or thesis, or undertaking academic research, be sure to check out the Grad Coach blog at www.gadcoach.com/blog. Also, if you are looking for a helping hand with your research, be sure to check out our one-on-one coaching service, where we walk you through the process of your research step by step. You can learn more about this and book a free consultation with one of our friendly coaches over at gradcoach.com.
All right, so, David, welcome to the Coach Cast, it is good to have you here again.
Cool, thanks for having me Derek, I am really excited to be talking about this, you know, vivas are tense at the best of times and obviously, no viva is the same, or defense is the same, but I think it is useful to have some questions on this, so, looking forward to it.
Awesome, so let us jump into question number one. This is a fairly broad one, and a sort of a kicker offer type of question, and that is, what is your study about, and why did you chose this research in particular, so, David, break that down for us, what are the markers, or the committee members looking to hear from the students, yeah?
Yeah, so I mean, as you mentioned, this is pretty much a general starter question that you are going to get. If not this question exactly, something along this line. They are always going to start with something like this, and they are not trying to catch you out here or anything, really, they just want to get the key jest of what you are doing with your research, or what you did, and so, really, they are looking for you to clearly articulate your research aims, your objectives, and research question. And one of the key points to keep in mind here is you really want to be concise. There is no need to ramble or to go into too much detail. I know it is pretty difficult at this point, you want to just dive right in during the defense, but really you will get the chance to do that later, but this is really to show that you can identify those aims, objectives, and research questions, and also secondly, to justify them, so that you can make it clear to your audience, or to the panel, why it was important that you did this research. And in doing this, it is important to make sure the gap comes across, why it is important to fill that gap, and then it is okay to mention some of your personal motivations behind the research, but really the focus here should be on the academic reasons behind it in terms of why you chose this study. And again, really, this is the starter, so do not stress too much about this question, it is really just to set the scene going forward.
Yeah, I think to, I guess, just phrase it in another way, is that this question is really trying to dig into, the what, in other words, what are you researching, and the why, in other words, why did you choose to research this, and as you say, that why can be not purely an academic motivation, you can also mention your personal motivations, but certainly you do want to be able to very concisely articulate why this research is important, what literature gap it emerged from, and you know, what the justification is. So, yeah, number one is the what, and the why, as you said, you do not need to go too deep, yeah, I think.
Yeah. It is important to be concise and present an overview, you do not want to bore them with a fifteen-minute answer to the first question, use that but be concise, and obviously, if they are looking for a greater level of depth, then you can always unpack it further, but make sure that you go in very, very, competent in terms of being able to answer the what and the why.
Cool, so, on to question number two, and that question is, how did your research questions evolve during the research process. So, this is an interesting one, David, tell us a little bit about what to expect here.
Yeah, so, this is one that they are likely to ask, or at least ask something similar about this, and that is because, you know, any panel is aware that, what you propose to do, is not necessarily what you ended up doing. We all know research is a process, and things change as you are doing that research, so they are really assessing here whether you are aware and critical about how your research unfolded, and so there is a way, a few ways that that might have changed, so one of them is the impact that your literature review chapter might have had on your research overall, so, you might clarify how your aims changed based on the literature. For example, if your literature review identified a pretentious contentious issue in the literature, maybe you shifted your aim a bit to target that issue, or that conflict in the literature, and to really explore that, and so, that is one example. You might also mention, how your methods shifted, following something like your initial data collection. So, if you did a pilot and you identified that some of your factors were not as helpful, and other ones were proving worth, then this is where you could also mention this. And then, I mean, as we all know, every research project changes slightly as it goes, so, if your study expanded or changed following your initial findings, then it is important to mention that here as well. So, for instance, if you are doing something like a qualitative study, exploring leadership roles, and at your company or the organization you are looking in, you identify something like uncertainty in the leadership channels, and then you shifted your research to explore that further, here they are really looking for that kind of story, where you are telling what your initial ideas were, and how it shifted in response to what happened in your research, and a good defense will describe this research journey, and it will convey both that you responded and adjusted as need be, and it will convey criticality, that when you were collecting data you looked at your data and shifted accordingly.
Yeah. It is s also worth mentioning not every project completely changes, some do, most do, but if yours did not it is not a problem, you then need to just clarify why your research question did not change, and in this case, you can say, you know, the literature review supported our initial ideas, and we, our methodology was sound throughout, this is how we checked to make certain. And so really, it is just about making that come across, how your research changed. And again, this is a little bit more detailed than the previous question because you can get a bit more into the weeds, if you would, yeah.
Right, and I think it is important to emphasize that, as you said, research is a journey, or at least good research is, and it is responsive. We go into a dissertation, or thesis, or any research project with our grand ideas of of how it is going to turn out, and what we are going to focus on, but it is quite natural that, you know, you sink your teeth into the literature review, and you realize that this question that I was originally anticipating to answer, that has already been partly answered, or maybe I was asking the wrong question or, you know, there are many things that, as you work your way through the research journey, it is quite likely that you are going to shift focus. As you said, it is fine if you do not, if the literature supports your original intention, then that is completely fine, but it is important, I guess, A, to be comfortable with the fact that that your research has shifted direction, not to try hide that, because it is not a weakness, not at all, if anything it is a strength that shows that you responded to what you saw along the way, and it is also, I think, important to keep that in mind as you progress through your research and to keep a journal, or just keep some notes about this path that you went down, because by the time you get to the end, you might forget that, oh, actually, originally, I was going that way, and then I went this way, so it is good to keep something of a personal journal or at least just a set of notes, sort of describing the changes that you made along the way, and that will be good for this question, and also just be good for you as a researcher, in sort of developing that reflective capability to look back and see how things shift and how they might impact future research.
Yeah, so, I mean also just to give an example of this, a personal example, in my PHD I was working on an experimental project, and we actually completely changed the methodology of data collection, because we found a cheaper, more effective, more data-rich method, so, we actually shifted to a new methodology, and that actually enabled us to answer an entire new question with our research as a result, and so, in that case when I spoke about this issue, we went through the idea that this was the initial process, and then we changed to a different methodology, and how that opened up new questions that we could ask and answer, and so, really it gives that benefit there, and as Derek said, you know, you have got to know what changed, otherwise you are not going to keep track, and as an experimental researcher, lab books are your friend, so keep that, and if not a lab book, at least a research journal.
Right, so, let us jump on to the next common question that comes up in defenses, or vivas, and this question is, how did you design your study, how did you design your research, and your methodology, and why did you take this approach, so unpack this one for us, David.
Yeah, so, this is going to be a classic question on your methods chapter, and you are going to get a related question, there is no getting around it, people want to know what you did, but more importantly, why. And I think this is something that we come up with a lot in all of these answers. It is what happened, what we found, what you sort of set out to do, and why, so, you really want a clear articulation of your research design, you want to make it clear what you are doing, why you did it, and how. And this justification is really important, and from my experience, this is where a lot of people trip up, you know, they will say, we did a survey design, and that is it, but you have got to say we did a survey design because it was fit within our time horizon for the research, it allowed us to collect ample data in a short amount of time, and facilitated data analysis, but you can even take justification further than that. Often enough it is important to also contextualize your decisions based on the literature, so what is being done in the field, why it is important, but also the contextual reasons specific to your research. So, for instance, if you are doing an initial study on education techniques in, let us say Zimbabwe, then you might know that there is no research done on this before, and so, in that regard it might be worth doing an exploratory study, and that is the justification there. So, that context is super important, and then secondly, you really want to make sure you are linking back to your research questions, aims, and objectives. And this is to make sure that that line or golden thread through your study is coming up regularly, that it is clear how your aims were answered by your methodology, and how you go on from there, and so that is a really important aspect to mention. And then lastly, consider mentioning any limits or practical constraints you came across, you know, the frequent ones is time, money, participants, and materials, right. Those are always what limits studies, are not always funded by massive grants, and so, as a result, there are some constraints that will limit what you can do with your research, and if you are critical about that, that helps as well in terms of the viva. You are not going to get that awkward question of, but why did you not just sequence the entire genome, well, we could not afford to.
Yeah, I think, just to emphasize and reiterate what you said, what is what is really important in terms of any discussion around the research design, is being able to stand there and very clearly articulate exactly what you did, and why you did it that way. If you are at all unclear about exactly what choice you made at every level, and why those choices were made, that is where the examiners are going to catch you out, and they are looking to see that you really know your stuff inside out, and that you are confident about it, and that you can back up every choice you made. And that is not to say that you needed to have the best possible research design, that is seldom going to be viable, and you are not going to be able to pull off everything in the best possible way, so, it is not to say that you cannot have limitations, and you cannot have practical constraints playing into your decision making around your research design, but you need to be able to back everything up, and be strong on the what, and the why, and when we see this even outside the domain of vivas and defenses, we see this very often in proposals is, that tends to be a weak point, is that students are not very specific about what they are doing or what they are going to do, so, make sure that you really understand this part inside out, even if it is a matter of doing it after the fact. Go and look at every design choice that you made and go and look up the theory around those design choices, understand the strengths and weaknesses, and have a clear narrative as to why you made the choices you did.
Yeah, I mean, so following on from that, I know the classic one that often enough gets brought up, or gets questioned is in quantitative studies, it is, what statistics did you do, and why, and in qualitative studies it is, how did you analyse this, how did you develop your codes, or your themes, and so really having an idea about that process and understanding it, not just applying it, is really important in the defense. Maybe you are not going to get into it, but rather have that understanding and not need it, then get asked a question that is too deep, and then you are getting stuck there, so, definitely I think it is important to justify those decisions you are making throughout.
Right, so, on to the next question, which is linked to the previous one around research design. The next question that comes up fairly commonly is, what were the main shortcomings and limitations created by your research design, so, David, unpack this one for us.
Yeah, and so we have touched on this, as Derek said, a little bit before, but no research is perfect, and no one is expecting perfect research. Even the best papers, the top cited papers in your field, have issues or limitations to those studies, and so really the questioning here is not saying what is wrong with your study, it is, are you critically able to assess what those shortcomings or limitations are, and so it is testing whether you can point out strengths of the method, but also the weaknesses of the method, and frequently this will come up with things like biases, or a lack of data, or even just the theoretical issues or limitations of a methodology. So, for instance, taking a quantitative approach will always give you data that is more broad, and taking a qualitative approach gives you depth, and so, you really want to be talking about those shortcomings and limitations. And then to take it a step further, and this is really where your panel will be happy, is how you mitigated these limits, or accounted for them in your study, or if you could not, how would you do it in the future, and it is really about showing that criticality, that idea that you are aware of your research and how it fits into the broader field. What you might want to do differently, and how you account for those potential weaknesses.
Yeah, I think it is also worth saying that you do not need to fear your weaknesses, or rather the weaknesses of your research design, what you need to do is know them inside out. I think the misconception that many students have is, that you know, research cannot have weaknesses, or it should not have weaknesses, and if there are weaknesses, you certainly do not want to highlight them, and that could not be further from the truth. Good, good, research, and a good defense is going to be one way you can say these are the weaknesses that we had, these are, you know, these weaknesses are a result of the choices we made, but given the options that we had in those choices, this was the best situation that we could get away with in terms of practical constraints, and viability, and so forth, so, really you should not be sticking your head in the sand when it comes to the weaknesses around your research. Understand what they are, and as you said, David, it can be a mixture of just the limitations that you had as a person, or as a researcher, in your specific case, and then also every analysis method, every data collection method, every methodology has inherent weaknesses, so, this is also a question that touches on your sort of theoretical knowledge of the methodology and of research design. So, you again, even if it is after the fact, you want to go look at every design choice that you made, go back to the textbooks, have a look at, okay, what are the strengths and weaknesses of this approach, and have a very, very, clear idea of exactly where all the weaknesses lie, and as I said, that is not something to run away from, you need to be very clear about that, and that feeds into your recommendations for further research and so forth, which you will probably talk about later. So, be upfront about it, know your weaknesses and do not shy away from them. This is one of the few environments where you should talk boldly about the weaknesses of the project.
Yeah, and just to give a bit of an example on that, I knew a student who, their project, none of the tests that they implemented, came back with significant results. There were issues throughout the entire project, and I mean, they were stressing about all of these issues and really got into the weeds with it, and when it came to the defense and the final project, they actually ended up getting a really great mark, they got a distinction because they showed that they were critical and engaged with their literature. They knew what the limitations were and had thought about how they could change it differently, and so again, you know, really not something to shy away from, but really to take a deep grab on it and ride that wave, because again no research is perfect. Yeah.
All right, so let us jump into question number five, and that is a question that is moving on to the findings side of of the research process, and this question is, how did your findings relate to the existing literature, the existing research.
Yeah, so, this one is definitely reaching into sort of your discussion section of your research. And what they are really checking is that you can put your results and your findings into context with what is to come before, and you know, you know what it is going to be like, someone on your panel is going to be in the field, know about the research, and so they will know when you are putting things into context correctly, or not, right. And here, what you want to be really looking for is where your findings are in line with the research that exists, and also where your findings are not in align with the research that has been done before, and at both of those points, you also need to then explore why this may have happened. So, it is not just about saying, how do your findings relate, but then showing that next level of thinking and criticality where you can say, listen we found a finding that is completely opposite to the literature, you know, literature said there should be a positive relationship, and we are finding a negative relationship here, and so then you want to explore why that might be the case, and importantly here you have got to bring in your research context specifically. So, maybe it is something about your population that you sampled, maybe it is something about the specific context, or historical background in your environment, and those are aspects that you really want to be digging into.
Yeah. Similarly, though, also for where you are matching the literature, it is not just enough to say, oh, we found the same thing as the literature, and leave it at that, you want to be engaging with how you relate to that, and so, you would be making it clear that it is supporting the literature, and why you think that this is the case in the broader field as well. Again, they are always looking for that criticality, I want to show, and you want to show them that you know what you are talking about, and that you have engaged with this literature.
Right, right, and I think it is worth emphasizing that it is okay that your results, your findings, are at odds with some of the literature. Again, you know, just like methodological weaknesses, you do not need to hide away from these, you do not need to shy away, or downplay them, you know, new questions are born from these contrasts. And chances are, if you are undertaking the research, you are going to achieve, you are going to have some findings that are a disagreement, because that is probably why you undertook the research, because you thought that, okay, well, things might be a little bit different in this context. So, do not shy away from them. I think some of the best analysis and discussion comes out through those questions of why is this different from the existing findings, how are these contact contextual factors different, is there a trend between the stuff that aligns, and the stuff that misaligns, what are the insights that we can draw from this, so, definitely do not shy away from them, and spend some time discussing the ideas you have around why things might be different, and why they might be the same. Just to catch on to that, make sure you are citing the relevant literature as well. We talk about this as well, but you want to be making sure your findings are related to more recent work, because one of the biggest issues that you can run into here is saying, listen my findings do not match up with the literature, and you are talking about, you know, traditional seminal papers where more recent, current research has already identified that there is this change. So, just make sure you are in lining with both the seminal research, but also current research as well, just to make sure that you are, you know, up to date with your discussion here.
All right, so, then on to the next question, which again relates to findings. The previous question was specifically looking at the findings in relationship to the existing literature, and this question is looking at the findings in relation to the research questions. So, the question that will be asked will be something along the lines of, what were your key findings in relation to the research questions. So, David, what can we expect here?
Yeah, so this question actually comes up quite frequently, and really, what they are looking to explore here is, were you able to answer your research questions and aims. So, we talk about how that research journey can get a little windy, and you can take some side-tracks, and really the focus here is, were you able to answer what you set out to answer. And so, really the best advice I can have for this is to really go straight back to your research questions and aims, take a look at them, and make sure you have an answer for all of them.
Yeah. And it is worth noting you might not have a perfect answer for all of them, and in some cases you might not even have been able to answer them, and again, this is where we add in that why factor, so, if you found that you have an answer for the question, explicitly state it here, and if you found that you could not answer it, or that you kind of answered it, but you were not able to get a definitive answer, then you need to say why that might be the case, and how you might address that in future research. It is really about going right back to the focus points. And they are also testing your ability to just pull up the key results, the main findings.
Yeah. And so, here it is important to avoid the interesting side-tracks, because they are specifically asking about your research questions. Yeah. There will be another question likely later of, was there anything unexpected, or did you find anything interesting, and that is where those side-tracks can come in. Yeah. For this question it is all about sticking to that golden thread of, this was my aim, this is the research question, and this is the answer.
I think this question is such a certainty in terms of, will it come up, or will it not come up, because you are essentially asking, what were the findings of your research relative to what you were looking to find. So, I think, given that it is such a certainty in some way, shape or form, it might come in a slightly different wrapping. It is really important for you to have an answer sort of pre-loaded and well-polished, and ready to go, and I would say, here we are specifically talking about the findings in relation to the research questions, but you could do the same thing and prepare an answer for relation to the research objectives, in relation to the research aims, so always think about that golden thread of aims objectives questions, and you can be so certain that some version of this question is going to come up, that you can kind of have a pre, a canned answer with that, that really touches on, okay, so this was question number one, these were my findings, this was question number two, these are my findings, so, you can really, there is no reason not to have a well-polished answer for this, because this is really the heart of your research. So, expect, expect it, no need to expect the unexpected, yet, be ready for it, because it is going to come in some way, shape, or form.
Cool, so then on to the next question that does sometimes catch students of guard, and that question is, were there any findings that surprised you. So, tell us a little bit more about this one.
Yeah, I mean this is going to be the one that often enough is the thing that keeps you awake at night. While preparing for your defense, it is that finding where your literature said one thing, you hypothesized one thing, and then you found the complete opposite, and really this is where they are asking about that. So, you really want to dig into, did you have any unexpected results relating to those research questions, hypotheses or ends, and you want to discuss them here, you know, discuss what your initial expectations were, what the results were, and then maybe talk about why that might be the case.
Yeah, and again, you might not have a hundred percent answer for, but it is important to think about it before the defense, so that you have that, at least thinking preloaded or canned, as Derek puts it. Secondly, there might be some unexpected or unplanned results, as well, and this is where you kind of go into those side-tracks that you did, there might be aspects that you did not set up to directly test, but in your data collection, came up, and were ideas that you explored, and so again here you can bring those up and discuss them, and why they were interesting to you. And then, it is really important to mention there are cases where research does not generate unexpected results, so you have set out to your aims, your hypotheses, you meet those aims, and hypotheses, and that is okay, but it is still important for you to keep an eye out for this, because you really want to show that you have the ability to respond to the unexpected result and dig into that as well. If you did not find any unexpected results you can talk about that, you know, unexpectedly or surprisingly you did not find anything that surprised you.
Yeah. So, that suggests that maybe the technique or the methodology is super sound, but it is missing potential variability in the data that exists. So really this is all about exploring the interesting things, and for me this is the fun part of the defense, because this is what gets me excited and interested, because these are the side-tracks I took in my research, so definitely, something to be diving into, and again you want to be covering the classic what and why, which is helpful, and if you can relate that to the literature as well, you know, if you can find some support from the literature, you can, you know, rattle off that reference, you know, Johnson 2017 found this, and if we take their argument and apply it to our context, it might explain this unexpected result.
I guess another thing that you could incorporate here, so here we are specifically talking about unexpected results relative to your research objectives and questions and so forth, you might also mention some interesting bits of data that popped up, and that potentially creates an opportunity for further research. So, all the other questions we have spoken about so far have been very pointed and very focused on your findings, and everything in relation to research questions, objectives, aims, and I think this question also sort of opens up the door a little bit just to say well, yeah, with some other interesting things we have found they were not necessarily what we were looking for, they do not necessarily, they are not at odds with what we were expecting, but there were just interesting things we saw in the data set, and I think that just also shows your ability to keep your eyes open and not get tunnel vision while you are staring at the data set.
Yeah, I mean, one of the classic ones that comes up here is just simply demographic information as well, you know, you were surprised by the lack of representation, or the high-quality representation in your sample, or it might be related to response rates or data collection techniques. I know from experimental work there is some cases where the experiment just does not go as anticipated, and that is something to really dig into here as well.
All right, so on to the next question, and this one is a juicy one, and the next question is, what biases may exist in your research, and boy are there a lot of biases that can creep into research. Oh yeah. David, unpack this one for us.
I mean the clear one is we also mentioned before that every study has problems or limitations, every study has a bias of some sort, and really what they are testing here is that you can look at your research objectively, that you can actually identify where there might be potential biases that are skewing how you interpret your research, and this potential bias can come in, as Derek said, in a crazy amount of ways, so you might not get all of the biases, but it is worth keeping in mind where they might come in, and so you might have biases in your data set, so we mentioned that before, you might have over representation of a specific demographic group, it might be in your methodology, so maybe in taking an interview process you have missed out on some other aspects, or by taking a quantitative approach you have missed out on that detailed rich data. There could also be biases in your interpretation, as well, this is particularly important when we think about qualitative research, where researcher subjectivity comes into play. And then finally, the bias of you, yourself as the researcher. Unfortunately, that will always introduce biases, and it is important to just critically think about that as a researcher we need to know that how we think about it, a situation, or a research question, is not necessarily all the ways to look at the research question, and so it is important to be checking in with that as well, and as I said, this list is by no means, you know, all of them, what you can do is specifically, you know, drop a Google, go look for biases or frequent sources of bias, and read up a bit on them, because having this answer in place, you can expect it or something along that lines will really show your panel like you are being critical about your research.
Yeah. And so, really, as with all studies and as with limitations, all studies will have some form of bias, and one of the things you can do here is also talk about how you might have managed, mitigated, or accounted for them. Right. So, you know, you want to say if you had a bias that you were aware of, that you did some methodology or some assessment of your interpretation to make sure that bias was avoided, or you know you might not have, and then you can say future studies should account for this, because it is likely to come, up and so you really just want to be engaging with these biases. Again, it is not a problem that there are biases, but it is important to critically engage them.
Absolutely, and I think this is one that you can prepare for quite thoroughly, as you said, David, you can, just a quick Google for, you could Google research biases, you could Google cognitive biases, you can go find the list of biases in the descriptions very, very easily, and a good exercise in preparation of your defense, your viva, is to go and find as many of these damn biases as you can find. Make sure you understand them, and then think, okay, how could this creep into my research, and make a note about that, and then as you said, also think about, okay, how can I mitigate this, how should I mitigate it, what can we do in response to this, what opportunity does this create for future research. So, this is something that you can thoroughly prepare for, and you can kind of just bake this into your head that, okay, these are the major bias threats, and make sure you understand them, make sure you understand what each of these biases mean, because you might get a nasty examiner that is very specific and ask you, well, how did you mitigate for bias X, and if you do not know what that bias is, you are not going to look very good. Yes. Then so, to be ready for them, all of this stuff is freely available. If I can, I will have a look for some resources and include them in a link below this video.
Yeah, one of the things as well, just to mention with this, and it is the same idea with your limitations as well, one of the things to keep an eye out for is that you are not going too far into the tearing your own study down, which is something that we have seen, you know, people are just absolutely picking apart their own research. Yeah. So, the important thing here is we are not tearing down our research, we are critically assessing our research, and that can be a difficult balance to manage, but it is important that you still consider the strengths of your research, as well. Yeah. You are not just a bunch of biases and limitations you are also effective methodologies.
All right, so on to the next question, which is a practical one, and the question is, how can your findings be put into practice, so, this is an important one because we are not just doing research for the sake of research. Yeah. This question is really about, what does this mean for the world, so David, unpack this for us.
Yeah, I think this is one that you can also definitely expect to get some form of the question, you know, they will always be what does your question mean, or your results mean, for the literature, but this is really the key one, and this is why you probably set out to do the research, you know, you did not just jump into it because you had to get a degree, though that may be the case in some cases, but really you want to be putting into practice your research, so you want to say what your findings mean for the average Joe, or for someone not in the research field, and this will differ quite substantially by fields, you know, mathematics applications that would be very different to, you know, a marketing study for instance.
Yeah. But really, the best advice I can give here is to look back at your initial justification for the research, so you would have had to, in your introduction, and when you were designing your topic, set up some justification for the importance of this research, and what it means to people, and so you can use that to help give you some scope on how to apply this. And a second bit of advice I can give here is just, context is key, so you really need to think about what this means for the people on the ground, or the industry on the ground, so for instance for a marketing project you need to figure out what your key actionable strategies are that your company or the organization can put in place, to use your research to improve things to minimize losses, or for an intervention project, you know, what specific changes need to be made as a result of your research, to improve, you know, health benefits from a specific intervention, and then lastly, for something like, maybe it is a zoological study, what changes should be made for the protocols or the policies that are currently in place, and it is really about taking it out of the ivory tower and putting it into practice. The second one, well the third thing to keep in mind here is to be realistic with these as well, do not go too hot there and say, you know, we need to absolutely change the way the entire market is run, that is not going to work, but so, realistic, but also achievable practical results are important here. And as I said before, this is definitely going to come up, and it is something that also as a researcher we should always be keeping in mind, research is not just research for the sake of researching, it is to solve problems and learn more, or understand more about the world we live in, and hopefully make a difference, right?
Yeah, so I think naturally a related question to this is, is how, and we are not going to cover it in this chat because it is expanded on the Grad Coach blog, and I will link to that below, but the other version of this question is how your research findings impact the academic world, how they impact the field of research, so it is very useful when you are thinking about, okay, what does this mean, what does my research mean, what does the findings mean, it is really important to split that into two boxes, and the specific question we are looking at practical application, we are looking at, okay, how does, what does this mean in terms of action points for people that it affects. And equally you need to give some thought to the academic side and how does this knowledge that you have created sort of move the field forward, but for that you can dig into the Grad Coach blog, where we expand beyond the points that we will speak about in this video.
All right, so let us get on to the final question, and this is an interesting one, that sometimes catches students a little bit off guard, and this question is, if you could redo your research from scratch, how would you alter your approach.
Yeah, so, I mean I will say this is often the last question, and it was one that I received for sure, and really the important thing here is it is testing, you know, can you critically assess your research, and learn from it, you know. You have now had the opportunity to do this research, and they are really asking you now, what have you learned, and what would you do differently to improve your results, or to explore what needs to be done, and so, some key ones to consider is how you would minimize the limitations that you identified in your research, maybe how you might shift or tighten your topic, or design, for instance now that you have used the methodology you might decide actually I should have leaned heavier into the qualitative side of my mixed method approach, because I got such rich data there, but I missed out on a bunch. You also could mention if you could consider using a different approach, you know, maybe you took a quantitative approach, and the data you collected was interesting, but maybe future research could look into that qualitative, maybe it is even something as simple as upping your sample size, or you know, increasing your replication in an experimental project, so, a good answer here will show you that you have engaged with your research, that you have actually learned and grown from it, and can apply that knowledge back to your project. And I mean everyone, I mean, it is human nature to look back and say what would I do differently, or what ifs.
Yeah. And so, this is your chance to actually dig into that, and it is a really cool question to think about as well, because it leads you to thinking about what you could do next if you want to continue research, or just give advice to others engaging in research as well. We always mention that research is about standing on the shoulders of giants, and this is one of those situations where we can learn from our past and use that to propel us higher up.
Yeah, and this question also sort of bleeds into a related question, which is sort of, what does this mean for future research, how do your findings, how does your study contribute, and how can other people build on that, so, this is an important one to think about, and again, obviously, by answering this question you are going to be touching on some of the limitations and the weaknesses of your research, so, do not be fearful of that. Again, do not be scared to say, well, you know, actually in hindsight, we could have done this differently, it would have been better. So, do not be fearful of that, because it all lays the foundation for future research, and also, just shows that you as the researcher you have grown through this process, and you have learned things, you know, you kind of, this question is sort of reflecting on your learning process as well, so do not be shy, I guess is the main point.
All right, that pretty much wraps up these nine questions, these nine questions that you can expect to find in some way, shape, or form in a dissertation or thesis defense, or viva. Naturally, this is not a comprehensive list, this is not the be all, and end-all, as I mentioned on the Grad Coach blog, we have got a more comprehensive list, so you can click the link below this video to check that out, but if you thoroughly think through these questions, you should be in a pretty sound space, you should have thought quite critically about the research that you have undertaken, and as we have said so many times, for every point that we have discussed here, and for every response you are going to make, think not just about the what, but the why, you need to have justification for absolutely everything that you put forward.
Yeah. Yeah, so thank you once again, David, thank you for your time, it has been fantastic having you here. I have no doubt that this has shown some light on some concerning questions for many students, so thanks for your time.
All right, so that pretty much wraps up this episode of Grad Coach TV, remember, if you are looking for more information related to dissertations, theses, the research process in general, be sure to check out the Grad Coach blog over at gradcoach.com/blog. Also, if you are looking for one-on-one help with your dissertation, thesis, or research project, be sure to check out our private coaching service, we help you one-on-one through every step of the research process. You can learn more about that and book a free consultation over at gradcoach.com. So, that is all for today, until next time, good luck.