How Our Universities Fail to Advance Humanity.

Surviving the PHD Student and Researcher Nightmare Experience in Modern Academia: An Insider’s Account

Jack Alban Dyer 2018 CECopyright:

The author Jack Dyer hereby asserts and gives notice of his right under section 77 of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988, to be identified as the author of the foregoing book.All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior permission by the publisher, author or copyright holder.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

PREFACE: So what does it mean to be a PHD Higher Degree By Research Candidate?.................. 3CHAPTER I: Disorientation…...............................................................................................................6

CHAPTER II: Administration................................................................................................................8

Chapter III: The First Meetings...........................................................................................................11

Chapter IV: Adjustment… How To Respond To Pressure.................................................................17

1

CHAPTER V: The Supervisory Relationship –Peace and Conflict.....................................................19

CHAPTER VI: ESSENTIAL FACTORS OF A PHD CANDIDATURE:................................................32

CHAPTER VII: How To Survive… Dissertation Dementia..................................................................35

CHAPTER VIII: Conferences............................................................................................................. 42

CHAPTER IX: Awards, Prizes and Competitions...............................................................................44

CHAPTER X: Socialising, Contacts and Networking..........................................................................45

CHAPTER XI: The Balance…. Having a Life.....................................................................................53

CHAPTER XII: Tutoring Teaching/ Work Experience.........................................................................59

CHAPTER XIII: The Literature Review...............................................................................................79

CHAPTER XIV: Confirmation of Candidature Stage 1.......................................................................81

CHAPTER XV: Be Prepared –Skills Of A Successful Candidate…. How To Thrive As A PHD

Student............................................................................................................................................... 82

CHAPTER XVI: How To Fail.............................................................................................................. 85

CHAPTER XVII: The Methodology.....................................................................................................86

CHAPTER XVIII: Publish Or Perish…................................................................................................95

CHAPTER XIX: Second Year –Annual Review of Progress............................................................112

CHAPTER XX: Ethics and Research Integrity.................................................................................116

CHAPTER XXI: Results –Field Research and Ensuring Cooperation..............................................133

CHAPTER 22: Third Year and the Finish.........................................................................................141

CHAPTER 23: RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS...........................................................................146

CHAPTER XXIV: Interaction with Industry –Beyond The PHD and Ensuring Research Matters In

Reality…...........................................................................................................................................150

Conclusions, Discussions and Directions For Future Research.......................................................152

PREFACE: So what does it mean to be a PHD Higher Degree By Research Candidate?

2

The very first question I was presented with my first interaction with my original supervisor…. –as soon

as I had just deposited my stuff and was seeking merely to introduce myself to be courteous… As

human beings so much of our lives is tragically fruitless. Why with so little time, do we continue to

waste ourselves and our reality, on the humdrum, the tedious, the trivial; the pointless, the unprofitable,

the unhealthy, the soulless and banal… and repeat it? Perhaps the most tragic thing is to waste the

gifts which one has been blessed with and become ordinary, leaving no impression or memory beyond

the comparatively few who know you –whilst they themselves exist… especially when one had the

ability, capacity and opportunity, to be both brilliant and extraordinary… History rewards with just

oblivion, those who just cravenly surrender, those who become apathetic, those who do not even

bother to try…who fail to act upon their talents, dreams, imagination and ideas… when privileged

enough to possess them… For a being to aspire to their mental potential, a PHD offers the ultimate test

of one’s formal academic, peer reviewed, internationally certified educational capacity –according to the

world we live in which highly values those who as sacrifices embark upon this voyage….

However, before deciding to commit three years of your life in a soulless cubicle and dingy archives, on

a distant continent or country, without friends and family, studying a solitary topic without a break, living

under spartan conditions on a modest stipend, away from the modern working world and life, with little

to divert, produce or contribute until after these three years… a prospective candidate might be curious

to discover what does it truly mean to be a postgraduate, especially PHD or other doctoral/ post-

doctoral candidate? After all, -it is a substantial, life decision that requires putting on pause any other

dreams and intentions for a minimum of 3 years full time in many countries. But in the United States it

drags on for five years or more and up to 6 or more years, part time –if heroically you consider juggling

the pressures of a job simultaneously as many do… However, if you do what I did –try searching

online, in libraries and in bookshops… you will find virtually nothing…There are curiously remarkably

few insider accounts; fact or fictionalised that actually record the postgraduate experience –as a

student candidate… This book represents an ongoing answer to that disorientation –to those who

wonder what does a PHD entail? What does it mean? What is university life as a postgraduate? How

does one avoid failure… and how does one manage to succeed, still have a life and remain

themselves? Alternatively, you might be merely curious about the degree and modern academia? Is it

really valuable or useful? Do the candidates work for it? What is a more realistic, insider’s account of

modern academia and universities? Is a higher degree, truly worth sacrificing one’s humanity? Are

students and faculty members rewarded or exploited?

From the perspective as a student undertaking undergraduate, Master’s degrees and doctorate at three

separate universities and continents, who served as a tutor, lecturer, researcher, consultant to the

private sector, government and other stakeholders, considered publishing and fund raising, foreign field

3

research, conferences, competitions and scholarships yet sought to maximise their student experience,

explore their environs and remain centred to the reality of life… this represents a true account of a 26

year old’s experience at their Oceanian university… Every candidate has their own potential

experience. But in the absence of others sharing their own successes and failures, either during their

degree or afterwards, this account seeks to provide an insider’s account into higher academia, for any

who seek to penetrate the opaque barriers of confidentiality and find out what it’s all about…So, to

detail what it means to be a PHD candidate; this account is structured to the various standard stages of

a typically 3-4 year candidature, including the potential challenges and factors for those proposing to

enter modern academia and a higher degree by research experience; (although based on personal

experience, observation and interaction among candidates). It therefore details university life, the

nature of a PHD, means of success and failure, to discover whether it is a worthwhile investment of

oneself, to discover and master oneself and to contribute to the world…. or whether, there might be

something else?

Why? The Choice: Reality and a Working Life Or More Education?

So why pursue a PHD? The choice had been made and aside from motivating it in the application and

scholarship covering letters, this candidate developed 21 reasons to convince the bemused, sceptical

and inquisitive as to why one wished to deprive oneself of a career and normal human contact to

embark on this postgraduate ordeal. 3-4 years is a significant investment to make and any conscious of

preserving their mind, passion, spirit, conscious, identity and humanity ought to be aware of…

I: Curiosity

II: Desire to contribute to scholarship and the thirst for knowledge

III: Ambition to prove yourself beyond.

IV: Academic attainment

V: Oath of Allegiance

VI: Environmental – save Gaia, the planet

VII: Circumstances –scholarship etc -timing

VIII: Flattery –accepted after the Master’s degree

IX: Career prospects

X: Prestige

XI: Family

XII: Delayed choice/work

XIII: chance to challenge oneself –adventure contribute

4

XIV: New adventures/experiences

XV: Family –academic/professional

XVI: Aid Industry

XVII: Aid country/continents

XVIII: The chance to travel assuming you can make it a condition of funding, research, conferences or

simply to study and immerse yourself in a new domicile, from the perspective of not formally committing

to it as someone with a family, career or other restrictive hinderance.

XIX: Quality of human life -to work and live more freely bound than a normal 9-5 desk bound job.

XX: Fiscal/tax incentives including tax exempt incomes, getting paid to study what you enjoy and to

travel under the guise of conferences, research and networking.

XXI: Opportunity cost –What else is there/could one do with one’s life? Why rush to work at someone’s

expense –delay parting campus life via the postgraduate experience.

I was also asked to define: “What Is A PhD?”

Succinctly, it is defined as. In practise it means a substantial gamble in the academic steeplechase.

Time in Australia, far beyond home, familiarity and anyone who cares about you as a human being…

Three years is a significant investment in one’s future. It can either enhance a person’s credentials or

destroy their soul and character entirely. I seek to pursue a PHD despite my supervisors and

universities –not because of them. There is nothing like the supervisory process and 19 years of formal

exposure to this tainted malaise to seek to truly destroy the individuality of a soul.

CHAPTER I: Disorientation…

According to the glossy prospectus and set of rules this author eventually unearthed after self-

determining their work process, induction and access to basic resources. No one actually undertook

responsibility ‘The University will provide all candidates with an induction that includes, but is not limited to information on expectations, responsibilities, degree requirements, progress procedures, research integrity and ethics, health and safety requirements and the availability of support services. The School of Enrolment must provide additional inductions.’

5

Who Cares? Is it worthy of oneself? What is to be done?

Unlike undergraduates who have the benefit of special Orientation Days, Fresher’s Week, elaborate

induction sessions, dedicated printed manuals, electronic guides, past exam and test papers, special

student advisors and intricate support systems to orientate and prepare them for the transition between

school and campus life… the postgraduate experience, especially at PHD and post-doctoral level is

extremely remorseless, unforgiving and unsympathetic, callously exclaiming that you are on your own,

straight from the beginning. There were no guides! An increasing number of these institutions expect

that past exposure sufficiently inoculates you against the blitzkrieg of unfamiliarity and uncertainty that

barrages you. Whether to enrol, to communicate, to operate, to locate the library, resources, facilities,

to withdraw, to change supervisors, to know where to go, what is required, what is expected at all

stages from the beginning to final examination, how can you suggest improvements, voice concerns,

apply for leave, deal with funding, career’s advice, personal support; how to deal with problematic

laptops, get funding support, publish… progress –or even survive? Questions repeatedly corralling me

and other candidates to absurdity and folly, helped prompt this guide to the PHD experience. How do

you get the facilities, funds, equipment, resources and supervisors that can permit you to finish your

gamble?

One soon had to improvise. It soon became clear students and early career researchers would be on

our own. Participation in universities on two continents and composing 2 previous novels gave me

expectations as to what both a sophisticated and a dysfunctional tertiary education should be like but

Australia and the PHD were entirely blank and opening. One soon realised just how most of us have

little true idea about a significant chapter in our lives might be like… or what it actually involves. Existing

academic sources are tepid –analytical about structure, history and psychology rather than reflecting

the dimensions of life and tragedy that the tertiary sector presents. There are far more films and novels

devoted to high school than the university experience. What was intriguing proved to be the conspiracy

of silence one soon encountered around the phase of existence. Faculty members, academics, former

and current students, administrators, colleagues and kith, were all noticeably and disconcertingly

reticent on the subject. It had been dealt with technically -from a pedagogical and historical stance; but

as for insight into the experience, astonishingly little, as if this aspect of human experience was far

better concealed, suppressed and forgotten. This challenged one to recount the ordeal from one who

passed through all aspects and passed through, (through scathed).

To be proactive is the first challenge of disorientation. Navigate the campus, the neighbourhood and the

urban/natural environment surrounding you. Understand transport, finance, shopping, accommodation,

6

recreation, health, entertainment, library, administration and support facilities. It can be necessary to

locate one’s work space, furnish it, secure computer, email and Internet access arrange meetings with

supervisors/core administrators and contacts asap. One should prepare socially, mentally, emotionally

and physically. It may help to know counselling/medical services, sports and clubs, local culture and

pastimes; prices and other essential information. Locating social activities hosted by student societies,

the university, school, department, the union, the accommodation services provider and others may aid

integration. It is advised to pick up any security and student identity cards as soon as possible –being

prepared for vast queues. Sorting out administration and registration may be easier to address in

person. Arranging schedules, library access, careers guidance and skills development. Checking out

social networking and any orientation sessions of undergraduates/others held to ensure you are just as

committed, prepared and ready as they. It can be useful to memorise and access security/halls of

residence/university.

CHAPTER II: Administration

HR. scholarship, international student advisor, HOS/ HOD, dean of graduate research, student support,

student counselling, IT, legal services, administration, postgraduate student advocate…

accommodation; funding and scholarship; finding out about work and sick leave, minimal infrastructure

standards, level of enrolment, work rights, obligations or opportunities, ethics, rights, even travel

policies. Work out regular and sick leave entitlements, visa requirements, paid employment, intellectual

property, work health and safety, academic misconduct, graduate research skills workshops, 3 Minute

Thesis, conference fund grants, scholarships, student centre, Online or paper undergraduate

orientation including using the electronic enrolment/other systems and seeking other students more

experienced can be unnerving but simpler than floundering around, especially as PHD students and

early career researchers frequently enter academia at random, unsynchronised times… Online cloud

7

storage, basic IT, cyber and physical security of work and residence environment, room and resources

inventory before you are too settled –supervisor logistics arrangements –before inflexible and penalised

–habits dominate… schedules; familiarity with events, policies, systems, timetables, options –

workshops, news, resources, places, computers, support –staff-other students, feedback

If experience can teach anything, is that life stagnates as bureaucrats flourish. Even within universities

they cannot be avoided and can cause just as many barriers for a postgraduate student as for anyone

else. Consider University Accommodation Services for example. Those PHD students such as myself,

especially veterans who experienced several places (9 in 7 years) initially considered on-campus

accommodation to provide a number of decisive advantages over private accommodation. If an

international or postgraduate –or even inter-state student completely unfamiliar with the local terrain,

the last thing many of us really feel up to, is searching through the private landlord sector, establishing

their rents, security deposits, negotiating contracts, strange laws and other issues. How do we know

whether or not we are receiving value for money; what do we do about utilities and bills; what about

security, insurance and maintenance –and most urgently of all; what do we do when something goes

wrong? Also being close to lectures/study cubicles/the library, having regular social activities/sports

provided by the campus, access to the bus service including the airport shuttle directly, included utilities

and laundry access can provide further advantages Ultimately how accessible and willing are they? At

least the university can provide laws, structure, stability and predictability. Yet I found that the

Australian university was significantly far more expensive than renting privately; I was conned into

doing my own cleaning and unlike every other university I had ever heard of –you could not receive

included rental internet but it was contracted out to a private monopoly appallingly expensive with

execrable customer and technical service quality with no accountability or room for complaint.

Additionally the direct deposit system was rigorously enforced –having to pay rent fortnightly instead of

monthly as in the rest of the civilised world –and then tried to con me out of several hundred dollars if I

hadn’t scrupulously kept a record of my automated bank payments. I had an ant invasion 7 times –kept

coming back. I was forever reporting maintenance and lack of supplies. Unlike other universities which

separated postgraduates and undergraduates with highly divergent priorities and needs, this one did

not –contributing to dissertation dementia –as in that section. It is advisable to check all these things to

decide if this reflects value for money or not. However, ultimately it remains a question of personal

preferences, tastes, lifestyle, experience and tolerance.

Residential tenancy rights over accommodation need to be enforced as universities underestimate the

need for candidates to have a stable domestic and academic environment so they can actually

concentrate on having the peace necessary to concoct true inspiration. However, postgraduates –

particularly international students are often considered as inferior citizens at best, when compared to

8

more lucrative and numerous undergraduates. For example the standard residential contract across

international universities links to an undergraduate academic year, ignoring the year around presence

of candidates or the need for flexibility when spending months on field research/travelling and paying

when not actually using facilities/staying. University Accommodation Services frequently exploit their

monopolies to intimidate postgraduate students and others into accepting unequal contracts yet do

nothing to protect them from noise, crime, security, hygiene and other violations –including frequent

intrusions, mandatory cleaning and inspections of communal areas –and even having to move at times

when more enriching clients turn up for conferences/events –at short notice. Services lack

accountability –even threatening those who follow all residential terms and conditions (non-negotiable)

and break no laws, but have the sheer brazen effrontery and cheek… to complain and stand up for

themselves… Many candidates therefore have to swallow further losses to rights and dignities,

sacrificing their humanity further with inferior living conditions as a further, underestimated sacrifice

often lacking either the income or the choice of alternative accommodation options –Or face similar

problems in the private sector with landlords.

Tenants do have rights as do students, even if we can be forgotten about as customers. Obviously

what rent includes/excludes is essential? How is it furnished? Is it adequately maintained? What of

security, transport, accessibility, hygiene, insulation, accessibility, ventilation and the greatest of

gambles… the other tenants? Noise can also separate priorities between undergraduates and

postgraduates. Be wary of intrusion inspections, the need for deposits, guarantors, the flexibility of

contracts –year long or nor; preserve correspondence –all payments/bills etc –can take photos and

videos

Organisations exist on the hierarchal principle of centralised power but decentralised, invisible

responsibility –No one ever becomes accountable or often willing to enforce/implement everything

beyond routine tasks. For any deviation from bureaucratic norms and dealing with any obnoxious

specimen, it generally pays to be strategic and cultivate strategic, promising relationships with those

occupying key positions, whenever you are truly floundering.

9

Chapter III: The First Meetings

Agreeing on the basic structure provides the first litmus test as to whether you can work with your

supervisors and fellow researchers. So what is the ideal introduction? There appears to be variations

among the theses I have consulted in preparing chapter 1. To introduce the topic it helps to provide the

general background or problem before moving onto the current status. However, common elements

include 1.1 research background; 1.2 highlights the core problem and corresponding literature gap; 1.3

includes key research questions and ultimate. 1.4 outlines and motivates the significance of the thesis

or research’s theoretical and conceptual contribution and 1.5 proposes a brief synopsis of each

forthcoming chapter. In the initial meetings one had to agree on ridiculous things such as spacing, page

margins and style/structure as the following enquiry illustrates:

“Given that there might be a considerable amount of space at times and other times not so much, would supervisors prefer each section within a chapter -i.e. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 etc -to start on a separate page which is the convention that I was previously familiar with. These occur on the same page?

None of this should matter but merit. The first forms of feedback are particularly painful, yet obviously

differ from student to student, project to project, and supervisor to supervisor. Supervisors will detail

10

either minor pedantic or stridently harsh and vigorous critiques. It helps to mirror references, style and

structure to those of the most recent past projects/theses/publications. Many favour Endnote for

systematic reference filing with opinions on paragraph spacing, world count, headings, subheadings,

style of tables, figures and charts. Yet its often simpler from inception to merely compose a list of

references in the appropriate style -adding them as you unearth them. Manually inserting them into

Endnote or later can be a momentous waste of time. These can be visually shown in Italics or bold.

One will soon become familiar with comments whether inserted through the Microsoft Word Tool Track

Changes or scrawled out on printed copies. Each section needs a logical transition/overview.

Frequently repeated words can become acronyms. Sections are often dictated to be as concise as

possible so. It can be useful to master quotes to appease them. As for compliments or constructive

comments –where do you think you are? Being an undergraduate? Being at primary school you may

get them but at a university and at postgraduate level, the highest form off phrase concerns itself with

the absence of crimson splodges tarnishing your calligraphy.

Even the introduction is considered to be analytical-critical rather than discursive –providing several

peer-reviewed literature sources to back up core sentences/assertions/theory components. Sources

have to be justified as to why they are excluded or purposefully omitted –and succinctly to avoid

word/chapter/paragraph restrictions. Every definition needs justifying for its inclusion –and woe if you

have to make up your own (along with your own table/diagram or theory because it is actually

something novel). Theses are fairly conservative and the institutions supporting them are often

hidebound and reactionary, more interested in using long dead, dying or minor yet ‘peer reviewed’

authorities from a narrow range of discipline specific journals, oblivious to so many wider ideas and

sources… One’s initial supervisors discouraged even self-referencing, even when one had creditable

publishable and field research material; in favour of those less experienced and relevant but more

famous to examiners. As a candidate one must also be prepared for sections to be unscrupulously

extinguished, no matter how connected, nor how much toil sweated.

This guides’ objective serves not only to familiarise prospective applicants with the journey but to

minimise the amount of valuable and irreplaceable time/resources one has to invest in it. E.g. this

chapter concentrates on transforming unproductive first meetings into progress as well as simplifying

the process of getting the first chapter finished then accepted. Each submitted chapter involved a

minimum 3 rounds of feedback and comments –total of 5 supervisors. Yet 2 quit being hypercritical as

later chapters highlight, one was inactive/contributed nothing and 1 only minor issues. Each section

needed references used/cited at the back for the submitted draft yet not for the total. Subheadings were

indented. A list of tables and figures/sub sections was provided prior to the text of each chapter draft.

11

Shorter chapters and paragraphs are considered more effective with shorter sentences according to

myriad publishers, supervisors and researchers.

During the first stage of candidature its advisable not just to ensure the meetings and chapters are

fruitful but to master the basic research and survival skills one needs to pass the first year. One early

aim should be to access all related policies and requirements including assessment criteria. From

experience, it provides a peer reviewed, public presentation with ultimately 3 aims. I: To determine the merit and integrity of the proposed research. II: Whether the research is of a suitable scope and standard for the degree and III: whether the candidate has the capacity to complete the project and degree at the required level. The public presentation provides a rite of passage so that one is no longer

exposed just to ridicule, humiliation and scathing comments among appointed supervisors but from a

more public audience. They are given the chance to interrogate the method, structure, resources,

feasibility, if it is significant, scope, aims, theoretical basis and anything else they can possibly imagine.

It also involves creating an updated research plan with initial introduction, literature review and

methodology chapters and evidence that ethical aspirations are accommodated. A candidate needed to

survive 6 supervisory meetings -a minimum of 1 every 2 months. 2 coursework units had to be passed.

The main purpose of these 10-15 slides over 20-25 minutes is convey your research intentions, the

means of achieving such, one’s current state of progress and forthcoming activities/timeline. A private

panel of academics them probes all aspects of research. The oucome of this first year examination is to

advance you to Year 2; to extend the pre-confirmation period, to reduce the PhD status to Master’s

degree or to terminate candidature. To pass the candidate must clearly understand sufficient field

related literature; articulate the research objectives and questions translucently; convey the theory,

design and research methodology and why undertake the research, at a suitable HDR level. They need

highlight its intended contribution to the research field and pass all coursework requirements

12

Chapter IV: Adjustment… How To Respond To Pressure

How does one transform into a PHD student? One distinct advantage is how the nebulous element of

Time morphs at our own pace in our own lifestyle, once we have adjusted to any supervisory meeting

preferences and coursework. Unlike a conventional 9-5 office job we can choose when and where to

work. We can even work on weekends and substitue days granting us greater flexibility in our personal

lifes (or at the very least, avoiding queues). Knowing the projected outcome helps to allocate your time

without total fatigue, disorientation and paralysis –even if supervisors and administrators only mention it

to you allowing minimal adjustment and little chance to respond to pressure.

It is all about finding what works for us and at our own pace –Although it might seem false, how much

can the world really coerce, enslave and dictate us to follow everything, all the time, perfectly, efficiently

and satisfying their ways? We need to define our own goals and strive to do everything possible to

ensure that we remain on track regardless and in spite of others. The only way to advance through life

it seems is to anticipate that life will be unexpected –to minimise the time we waste in recovering from

the shock? Learning from experience, mastering greater self-control, perseverance, effort and

concentration further minimises the recovery time and response rate. For many of us, such pressures in

some form will exist throughout our lives but fretting just wastes more time and energy –it is far more

productive to distract ourselves –whether through action, support, recovery methods or distraction. It

helps to consider what can we learn from each adverse or positive encounter and then to avoid

dwelling upon it if we can. How can we be present moment orientated –focusing on maximising our

perception and life experience, to avoid boredom or wasting the scarcest, most valuable resource of

time?

13

Do we live only for work or do we let it consume us? Do we distinguish between what is essential, what

is urgent, what we wish to do and what is trivial and prioritise accordingly? Alternatively do we spend

too much of ourselves frittering it away in distractions, mired in our own self-indulgence and self-

gratification unable to respond decisively when we actually must? Do we strive for our ambitions, do we

live by our principles, choices, decisions and will or by those of others? Do we live for others, a cause,

a vocation, a talent; a belief… ourselves? Life is a path we all experience uniquely. Formal education

flounders in ignoring so many key elements but how to respond to pressure, dissertation dementia,

stress, chaos, the hypersonic tempo of ‘Future’ shock… makes the difference between success and

failure. The true measure of ourselves as human beings is how we respond to the challenges that life

seems to forever thrust upon us. Unexpectedly at any moment we feel pressured to react to events and

people without being able to simply pause and think, to adjust and to respond as calm and controlled as

we wish. Each of us is different but finding some way of centring ourselves and adjusting to the farces

and tragedies wrought by life, (possibly including the supervisory relationship for many students), is

worth the time and effort, otherwise we lose that which is most important –ourselves.

Developing a routine of focus, organisation, information storage, backup, productivity, meditation,

inspiration, stress relieve, relaxation/rest and emotional enjoyment preserves our humanity, even as

others campaign to devour it. Time management –how to order, focus, prioritise systematically. Be

aware that at any time one can be distracted internally by emotional/mental/physical disruptions. It is

thus important to ascertain when one can and cannot work. It also helps to familiarise oneself with as

much forethought and preparation as normal. Access to PHD and institutional procedures in advance

can minimise risk and manage expectations for controlled uncertainty. For example one can defend

their principles and research direction by understanding student and supervisor rights/responsibilities. It

helps to understand the complaints and appeals processes, research rules… trauma, stress and

anxiety, boredom, frustration, wrath, depression, motivation, effort… Present moment situated

–past/future; active –Carpe Diem, balanced lifestyle –if possible to talk and socialise with others but

also to live with oneself. Knowing where health and first aid services are located.

One of the primordial fears of every being should involve becoming that which they are not and

embarrassed to reflect. For the PHD experience, this nightmare became real when students grew to

reflect the worst characteristics of their supervisors. The ultimate manifestation of pressure occurs

when you become as erratic, pedantic, overcritical, tactless, inefficient and completely detached from

the virtues of reality, common sense and mutual courtesy; as your supervisors. It’s even worse when

this is echoed unconsciously so that the candidate cannot even fight against it. One of the most

haunting of moments of realisation is when you realise your supervisors are only human –that few are

genuinely able to help you when you need it most as they are generally pressurised souls themselves.

14

Many candidates have to consider their own means of adjusting to pressure, seeking to retain as much

of their humanity as possible. Campuses can contain free counselling sessions and fellow PHD

students can therapeutically divert the angst temporarily as they can related to similar pressures.

CHAPTER V: The Supervisory Relationship –Peace and Conflict

A factor that cannot fail your PHD but makes all the difference between success and failure –whether or

not you have to complete it on your own or not. Whilst for many candidates they find out what works

and they have no issues of friction, my own experience varied considerably. With my first supervisors.

Then I ended up with those supervisors whom at least were prepared to accept me for a number of

reasons including one supervisor who volunteered though in a third country. This supervisor was more

absent and although I sent repeated drafts for feedback, one still queries their actual contribution;

having not really heard anything but it did allow me to continue when there was a significant risk of the

candidature being terminated? However the supervisor provides the link through which the university

administrators, research funders, journal publishers, academic hierarchy, other academics and

contacts, event hosts, industry and outer world of opportunities, consider and relate to you, passing you

off as the supervisor’s responsibility first and foremost, even if you wish to try something else…at least

for the ordinary, the mediocre, the indifferent and those who really want to frustrate your progress.

Those who are above such pettiness, are fortunately more interest in you –your accomplishments, your

experience, your research etc… even if ultimately and understandably often filtered through the

perceptions through which they perceive, react and consider the world, their capacities, interests and

their interests. Self-interest is a central human psychological trait –our ego becomes our identity.

However, we often have to descend or at least attempt to work with our supervisors given the PHD

structure which considers that students require supervisors and significant supervision rather than

research autonomy, a prerogative conferred only beyond to those achieving tenure…

What can be expected from supervisors –expectations –feedback, proofreading, professional advice,

personal support expectations versus reality –subjective approaches –try to make them feel important/

valued by offering them thanks for anything they do contribute/ aid; by recognising they are people with

other interests/family etc; through shared experiences, offering to collaborate on their research projects;

to co-author journal articles and find other points of connection with them if possible/ Be judicious in the

use of apologies/ praise/begging etc when necessary –if you really want to remain but it can be

15

important to retain one’s human dignity and not to compromise on issues that really matter personally

to you….

Recognising the flaws of the supervisory process, with supervisors it is essential to achieve

expectations –to find out what works for supervisors –especially if they are the pedantic sort obsessed

with structure, grammar, style, referencing, formatting, spelling, -consider the time period for feedback/

the type of feedback, methods for handling feedback that you do not agree with, how to resolve

tensions, authorship policy. For example I came up with the following concerns –but foolishly raised

them all at once –and through email when my relationship was severely constrained and could no

longer be vocalised –it is beneficial to engage upon these concerns as early as possible in the

candidature to organise well. However, it can take significant time for these factors to be answered and

the relationship established, requiring patience and dogged perseverance.

I: What do you as a supervisor/ expect from me as a candidate?What does the University expect?

II: What is your aspiration/ eventual purpose to me as a candidate?What does the University expect?

III: What requirements personally are needed for the Confirmation of Candidature?

IV: What is your preferred method/ approach of communication?

V: How frequently do you feel meetings are necessary?

V: What are your preferred methods for receiving responses to feedback that this candidate feels does not wish to incorporate?

VIII: What are your perceptions towards possible frequency/ undertaking of publications during candidature? For example should I also be considering locating an article or 2 from my literature review?

IX: What are your perceptions towards the value/ frequency of conferences undertaken during candidature –time allocated etc? Does the university/ you personally only consider support for 1 international conference or would you consider any additional local/ international conferences in exchange for publicity/ other requirements etc

X: Do you have co-authorship preferences or any views on authorship?

XI: What is a realistic amount of time that you as a supervisor have to dedicate towards my work –contact time versus non-contact time as a reasonable average?/ What do you consider a fair turnaround time for providing feedback on drafts and what time do you

16

consider reasonable providing notice in order to complete administrative tasks etc such as the graduate research plan, leave, supervisor relationships etc?

XII: What is your preferred approach as a supervisor –issues that you particularly focus on for a candidate –to assess the extent of your strengths –

-I.e. what particular issues of grammar, structure, style/ content strike you as particularly necessary, of value to an extent and what weaknesses need to be avoided?

XIII: What in your professional opinions do examiners particularly prefer/ dislike?

XIV: What is a reasonable number of drafts for each chapter before being able to move on –given that the final revisions will occur afterwards?

XV: What time periods will you be completely unavailable/ only partially present –i.e. conferences/ leave etc so as to minimise intrusions during that time? Many supervisors seem to subscribe to the simple precept: “To hear is to obey oh venerable master!”

I.e. shut up –and just get on with it –too bad if you are independent.” Trying to maintain communication

with them can be challenging more of the art of a consummate psychologist–Being wary of trying

extreme candour whether in person or by email, they may not be receptive to it. Sometimes, all the

reminders and diplomacy in the world cannot seem to get them to be great supervisors however,

regardless of the time and effort you personally invest. If supervisors do not encourage you, advance

your interests or offer the simple respect of listening/valuing your perspective and ideas; then there are

several recourses including trying to communicate it by letter or email if it cannot be vocalised or

seeking help/mediation from a number of other parties at your institution including the student

representative council or postgraduate student representative if one exists; student counselling/

learning services, student advisors –whether general or international; the head of supervisors, the head

of department/school/faculty, dean of graduate research etc/ other faculty members/ graduate research

office etc… ultimate recourses are to appeal to the university; to ask for an additional supervisor, to

approach new supervisors or to consider resigning as the most drastic –seek a place somewhere else.

It was only 17 months into this author’s personal encounter and complete disorientation, having

witnessed everything from aborted attempts to successful completion to forfeiting position to even the

dramatic effort of one student who resorted to suicide that the university actually made token efforts at

guidance, offering counselling, career guidance, a few published standards, code of conduct, glossy

website, mission statement and a “HDR Forum,’ and online survey where we as candidates were

invited to relate our Pacific university experience. For example it mentioned that candidates could

expect the following from their supervisors: being accessible for frequent interactions and meetings,

personal support, professional academic guidance, helpful –constructive, timely and efficient feedback;

17

assistance with planning work and meeting deadlines, support for funding, ethics and field research

along with assistance in topic refinement, relevant literature reviews, useful conferences and events. It

is questionable just how many students would agree that their supervisors were particularly conducive

and responsive to the above –without being totally disparaging, discouraging or monopolising/restrictive

in their approach. However, this did not extent to employment/research funding/publishing advice or

assistance with networking or assistance in providing tutorials/lectures/academic work, research skills

and course requirements aid and various other requirements that this treatise considers would aid

students.

Other students voiced similar concerns but only confidentiality –stigma of speaking out publicly given the implications –and whether even approaching a new supervisor has the chance to potentially backfire… -need to try flattering them/building connections appealing to their ambition/ego etc –students really personally suffer –tried advice to distract with something they enjoy –keep mind/health intact –seek any potential sources of support –try arbitration so it isn’t held against you –to see

I advised one about the process of changing supervisors –confirmed 3 supervisors support each other –primary one claiming it is the student’s mistakes and problems rather than misunderstandings over communication and defending herself when they conspire against you. ‘Sorry about the late response - the International Student Centre Advisor, unfamiliar or there might be fellow sympathetic TUU Postgraduate Council reps. There is a free Student counselling service as well. The following documents can help legally support you -defend your case -student complaints, responsibilities and rights of candidates and of supervisors -mine violated certain clauses in ignoring student welfare and it can be unprofessional to violate responsible research conduct. However technically one doesn’t need supervisors –can graduate as a last resort but can seek arbitration search for at least 1 internal school supervisor –but generally 2 externals.”

It is possible to have revenge on your supervisors whether through sharing the problem, voicing it in a

candidate experience survey (assuming the university do not use it as a PR stunt and consider it

seriously), excluding them from your research output/publications and lives. Excluding them from the

acknowledgements page, excising their existence and excoriating them to other students can be petty

but extremely personally satisfying and they cannot do anything about it. If you change supervisors, it

implies that they, for all their profound years of research skills and supervisions, were simply unwilling

or unable to co-operate. As students or fledgling junior academics we can claim inexperience and

ignorance but what can supervisors, bureaucrats and journal editors who really should know better

claim in their defence other than the foibles of being human. One notable flaw is the lack of

accountability of supervisors –Universities never bother to evaluate whether a relationship is working or

whether supervisors are performing –only devising systems to monitor candidate progress (or

comparative lack of progress. Their hierarchal structure and power relationship discourages candour

18

and accountability as many students confide their issues privately not just to this author but in social

networking, to friends, family, peers… even other academic colleagues in the search for support,

sympathy, empathy, advice and understanding. However, as the structure never appears to change

and most are too afraid, unable or indifferent to speaking out; many swallow their individuality and

humanity, compromising, sacrificing, suppressing… whatever they possess, believe, wish or desire to

pursue research.

Just how indispensable is a supervisor? They claim to contribute but a growing number of candidates

consider micro-managing to be detrimental and discouraging. After hearing it so often, it might seem

reasonable that we should learn to tolerate their carping and constant critique (Can anything ever

satisfy a supervisor?). Their predictable patterns, perfectionism pedantry and preconditioned

programming should make it simple to nor how to react. It is challenging to remain silent. But it can hurt

not to be listened to, valued or appreciated. It can be extremely tempting to ignore the inverse power

relationship rather than a partnership of mutually interested equals and speak out… But if we do… will

they or the administration actually listen or care? As candidates we require more than just an adequate

stipend capable of sustaining our lives moderately for the years of great sacrifice and personal austerity

extracted from us as the price of a higher degree, the sacrificed stress, peace and financial opportunity

costs of undertaking a PHD rather than the modern working world. In order to compensate us for the

turmoil, pressure, disorientation and dislocation from the familiar; the loss of prestige, the inversion of

power authority towards the supervisor rather than a collegial relationship of equals; most junior in the

academic hierarchy, we seek stability of relationships, reassurance and confidence that we have not

just made a colossal mistake…

Although most supervisors truly never understand what a student goes through, forgetting their own

youth experience, many candidates desire to know that their research is actually progressing –that they

are doing something right at least. Constant criticism and revisions reinforce a sense of inferiority,

resentment, apathy, sorrow and wrath as supervisors focus eternally on what is wrong rather than what

is correct. How many supervisors appear to forget that none of us are perfect and that we don’t want to

devote eternity to concentrating on the same topic to the exclusion of the rest of our existence? The

ideal supervisory experience should be one of mutual tolerance and respect not a charade to inflate

egos. Candidates ought to be free to retain their humanity and the very sparks –of hope, ambition,

tenacity, courage, resolve, truth, curiosity, passion, faith and creativity that caused them to want to

commit to the journey and remain inspired. Universities should encourage the best of scholarship rather

than prescribing only dogma, following the will of the supervisors and rigorously insisting that everything

has to follow predecessors, even when as for my own experience; the research was path breakingly

new and did not have extensive previous literature to root itself, with limited empirical case studies as

19

examples to slavishly replicate. If it is possible to consider a new contribution to research, supervisors

should respect a candidate’s position and support them in that, allowing them the chance to speak and

raise their own concerns/determine their own progress not just retard their efficiency by spurning

feedback. Editors are similar in the obsession to publish or perish, obsessed with constraining research

to a few pages and rigidly dictating the style, structure and format/content of every article, with no

allowance for original creativity from a candidate. In fact, editors often demonstrate a similar bias

against new researchers even when they concede the originality of their work, insisting that you co-

author with your supervisors, even if they contributed absolutely nothing whatsoever. For example this

candidate was personally assured by this by an email from the editors of Maritime Economics and

Logistics/Maritime Policy and Management/Journal of Risk Management Science, three of the most

relevant, peer-reviewed journals with a reasonable impact factor related to their PHD. The 2 maritime

journals stated that they would never publish anything by a PHD student as sole author, regardless of

the quality.

This candidate experienced 5 PHD supervisors, 2 Honours and 1 Master’s of varying level so far. Of

those, one contributed nothing –not a single word as an honorific and ignored even email

correspondence, 2 were are a complete failure and ended up in chaos, 2 specialised in areas not

relevant to the thesis actually a hindrance, 2 tried to listen but followed their own ideas more than

nurturing the candidate and only one could be said to be an excellent example of everything a PHD

supervisor should be and heroically deserved a medal for defending that candidate, listening, believing,

valuing and supporting them, aiding them in conferences, funding, awards and an incredibly

dysfunctional, dystopian, capricious bureaucracy thwarting the probability of actually graduating in time.

Of those, only the last one actually recognised the candidate for what they were and what they could be

and seemed to value that candidate’s position. It is astonishing in interviewing candidates, how many

supervisors actually do not let candidates speak –or even finish and continuously interrupt, interjecting

with their own perspective rather than actually listening. All of the other PHD supervisors thought

though their possession of an academic degree was sufficient to compel automatic obedience rather

than respect. From their actions it transpired that a candidate should be wary of having their own

thoughts, principles, ideas and vision for the thesis, even if that candidate could make it work? They

ignored a candidate’s experiences, their effort and their abilities both unrelated and also potentially

connectable towards the research. Whether 10 minutes or 2 hours, there remain very few meetings

where the candidate was actually able to clearly and confidently articulate that which they really wanted

to say –to develop their own thoughts.

A significant delay in the PHD experience occurs from the inactivity of supervisors –who expect all the

prestige of attracting the students, the enrichment of the funding, the cadence of being associated with

20

the sky blazing, pioneering latest research (to disguise their own comparative lack of potential), the

glorification of their reputation, curriculum vitae and publications list, without actually committing work to

the overall supervisory relationship and thesis process. For 4 months my first 2 PHD supervisors

refused to meet at all, delaying progress. However, this was eclipsed by the replacement supervisor

who for 8 months essentially contributed nothing. Every email and form of communication, every draft

of articles and chapters, every personal and official advice sought, was pointedly, rudely ignored… It

took 8 months to secure a joint Skype meeting with all three supervisors –This was also rescheduled

several times where the supervisor claimed other commitments –not placing the PHD first. Ironically,

the same supervisor wished to reap the glory of minimal toil by intellectually disingenuously wishing to

be claimed as co-author on any conference or journal publication. The most tactful way to pointedly

resolve this absurdity was to note that whilst one appreciated the effort and interest and was perfectly

willing at any time to collaborate on any publication to which feedback/mutual effort had been

introduced, one had already submitted oneself as the sole author having provided the method, review,

concept etc. A candidate is expected not to be human –hyper-efficient, motivated, productive in output

and proactive, yet it appears that no such factors govern supervisors. One of the most significant flaws

observed, is that it is up to the candidate –who can work as hard as possible, yet cannot progress

beyond a certain point without the supervisor. Yet the supervisor in most cases lacks accountability and

responsibility towards the student –whilst the university is biased supporting faculty over mere lowly

students, regardless of justice and sincere effort. Academic whistleblowing is scarcely designed to

enhance a candidate’s popularity –being threatened with expulsion then if you use your emails/records

to prove that you have followed the rules, being socially ostracised –including the Christmas dinner.

Significant time is often wasted on publication efforts –in the lottery of publish or perish where the

probability of publishing success in a reasonable impact journal is obscurely low or in tasks that

supervisors devise to prevent them from actually doing any work of their own that might be proactive in

advancing a candidates’ research –requiring a powerful assertion of will persistently. For example,

though not an empirical thesis and despite providing time series data and reasonable theory

explanations ignored, supervisors wished me to waste hours of efforts in meaningless regression tests

and literally having to prove things that could be found in any elementary mathematics, economics and

statistical textbooks and take time wasting courses, regardless of my past experience –to demonstrate

my familiarity.

At one of my initial sessions with supervisors, they both expressly indicated that I was to only devote

my attention and time to my PHD full time and nothing else, that anything related to other academic

conferences, publications, technical reports, books currently being submitted for published -even if by

a university press the related seminars I offered to present on previous experience a (which have been

21

ignored), though I may personally add them to my CV and may aid my future employment are not

interested / therefore not necessary to be noted to the university, whether achieved or not, if the

university nor anyone here are neither interested nor personally disturbed by them, if not directly related

to the PHD itself. They were considered a waste of time -a personal life is not permitted and only to be

kept to oneself. If I took time off it would count against me and therefore one cannot afford to be

ambitious as an HDR candidate -only the sacred PHD matters. As I am only allowed 20 days although i

know of other students who have at times not been ensconced in an airless cubicle, I am still

attempting to get the primary supervisor to graciously concede this abject student permission to use 19

to return for my birthday and Christmas –the tone seems to infer I have to be contactable and work

even in my holidays something I have never heard of elsewhere as a condition for scholarship or being

at any PHD/ work environment, I will therefore commit solely to my PHD, adhering to the will of my

supervisors and university statutes and refrain from personal mention of achievements that only I, my

family and those whom appreciate them are aware. I remain committed to achieving my PHD -there

may be other achievements but if no one here knows or cares, they cannot be utilised to penalise my

leave or anything else.

Only when you asked for clarification on aspects they had raised were you given the chance to speak

as academics generally favour being conceited and asserting it –and those were among the better

ones. The more common approach was to allow little digression, one had to accept it, to actually move

on. Comparatively little feedback could be rejected. Allowing the supervisors to pontificate meant that

whatever scarce time a student has managed to secure, is effectively wasted on them showing off

rather than actually progressing –but woe if you actually try to point that out. A relationship based on

equals should also not involve waiting for 20 minutes or more for a scheduled meeting with no prior

message sent, only for the supervisor to ignore the fact they are late and not apologise! As human

beings we are frequently reminded of how effective communication involves listening but one wonders

how many supervisors actually follow token codes of responsibilities to candidates, when mechanisms

do not exist to objectively assess and monitor supervisory-candidate relationships? A trait which so few

have clearly bothered to master, should be learnt.

As neophyte researchers, we seek as productive, memorable and rewarding work environment as

possible, as civilised as any normal workspace. Devolving power to supervisors limits the extent to

which candidates experiencing any concerns or dissatisfaction, can freely voice themselves –There is

always the lurking thought that they hold all the power and will be backed up virtually always by their

superiors and university, over our interests. There is always the sense that we are inferior and

inadequate, that we must just accept whatever we face stoically –otherwise there is always the implicit

threat of reprisals and making our experience even more stressful and miserable… Yet how much work

22

do they devote to the thesis compared to you? How much do they truly know of an emerging topic

compared to you who has spent months’ worth of hours reading hundreds of articles and corresponding

with myriad stakeholders to master expertise in your field?

As a candidate it is best to have minimal expectations –if you are fortunate they can always be

exceeded later… Significant time constraints exist, it can be essential to avoid the narrative of a

personal life –to mirror their style where possible as each supervisor is idiosyncratic with minor issues

of grammar/structure etc. that are often not official University formatting requirements even if they were

claimed as such. For example supervisors have been known to seek double spacing and ridiculously

large page margins just so they can frequently scribble extensive critiques as annotations to one’s

manuscript –especially perfectionists seldom satisfied. Sometimes it can be the form or frequency of

communication and the method in which feedback is received. Some really loathe sentences longer

than 3 lines even when necessary, while others have their own idea on spelling etc. If you find these

out early they can be adjusted –frequently minor which really don’t affect a thesis’s quality but seem to

matter so much to pedants. Save effort for major points –especially courses that are superfluous or

ridiculously simple/fiendish, areas related to the content and ideology of one’s thesis or what you really

want from your thesis….

So what characteristics make a good supervisor and supervisory relationship? It varies but it helps to

have trust, communication and simple basic respect. Even if they do not care personally, it really isn’t

beyond any being to become a more effective listener and more effective speaker if both parties are

willing to commit. Supervisors should be willing to provide constructive feedback and guidance when

sought and needed but also encouragements of what a candidate is doing right. They should not

impede the progress of candidates by forcing delays, causing them to change direction unnecessarily

and supporting them with their other ambitions or interactions with the university and outside world

whether through funding/conferences; publishing/ obnoxious journal editors or anything else. It helps to

have extra information, guidance in publishing and networking with any contacts that the supervisor

knows that might genuinely assist their supervised candidate. Some universities may offer glossy

workshops and candidate surveys but significantly little changes unless the candidate themselves or

the supervisor requests a change –which can take months and months as a worst-case scenario. There

is little active evaluation of supervisory teams and relationships, even where this is evidently likely to

jeopardise the significant time, financial and other resources committed to the student, their research

and other outcomes including reputation and credibility.

Dear Unnamed Candidate

23

I hope all is going well with you In regards to your questions, there appears to be no time

frame to find new supervisors however 2 months appears to be a general limit. Under

the Higher Degree by Research Supervision Policy (January, 2015) it appears to infer that the

head of school unless a supervisor is actually responsible for finding a candidate a supervisor

-necessary under the attached Rules of Graduate research rule 4 -so it could release some

pressure. In addition you can raise it as a formal student complaint under Ordnance 8

The Candidate or their supervisor(s) may request a change in supervisory arrangements at

any time. Such changes may only proceed with the approval of the Graduate Research

Coordinator, Head of School, Faculty Dean/Institute Director and the Dean of Graduate

Research. Upon receipt of advice from the Graduate Research Coordinator that, in their

view, the supervisory arrangements of a candidate have become unsatisfactory at any

time, the Head of School will appoint new or additional supervisor(s), in consultation with

the Candidate and the Faculty Dean/Institute Director. When appointing new or

additional supervisor(s), the Head of School will consider the views of the Candidate

wherever possible. However, the University is required to ensure a candidate has

appropriate supervision during their candidature as per clause 16 of Rule 4. The decision

by the Dean of Graduate Research on a recommendation from the Head of School through

the Faculty Dean/Institute Director to change a candidate’s supervisory arrangements is

final.

2 It still counts as your candidature but does not affect your scholarship unless you apply for

a leave of absence or equivalent i.e. on medical grounds -are entitled to a certain amount of

medical leave as well -post trauma stress etc with a doctor's note -might help use some time

-link to 3 -are insured and of course there is personal leave/public holidays -a formal appeal

which under ordnance 8 has to be resolved up to 3 weeks -if you appeal and mention the

school's responsibility to locate you a supervisor -claim you have been working, trying to

make good progress and followed rules despite this adverse psychological experience -they

cannot terminate your scholarship -so i would try medical then the claim -give you an extra

month and they may solve it. Check the attached clause 15/ 17

1. Research Training and Resource Management

24

1.1 The Dean will appoint Supervisors in accordance with the Supervision Policy and

Procedure and Graduate Research Coordinators in accordance with the Graduate Research

Coordination Policy and Procedure.

1.2 The Head of School will ensure that:

1.2.1 the School provides the essential level of resources and support for the Candidates

in accordance with the Minimum Infrastructure and Resources Policy and Procedure;

1.2.2 all Candidates are provided with research training by qualified Supervisors in

accordance with the Supervision Policy and Procedure; and

1.2.3 Supervisors and Graduate Research Coordinators comply with all applicable policies

governing the supervision and monitoring of Candidates.

-Dean/head of school responsibility for supervisors -so try politely bugging them if you are

struggling

4: Avoid personal issues -etc -the emotional element/ experiences etc that might discourage

prospective supervisors. it is more beneficial to emphasise -admire their experience,

publishing reputation, knowledge, skills, broader/specialised research expertise; successful

supervisory experience, efficiency, professional technical skills; funding expertise -or just

them personally -background research as pivotal... Emphasise how your

research/CV/talents/experience/interests etc could enhance their

reputation/funding/publishing potential -how you might be able to help them in

research/other areas...

5: Generally the past was avoided -it is better to emphasise how you prefer to work with

them

Wishing you all the best of luck………….

From: Unnamed Candidate

Hope you are doing well. This email is to update and also bothering you for more questions.

In the last Thursday meeting it got confirmed that I shall find new supervisory team. I am

also in contact with student advocate and she has provided me with good guidance so far.

25

So, I have started talking with people - as you know it is so tricky thou, isn't it? Couple of Qs I

have and would really appreciate your time for helping me through them - if you had any

idea.

1) How long is the time frame the student usually have to find new supervisors?

2) is this period considered as my candidature period or it will be recorded somewhere in IGrad that during this time the student was unattended and so it will be add up to the end of my PhD?

3) Do I have an approach not to consider this period as my candidate without cutting my scholarship and if you have any idea towards that please let me know - I appreciate it.

4) As it is tricky to say my situation to new potential supervisors who I am going to persuade to be my supervisor(s), I am wondering what kind of explanations is considered as helpful and what things are harmful in terms of persuading them - would appreciate any tips that you applied in your case approaching the new people.

5) What things did those people ask you about the reason of changing the supervisory team? In order to make myself ready for any similar situation with new people.

For saner supervisors, editors, academics and administrators there are other effective techniques

Flattering with research interests, offering to assist them if you can spare the time yourself, being

discrete and confidential when appropriate in your interactions but unafraid to protect yourself when

necessary… However, there are more effective and ideal supervisors. These can be recognised as

those that support your academic progression, with goals and complete the responsibilities they are

meant to, providing constructive feedback; defending you against a hostile panel of inquisitorial senior

academics at your confirmation of candidature, review of progress and examination if you make it that

far –when it’s most needed. It is they who will sign off on funding, conferences, publication ideals and

anything that might benefit you, if you can persuade that it benefits them, you and your research. The

role of gratitude and appreciation in the supervisory relationship is an unexpected one, but matches

trust, honesty, respect and courage as phenomenal factors, along with commitment, patience and

persistence, in improving it. I have also realised that the primary concern of a supervisor is that they

seek reassurance… They need to know that you will finish within the three years that both you and they

have invested in the process that will enable you to achieve your desired stated outcomes, with

significant theoretical and empirical contributions within your field that is defendable to others; who are

field leaders. It is necessary to continuously pledge your commitment to the timeframe. In response,

26

perhaps remind them that what you seek is feasible, there are specific objectives and outcomes that

are realistically achievable and practical, that you are willing to respond to whatever concerns they or

others may have without being diverted.

After all, whilst a PHD may be enriching with certain benefits; the pressure; the dissertation dementia,

financial constraints, the adverse living circumstances, ultimately for many it is the stepping stone to a

projected future not an everlasting odyssey. The effective supervisor foresees (or aims to) all manner of

future risks and problems and a conscientious candidate can respect and value that experience by

preparing themselves to resolve and pre-empt as many of these concerns as practically possible. One’s

methodology may end up so unwieldy, overflowing, Byzantine and intricately detailed but thorough and

robust, the same with the comprehensive literature review and results, dozens even hundreds of pages

beyond what is actually incorporated into any published output or the magical, ethereal, tantalising

vision of the thesis completed. It is better for the supervisor to raise them, even if it can be an

excruciating example of physical disembowelment, cranial lobotomy and psychological evisceration. To

avoid wasting hope at the time and effort I spent on this, extra material was added in Appendixes. After

all, the examiners do not have to read the several hundred pages of references and technical

supplementary material beyond the maximum 250-300 page/ 80-100,000 word random limit they place

on a PHD thesis. It does serve though as the argument of last resort –proof you should be taken

seriously if only for the tenacity and thorough stultifying, rigor.

CHAPTER VI: ESSENTIAL FACTORS OF A PHD CANDIDATURE:

Expectations Versus Reality

The expectation of most universities in postgraduate studies is that only the PHD matters. They lack the

pragmatism to realise that the world consists of more than the degree –which requires a minimum of 2-

3 years –and that not every student might be interested in a future in academia –which is all that most

traditional universities prepare their candidates for… It therefore helps to adjust expectations to realise

that if you wish more than the dubious prospects of being employed as a junior academic at your own

university upon graduation, you are essentially on your own. They make the mistakes of not valuing the

potential contributions –past and present experience/ insight gained of their candidates and how that

27

could potentially enrich the public and academic community –even faculty, staff and undergraduate

student members via open lectures or seminars scheduled –that might not be related to their PHD at

all. –They often demonstrate no interest in the lives of HDR students personally, as people It is all

about academia –not consultancy –not your personal past existence –or your character/ who you are…

One factor that is never mentioned is the supervisory relationship. Regardless of the academic,

financial, social ostracism, family, time and other pressures that candidates face, nothing can compare

to the challenges of your university immediate superiors, who are directly responsible and hold you

personally accountable to produce a thesis. The simplest approach is to possess minimal expectations

–to minimise potential disappointments and failures

Consciously simple to understand is the fact that we as humans seek to be valued, to be heard,

listened and recognised for the independent human beings that we are. Our expectations are that

universities prize our initiative, resolve, persistence, curiosity, creativity, passions, interests, experience,

hope, independence, spirit, independence and the very characteristics that make us human beings not

machines. However, universities at the PHD level care only about results, success and efficiency –As

institutions they fail to be concerned or advance our humanity all too frequently… Whilst it can be

possible to have good or exceptional supervisors, make friends and establish connections –too often

the reality of a PHD experience can be overshadowed by the sense of isolation of many candidates…

Yet we are humans with our own strengths and flaws just like others –but too often our fallibility is given

the impression of at best indifference or apathy, at worst a contemptuous, distracting, debilitating flaw

that needs to be lacerated and swiftly purged so that the PHD can continue. For months I kept seeking

to create a relationship with my supervisors based on the delusion that they cared about me as a

person singularly with other interests. Such expectations soured into reality as mentioned elsewhere

Consider the PHD as a testing experience –where at any time you could be challenged or expected to

accomplish something without warning. Expecting the unexpected –adjusting to future shock where

higher educational institutions expect ultimate high performance, 24/7 –accessible even when you are

meant to be on leave, with very little real time actually devoted to pure scholarship. To truly develop

thoughts, both internal and external tranquillity are essential. From publishing to conferences, to

lecturing/tutoring to administration and bureaucracy to coursework to the thesis to other candidates, to

other academics, to social, family, financial, time, community, personal, vocational/ambition and others,

if one considers how many factors have to be balanced to function as the quintessential higher degree

by research/PHD candidate or academic, this guide considers it unsurprising just how many suffer

forms of dissertation dementia including stress and burnout. This is the price to ultimate perfection and

the alienation of humanity.

28

So how do universities fail to advance our humanity? Physically, financially, mentally, spiritually and

emotionally, postgraduates are often underappreciated despite keeping universities going through the

significant invisible support they provide to buttress its foundations. Emotionally, they weaken hope,

joy, ecstasy, pleasure, peace, hope, inspiration, creativity, curiosity, spirit, courage, determination, faith,

passion, spirit, energy, loyalty, friendship, love, ambition, sentiment, altruism, compassion, empathy

and many other sensations that complete us as human beings throughout its tribulations, whilst

reinforcing fear, despair, rage, contempt, angst, uncertainty, doubt, regret, remorse, sorrow, envy,

jealousy, spite. They can override our rights, expect us to survive social isolation, ridiculous pressures

and exploited as casual staff, be denied leave, expected to be grateful scraping by on the embers of

below minimum wage levels for scholarship levels, violate our needs and rights –access to personal

information, a supportive voice, conference and travel funding support, field research and ethics

permission, face bureaucracy; have our data stolen from work cubicles, suppress newspapers and tea

rights, limit and monitor our toilet paper and other clear pettifoggery.

They can cancel the early morning campus bus service, student discounts and buses for a graduate

research conference. They can deny us Internet services in our halls of residence or when we need it

most for work. They can remote access computers –desktop and lap top so we cannot even override it

to update anti-virus software or easily customise our backgrounds and screensavers. if we stand up for

ourselves, we can be squished, ignored, threatened with scholarship cancellations, supervisors quitting,

candidate management plans, refuse meetings, delay meetings and try to compel us to draft

presentations at 24 hours’ notice. We can be forced to be instantly accessible by phone/email/ in

person –even on the weekend –expected for them to track and trace all movement

CHAPTER VII: How To Survive… Dissertation Dementia

Achievements matter. A PHD is unlike any other many other efforts that human beings struggle within

that the dissertation only happens at the end –if you survive. One has to find a way to be satiated with

one’s accomplishments and modest advancements, often glacial in progress. It is not uncommon to

grow weary of patience, doggedly persisting for 6 months on a literature review, 8 months on a

methodology, 5 months of simply chasing up sufficient people so that you have enough data to provide

results –interspersed with the 3-6 months on average it takes to simply note whether or not a

conference or journal paper has been accepted so you can revise it - or rejected, so you can cringe and

recommence the same nauseatingly, humiliating experience again. Having a life outside the PHD can

assist in that as well as measuring your life by other factors not just your research –as fascinated,

enriching and motivated though you might be. If ever it becomes too much –try pursuing some other

interest, skill, pastime, vocation, dream, ambition, experience, enterprise, activity, relationship or

environment in which you actually progress.

29

As candidates we are expected to be autonomous robots impervious to emotions, programmed to

conduct the series of inane, trivial tasks allocated to us by our supervisors. I have seen many

candidates who face dissertation dementia –who proclaim that the thesis is everything. They become

besotted, obsessive, and unable to consider anything else. They allow no time for themselves, become

social pariahs, ostracised and cast off from life, aware only of the tapping of keys. Determined for the

illusion of peace, deprived of real tangible indicators of progress and dopamine, vision spliced or hyper

focused, with only 1 subject the focus of their being, desperate for the seldom if ever granted

satisfactory approval of supervisors… dissertation dementia is the most pernicious bane that afflicts

many PHD students and faculty academics engaged in a singular research project –obsessed… to

overtime, disturbed at night… this referred to but untreated malaise, is one of the greatest obliterators

of humanity among the university and higher tertiary education sector…A PHD candidate or junior

academic, like any other human experiences a range of emotions. Fear… pain… misery, adversity,

misery, rage, contempt, -sometimes a combination simultaneously. It is okay to have emotions-they

show we are human. Universities however fail to advance our humanity by encouraging emotional

‘maturity’ –suppressing any signs of interest, passion, enthusiasm –even life… In every forum from

lectures to conferences to laboratory sessions to formal dinners to supervisor meetings, it is regarded

as unprofessional, lacking in self-control to behave animatedly, we are encouraged to be toiling

drudges only…

Why do universities expect so much more from their students and faculty than conventional

workplaces? Why are they expected to be considered ambassadors, deprived of rights, censored,

subject to authority and so many intrusive restrictions that alienate their humanity? Yet we can always

remind ourselves of what we have accomplished and what we choose to attempt if confronted with

adversity or failure. What can we do that others cannot or choose not? What have we tried? What have

we failed? What in life, is worthy of aspiring to? Can we be appeased, at ease, to prove ourselves?

Having the true courage and will to state one’s beliefs, hopes, dreams, principles, expectations and

needs openly can be among the most arduous and challenging of tasks in life, not just to hierarchal

‘superiors,’ society, peers, family and self. To consider what it demands of us to persist and not just

quit. What do we value? What do we want? What kind of a future are we aspiring to and what will it take

to get there?

One technique for ultimately surviving the ravages of your supervisors is to draft two dissertations –One

can be that which you feel inspired about, dream about and wish you could do and the other can

approximate reality of what you are compelled to do. To avoid dissertation dementia, sometimes the

most necessary thing is to be true to yourself and everything you believe in –especially when it does no

30

harm to others or the world itself for you to have this dream, this ambition, this volition… yet it can seem

that others do not perceive it so… However, given the permanently dissatisfied nature of supervisors –

permanently fluid –it more likely represents an ever-bubbling concoction or essence of insanity. But

with the other draft in which you can be true to your spirit of scholarship, the spark of animation,

curiosity, daring, imagination, creativity and ingenuity, that celebrates your ambitions and the best of

what you crave for in life, at least you will not be censored or chastised for y can be the master of its

fate, you can determine its progress and you can decide who is worthy of the privilege of sharing it and

the best of you. This applies not just to a thesis or research project but anything that you are interested

in or passionately devoted to… that you may wish to conceal from an unappreciative, ungrateful,

overbearing world until you find the right chance or moment...

Not getting any rest may not seem obvious –but try it multiplied by 7 for a week, then 30 for a month

then by several months or a year, except when blissfully away… such is being a postgraduate among

undergraduates for on campus accommodation. There are 2 categories –those places that force those

with quite different timetables, interests, habits, ages, experience and priorities to co-inhabit the same

dwelling and those that do not. PHD students are typically 25 years and older, jaded through years in

the education service, as veterans seldom interested in the exhilarating pressure and frenetic vigour of

being a university fresher, before you have to retreat to the modern working world with its predictable

routine and boringly numb lifestyle. As a candidate, my university placed me/others without any

concern for my interests of peace at and serenity –away from theft, emergency fire alarms, corridor

skateboarding and basketball, choirs with doors open and other pandemonium –faced every night.

From faeces on door handles and tossed in beds, to disgusting hairy, slimy fridges to having my half-

cooked food tossed aside and spoiled as someone else wanted to borrow the microwave or use the

stove without any patience or courtesy, to barking dog toilets; a room by the bus stop, common room,

kitchen and toilets; I weathered it all… My first hall of residence had 44 people cooking dinner with 1

stove, 2 microwaves and sharing 2 fridges in a single kitchen with 12 people sharing 2 toilets and

showers, with 1 TV and communal common room –such were the joys of communal sharing and living.

Dissertation dementia plagued me for months during my introduction and literature review chapters.

Aside from normal pressures –family; social; personal, eking out a scholarship etc… time and the

competitive nature of a PHD; my original supervisors harangued me to virtual insanity during the day

and getting no sleep at all at night… I became, erratic, skittish, volatile; schizophrenic, paranoid,

tormented, demented, uncertain, indecisive, weak, surly, contemptuous, miserable and obsessed as a

narcisstic, perfectionist that felt lacking in control… Reassuringly –or perhaps disturbingly; I was not

alone at my university with other candidates experiencing factors without control, amplified in solitude

with no one really to share such. Although material does exist in books, websites and films and we can

31

distract ourselves in so many ways, it remains a festering tumour if not eventually dealt with that can

really drain motivation, particularly when you feel socially isolated yet paradoxically without the peace,

calm and tranquillity of true rest and solitariness, with little privacy among communal work cubicles, a

bustling library or common area halls of residence. How many universities value the mental health of

their HDR candidates before claiming that it is of their utmost concern in an obscure part of their

website or Candidate Supervisory Policy equivalent guidelines but with no real substance? On the

positive side at least, things never seemed so despondent that I never became severally ill physically,

formally quit or committed the ultimate tragedy of suicide! At my Pacific university, at least one student

in my second year felt that there was no other alternative such was their sorrow, pain, impression of

loneliness, fear and anguish, unable to share their experience with anyone and resorted to suicide,

though the university hushed it up.

Of course many researchers and candidates seek peace by compromising, by suppressing themselves,

by failing to speak out even if it alienates their humanity. If you do not make the effort you can only

blame yourself when your rights, identity, ideas, emotions, dreams and hopes are quashed. With

determined effort, you can at least blame others when they fail to reciprocate. Internet options,

bibliotherapy (via books), counselling, distraction, exercise, massage, music, socialising, magnesium,

St John’s wort, incentives, light therapy, SAMe/drugs i.e. Prozac, Physical therapy includes

art/behaviour/cognitive behaviour/ creative play/hypnosis, family therapy, interpersonal, problem

solving, psychodynamic; dance and movement; eye movement desensitisation, psychoeducation –

understand psychology, social skills; supportive; meditation; animal assistance, melatonin,

reminiscence –past experiences, narrative (how people think about themselves), mindfulness –present

moment based cognitive therapy; acceptance and commitment therapy –notice and accept;

neurolinguistic programming –effective language. Stress management emphasises predictable

pressure and uncertainty rather than those unknown. Therefore devising mechanisms such as the

approaches suggested above can help us to find something that we can use to recover, particularly for

predictable supervisor, bureaucratic, family, peer and other pressures, tensions or conflicts that we

suspect may emerge. Positive reinforcement is essential –if we can self-bestow it rather than relying on

others but also defending ourselves when our experience/life just appears too unreasonable.

My Pacific university employed a Student Wellbeing officer who indicated how vulnerable

psychologically, emotionally, physically and mentally in particular PHD candidates are. It was identified

to focus on being active, taking notice with great mindfulness and being present moment situated to

actually live life whenever we felt gripped by dissertation dementia, pressurised, stigmatised,

ostracised, fatigued, over-criticised, undervalued, resentful, alone, afraid, incredulous, wrathful,

contemptuous, apathetic and isolated. It is encouraged to keep on learning –even if not in your work –

32

keep challenging ourselves and find something precious, of interest as something to continue and

persevere. Of course, realistically there is only so much a candidate can do, it would help immensely if

supervisors themselves felt up to doing more than parroting and lip reading too… Still, we at least have

power over ourselves, our choices, our reactions and our lives –such is free will even when not really

that simple. As humans we can but try, we can strive to persevere and not quit unless we cannot go

further. We may not be able to control all factors of life, our PHD/research/ our work but if there is

something learnt, is that we do not deserve to hold ourselves responsible for the failures of others or for

other’s will, their thoughts, their actions, mistakes, lack of actions, decisions and any subsequent

consequences. There is always some way of bribing, consoling or motivating ourselves physically,

psychologically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually, finding some purpose even if not within our

research that prompts us to carry on, though hopefully we can find someone to relate or connect to,

related or otherwise, human or unhuman. Ultimately all things cease. If we fail, at least we made the

effort, which is more than most ever dare to dream of… with the experience to remind us and enrich us

through learning, even if it is brutal.

The Graduate Certificate of Research

Throughout Earth, many of the academic institutions that are ranked highly by the media, government

and by their peers curiously enough believe in offering academic coursework or courses of some form

to supplement the thesis or research project of a doctorate. Despite being immersed in the education

system –many for at least 20 years; others significantly longer; PHD students are often expected to

take various courses for additional credit either independent or that are part of their course. For this

candidate it was known as the Graduate Certificate of Research. The introductory skills often repeat the

very basic content that any who has persevered this far has mastered –to provide basic research,

communication, presentation and other skills as mentioned on any. Out of 4, the 2 above introduction

courses were compulsory and 2 were nominally elective. However, universities with smaller campuses,

fewer faculty and resources generally provide a highly restricted list of options limited to one’s course.

Basic Research skills expected to pass this course included simple abilities to retrieve information from

databases, access, categorise, store and analyse literature, identify publishing policies, creating a

research data management plan and manage references. A librarian actually had to evaluate our

proficiency in these rudimentary skills. We had to present and orally defend a poster at a conference of

fellow PHD students.

For example as a candidate, I sought to consider which courses might be the most relevant, or failing

that the most enjoyable and least time-wasting experience that could be completed as swiftly as

possible so that it did not intrude upon the real work. To appease supervisors that one is serious

however about results, it indicates apparent keenness. A course on statistical analysis might help some

33

to improve the formation of experiment design, the robustness of one’s methodology and results more

nobly. However, my motivation was more prosaic –to appease my new supervisor given his concern

with empirical analysis as the only valid research approach and enhancing the probability of publishing;

amidst a limited choice, as I was indifferent having covered enough statistics at grammar school and

university to perform any mere, comparatively simple regression. The course occurred at blitzkrieg

speed -10 intensive days on 6-7 hours of lectures and computer programming –but several weeks for

the assignments. However, make the effort to get to know at least one or two people –particularly

during any intervals and especially among those who look like they might actually be attuned to the

subject. Not only does it help you socially and emotionally but it helps during any prospective

assignments for coursework.

A course on effective speaking focused even more on physical and vocal warm ups and how to

rehearse effectively/ listen effectively and provide ourselves and others with positive feedback. I began

FPB352 Effective Speaking in the city campus of the University of Tasmania School of Art by

Salamanca wharf and the harbour/marina. The class has around 50 students of varying level from

undergraduate to PHD level with a diversity of backgrounds and disciplines so split into 2 groups under

professional actor/ producers. It was interesting to note the concentration that presentation is about the

physical –so we had regular warm ups i.e. jogging through the building, testing body language, posture

etc. Presentation is considered to be about the visual –use images wisely and to make an impression

apparently it helps to have one’s name on every slide. They gave the usual public confidence, self-

belief, debating style –emphasise positive feedback and reinforcement rather than the rest of the

academic system which denigrates one. We spent the time in exercises including seeking to be

effective listeners and memorise the life stories of others they gave in 2 minutes and word association

games –completely random words and then irregularly consider a topic. My assignment was to find 60

second video of someone inspirational –Kipling’s If is about 2 minutes. More physical exercises and

people sharing inspirational clips and presenting partners –I was ignored predictably. Courses which

are based only on a pass or fail such as these can be reassuring given the time constraints and other

pressures. On the other side though they continue to dissuade another key element of being human –

as a PHD student removing our competitive energy and impulse of ambition with each other to prove

ourselves the best.

The concept of undertaking courses when as a candidate you have already proved your ability to do so

–again and again and again, is often regarded bemusedly, with indifference or resignation among those

students I encountered. Many would far rather concentrate on their ‘real research.’ However, aside from

the chance to potentially improve one’s formal research skills and learn new courses that might be

applicable to some extent, it also improves one’s Curriculum Vitae and employability skills. For

34

example, if properly motivated and accredited a number of universities offer students the open option of

their choice, either from a course at that university or abroad, which might give one the chance to

improve computing, business skills or even master a foreign language… anything that you’ve always

wanted the time to learn that is offered. Most of all, not focusing on your PHD completely; if only for a

short interval helps to counter dissertation dementia, rejuvenating you by allowing you to focus on

training yourself in other areas, especially if you have to travel to a different campus to do so, making

life more interesting. Anything becomes more interesting, after you have spared yourself from staring

unwaveringly at it for months. Immersing oneself in the real world once more and interacting with other

actual, living, breathing, sentient beings, really helps to centre yourself and remember that there is life

out there. Given the social isolation of many of us who consider or undertake a postgraduate

experience or life in academia, it is imperative for social stability and emotional-psychological sanity

that we make the effort to engage with other beings especially on something which is not monotonously

about the thesis only…

Therefore this interruption in our routine not only helps us to remind ourselves of our social capacity but

our humanity –that we actually do matter and there are other life forms with which we can engage in

various challenges, issues, problems and achievements. This matters especially for those of us who

can share little of ourselves and our lives personally with our supervisors and the comparatively few

candidates for whom we might interact with. It helps for us to reflect upon ourselves and helps to

dissipate any homesickness or other pressures in our lives, as we focus on something different to

arouse more positive feelings than stress, pressure, pain, misery, wrath, envy, contempt, indifference,

inertia, frustration, ennui, fatigue and other feelings associated with our comparative lack of progress in

our degree/our research; our supervisory relationships and our lives. This epitomises the message of

Carpe Diem that I urge to all either on this or considering it–do whatever it takes to prevail. Focus on

something different, some positive achievement, new experience, area of learning or aspirational goal,

whenever any of these emotions become overbearing and you feel alone. It is essential to retain our

identity and what we believe in, why we believe in –and our abilities, which coursework can offer as

profitable diversions, provided that you can find courses that are actually profitable and interesting.

Unlike other areas of education in which the struggle is rewarded with a qualification, postgraduate

coursework is made even less enthralling by not even receiving a glossy certificate at the end of it. One

only receives credit for these completed modules at the very end, attached to the Master’s or Doctoral

degree or if you fail, which can be bitterly disappointing to those who would like to use it when

searching for funding/ employment and other opportunities. Administrators seldom understand that as

humans it helps to have physical symbols of our achievements as actual evidence and completely

forget how demoralising a postgraduate experience can be when only ever being told what is wrong by

35

seasoned, caustic academics, even when we do something right and pass the compulsory courses,

especially in the absence of prizes and formal grades.

CHAPTER VIII: Conferences

For many in the modern world, conferences are highly valued. Whilst highly productive, dynamic,

creative individuals consider these to be pointless excuses to blather on and waste time/resources

rather than advancing forward with constructive work, others perceive them as essential for a number

of reasons. Most obviously, conferences can facilitate an exchange of ideas and promote research. In a

world of increasing complexity and specialisation with so little time free; it can become increasingly

challenging to remain hyperaware and up to date with all developments in your field, career and

organisation. In 1 or 2 days –even a week; if strategic, one can assimilate a year or more’s worth of

information, resources and contacts necessary to remain relevant. Additionally for those of us who feel

underappreciated, it can be highly reassuring to be in a mutually supportive environment –away from

isolation. More cynically and realistically, they are far simpler to be accepted for than to publish a

journal article –probably from a profit perspective. A conference abstract has to be unrelated to have a

high probability of being rejected. I enjoyed conferences as excuses to escape more familiar home and

work environment to see new places both locally and abroad. I continue to maximise my time at events

and workshops by tagging them to weekends, adjusting transport/ rooms etc, rising early, skipping

boring sessions, eating rapidly in the lunch and other breaks and making the most of evenings not to

closet myself –after all one never knows if they will get the chance to return and what better way to

pass the time than immersing oneself in a more enriching experience

Essentially a conference abstract is constrained to 200-250 words, aside from a very small proportion

moving towards the extended abstract of a 500 word maximum. The most significant challenge is to

capture the scrutinisers’ attention to be accepted along with those who might prove to be your future

audience and network of contacts, research collaborations, funding potential, possible award providers

and other possibilities. In a world of limited attention, far more rely on this summary and succinct

presentation, than actually take the trouble to read the actual paper supposed to accompany it. An

abstract structure, whether for a conference, journal or industry report consists of several key elements:

Purpose essentially provides a background to the paper, identifying the existing issue, problem,

concern, question or hypothesis, providing research context to motivate the significance of your chosen

36

topic. Method/Design outlines if it is a literature review, a case study, an experimental design or some

other approach and any methods utilised. Findings provide the results of your research, whereas

originality/value indicate where your research differs from existing sources, why this research was

undertaken and what are the theoretical implications and pragmatic policy implications for stakeholders

along with potentially suggesting directions for future possible research. This essentially replicates the

intended format of the paper itself.

Surprisingly if you cannot afford the conferences themselves and cannot get funding, the alternative is

to turn up anyway –it often works. As long as you remain inconspicuous in your cover story, you are

unlikely to be noticed in the audience or at the buffet tables and can still learn and network. Not

everyone wears the name tag –can always claim it is lost. Just look decisive, smartly dressed and

ensure you have a copy of the conference program, a newspaper, some form of technology, your

watch… essentially anything that can provide a diversion of pre-occupation in case anyone thinks to

question your presence. Timing as everybody rushes off to and from a session, also helps.

One’s Name in a program provides evidence of being there from CV’s. Logistics can become so

complex and the conferences so involved that for many, it is just about the conference.

To go for conferences when you have the chance to add something to your CV –to find scholarships to

cover you. Most universities will sponsor at least one conference for their students – Several criteria are

important to consider. It is advantageous to choose yours based on the prestige and reputation; a

distant venue in a part of the world you really want to travel to with leading experts that can help

improve your networking and quality of research. The timing is pivotal –if you can only pick one –it

helps to have some results but not to time it so that you do not miss out at all. The better universities

allow for several funding rounds and opportunities –as a candidate I was only officially permitted one

which I had to motivate for… Therefore it can be constructive to at the very least mention the idea to

your supervisor asap and to flatter them by seeking their advice on the submission of the proposed

conference abstract, full paper and any potential other research output/ proceedings so they are more

attached to it and the notion of you spending the time away from your formal degree along with any

additional research funding. After a conference or any event whilst fresh it can be useful to exploit

potential information from contacts whilst thanking the organisers

37

CHAPTER IX: Awards, Prizes and Competitions

A surprising lack of chances to compete and prove oneself exist at the postgraduate stages, once you

have managed or failed to acquire any actual tuition and living allowance scholarships. Although

universities are not really interested in promoting ambition and excellence at the postgraduate and early

career researcher level, these can provide not only the chance for material rewards, but satisfaction in

achieving something and broadcasting your ideas to a more enthusiastic and sympathetic audience.

Those that exist are often obscurely advertised unless an effort is made to prioritise them. In Asia and

the Pacific, one exception is the Three Minute Thesis in which one is supposed to present the main

concepts using a single computer slide to a non-specialist audience. Certain key websites include

studentcompetitions.com. For example, the St Gallen Wings of Excellence Award is considered among

the more prestigious events where CEO’s and future ‘leaders’ of tomorrow meet in Switzerland to

potentially collaborate and mutually support each other. 100 students are selected based on answering

a 2100 word essay generally on a related topic

The simplest method to acquire these is to actually bother to participate and register. Develop

information sources for any opportunity that may be related to you. Whether you nominate yourself or

find others to do so on your behalf, there is often a far higher probability than many think as so many

cannot be bothered to invest the effort –One can often can win things by default –including

funding/competitions and other chances through this, providing the right information, gushing about the

significance/value of whatever the issue is and composing really polite and charmingly courteous

emails/cover letters.

38

CHAPTER X: Socialising, Contacts and Networking

These may occur in the most unexpected of places but to succeed –who you know alas can matter

almost as much as what you know –whether its necessary to advance your research, to gain publicity

and maximum exposure, to acquire funding, to gain work experience; to win awards –to be taken

seriously rather than your work being relegated to one of millions of fusty, shelf destined dissertations.

If you are lucky it may be occasionally cited in some obscure monograph, journal or future thesis –

otherwise it is cast into virtual academic oblivion

Throughout your PhD it can help to be as self-reliant as possible. However, there are times when your

progress would be facilitated through links to others. It is then that connections become critical –It can

be essential to cultivate relationships –to ensure security of academic tenure –to do whatever it takes,

even if bureaucrats/ your supervisors refuse to cooperate and obstruct you, you can still prevail. This

provides another area where I had to puzzle this essential research skill for myself. Whilst the more

successful academics have long recognised the necessity of establishing contacts among peers, at

least informally and informally as indispensable for publication in journals, being nominated for tenure,

coveted funding or prestigious awards and accolades, many supervisors do not. Lacking formal

understanding and instruction, they do not pass it on to their candidates, many of whom are supposed

to detonate this social minefield themselves, which their scholarly research training often fails to

prepare them. More significantly, where researchers struggle to capture the attention of diffident or

sceptical stakeholders as participants, information or funding resources, knowing how to network, who

and why and mean the difference between getting your degree and the necessary project results and

complete disaster… Fortunately as an undergraduate, postgraduate and at high school, I participated in

at least 10 years of formal public speaking and debating. My European university had over 300

registered societies along with many social venues as chances to practise communication beyond my

lectures and seminars, even when not the most charismatic. Unfortunately, the Oceania university of

my PHD experience lacked such….

The elements of successful networking can vary on the individual, environment, situation, time, topic,

resources and so on; however there are several elements which this guide proposes for those that wish

to succeed as a PHD student, in modern academia and beyond….Always make a point of interacting

with people whenever the chance presents itself –to maximise serendipity –one never knows when a

contact may become useful –at conferences, lectures, seminars, public event, transport and wherever. I

persuaded my university to print and pay for business cards… forward your CV… Dale Carnegie’s

book: “How To Win Friends and Influence People,’ published in the 1930’s or Sean Covey’s 7 Habits of

Highly Effective Teens,’ still remain valid. There are several questions to raise to initiate conversation

39

once you have breached trivia of greetings and asking them about their research/studies (for those

implementing a thesis, being reminded of such glacial progress with little to updates, can be unnerving).

If nothing else one can always sympathise over adverse living conditions, limited funding and the latest

frustration with bureaucrats, supervisors, faculty and other students. One can always forward research

or issues they might be interested. Establish a relationship first –then only ask favours and pressurise.

Enquire about their interests –academic, professional, personal and elsewhere –Mention your own –

establish interest in that which can connect to your own –or which might interest you currently or some

point –see other points in common –use experiences to relate

If nothing else you can ask them about what they want from university/ the degree. One could ask them

what are they interested in about life, what do they think about current affairs, what are their dreams,

ambitions, hopes and fears? One could ask them for advice in an area they feel comparatively

confident about –or at least their perspective. Sometimes making notes of anything you know about

them and occasionally bringing it can either achieve success socially –or at least convey it. If you could

solve any problem/ wish for anything what would it be and why? Additionally it is curious that many

people always seek empathy and support from fellow students, complaining of problems, pressures,

tragedies, stress, disaster and other things going wrong. Simple sympathy/empathy and a willingness

to listen can help immeasurably… However, another means of initiating a connection socially is to ask

them: what they feel is going right in their lives, what are they enjoying about the research/university

experience/ local area/ country and what motivates/keeps them going in their lives, so that you can

reinforce it…? If nothing else, this can be distracting from their own turmoil. Sometimes that is all that it

takes for a connection to grow. Too little appreciation is often felt when things are going well, too little

thought and gratitude occurs to sustain us when we actually move beyond the dross of our existence.

Even faculty seldom fraternise with students, alienating human contact further. I attended multiple

events with students and not a single academic or even administration/grounds staff in sight.

Conversely at more formal guest talks, dinners and bar quizzes –staff fraternised with each other not

even bothering to engage with myself as frequently the only PHD student prepared to transverse the

gap. I sought to rectify this by establishing a society that would enable greater mutual interactions –not

just always work related but was rebuffed by both sides despite offering, meals, trips, bar crawls,

networking sessions, debates, film screenings, snooker evenings… anything that offered a bit more life

and humanity and for them to reciprocate. Ironically, the lack of social interaction would frequently be

raised as a key student concern by those that ignored each other.

Use attention recall –short term memory… In a world which involves juggling multiple factors –to grab

attention, it is best to make an impression on your target source whilst networking –so as not to be

40

forgotten. Immediately –as close as practically possible after the interaction or event has taken place, id

the best time to send a brief communication to their contact details –introducing yourself once more,

retouching or refreshing their memories of the scenario/ issues raised etc an providing a CV as a

snapshot, asking their advice and to be considered in the future for any further contacts/opportunities/

events etc which might be of use/value…Asking them about their own interest/ research again helps

solidify this connection. But it can be preferable to think of anything else that can extend the connection

if possible for those who wish to define themselves as people not by their professions. If the person is

not of direct relevance it can still be worth the time investment in the long run because it may be in the

future. The advice I gave in an Employability Skills lecture to a class of prospective African maritime

industry graduates and to my fellow university students was that it is worth retaining somewhere –even

if electronic or paper form, continuously updated directories of not just those you like and get on well

with but even those whom contact was more remote or passive. Equally important, be careful not to

alienate those outside people you truly do not get on with. You never know whether the slumbering

person in the last row or the bothering person who persistently asks you for stationary, a copy of notes

or some other minor favour, might just end up the chief executive officer or venture capitalist founder of

a top Dow Jones 500 corporation; the dean or even vice chancellor of your future university; a cabinet

minister or even sovereign of a country… that you might need in the future –or even some bureaucrat

that has the power to make your life extremely miserable or bright in the future.

Other Students

How do you connect with other students except to see what you can learn from them, to commiserate

and celebrate –if possible –try and either establish or support any formal/informal social gatherings –to

overcome the sensation of isolation which inevitably assaults most postgraduate students at some point

in their candidature –especially with dissertation dementia where students become possessive and

obsessive over their topic –intensely specialised areas which few others are actually undertaking and

very rarely at the same university campus –unlike undergraduates whom find it easier to have collective

interests, especially academically Sense of integrating –of belonging, of being valued and appreciated

–actually contributing and participating helps to remember one’s humanity. Universities continue to fail

to advance the humanity of their postgraduate students –especially their PHD students

The initial step seems obvious but a year and 7 months into my candidature, no one had bothered to try

it. Realising that no one would voluntarily stray near my cubicle and spontaneously socialise and that

chain communication would be ignored, there were few social experiences if any and most stick to their

own cabal of friends or connections anyway, I took the icebreaker plunge having had my ideas for

establishing societies and hijacking official mailing lists/ placing posters and broadcasting efforts

41

thwarted and ignored. I personally addressed emails to each name tracked down on the collective

mailing list/ administrative list of HDR students –even those with nothing in common, in completely

different areas, and personally forwarded them my CV and the following email, which can be modified

in essence to your socially awkward situation. It may be time consuming but expressing a personal

interest in them as a human being makes such a refreshing change, offering to help them and

expecting little if anything in exchange –the point is just first contact and a response. If they fail to reply,

that is equally instructive –either patience is necessary or they just are not worth it. You may gain

contacts and chances for social potentially but you can also have a swiftly accessible electronic

directory able to capture the information they choose to provide and use that further. Besides learning

about others can be interesting, whilst any reply indicates that at least it might not just be you, your

thesis and a hierarchy of supervisors out to plague your experience….

Dear….

I hope your university life is all going well, and please feel free to pass on to anyone you know. Although university may prepare us for research, there is more to life than just this. From experience it seems that who you know and connections matter just as much and that it is foolish to ignore those around us as the greatest of resources and connections as we never know what our future is –today’s PHD student in your neighbouring cubicle might be tomorrow’s CEO of a top global shipping line, consultancy firm, port or vice chancellor of a maritime university! Therefore, I would be highly interested in your CV and an outline of your research so that I might be able to forward you any research, funding, contacts, events and other opportunities until we may physically meet. In exchange please find my CV attached and I would highly appreciate at any point any awareness you might have of research, conferences, events, funding, contacts and opportunities related to this or my PHD. I would be willing to forward you any research that you might be interested from the attached. Apologies for the length, wishing you all the best with your life and university experience

orientation week over the next week or so and please feel free to pass on. Hope all is well

with your university experience, life and research….

It is curious how surprisingly few bother to respond to efforts yet paradoxically complain of social

isolation. On the rare events social opportunities were posted or possible, I notified those who had the

courtesy to actually reply and invited them to pass it on to their own contacts and anyone missed. Find

out what others are doing –attend seminars of other students/ academics –something might inspire

you, add contacts or avoid duplication of effort. As an HDR student I made it a point to attend as many

interesting seminars as possible, never knowing what might come in useful –flattery and establishing

common conversation topics can reduce social awkwardness, aid your research and memorably

improve connections both for the future and perhaps even the present –acquired a new supervisor by

42

taking a personal interest, where the old one fails. How many societies exist and how many respond?

Tasmania cited over 43 societies but had perhaps 3 functioning accessible one. Curiously the only

university encountered without a debating society. It involved -15 members recruiting, an AGM,

constitution, Tax number, bank account need, general business, elections, minutes, reports, an agenda

and the preventing of sending publicity awareness to the university mailing list –How feasible is it to

establish a university society/ How realistic is it to promote your idea? The sample constitution ghastly

requires policies on recruiting members, expulsion, society aims and objectives, an executive with

designated duties/responsibilities, powers and rights, motions of censure/no confidence –and the

strictures granting funding but becoming so formulaic as to be stifling

Support –personal and awareness of locations. Sometimes people seek advice, other times empathy

and sympathy –often just to be listened to, taken seriously and realised that they are actually human

beings. Accommodation Services held Crud Wars. This involved hurling crud in 4 teams representing

each residence block –I wish revenge were possible to defuse tension among faculty, administrators

and noisy/pestilential or socially ostracising fellow students. One challenge involved braving fumes/crud

to inhale marshmallows. It is commonly stated that fear of public speaking can exceed that of Death…

Whilst we do not know how to create immortality, perhaps something can be done about the second…

One realised that the counselling service had no power, supervisors and others were ultimately

indifferent about our welfare and there were no societies to speak of, invested with any confidence or

impetus to change. So one tried to establish a public speaking society and a movement capable of

disseminating change in the Antipodes, which ultimately failed as one’s fellow students lacked the

same spark as those of my European undergraduate days

To provide a motivation as to why a public speaking society is beneficial the Recruitment Initial Flyer

proclaimed:

ARE YOU TIRED OF HAVING NO INFLUENCE, YOUR IDEAS BEING IGNORED, THAT UNI IS NOT HELPING YOU OUT TO DEVELOP YOUR TALENTS/ SKILLS, IDEAS OR POTENTIAL?ARE YOU FED UP WITH THE WAY THE WORLD IS FAILING TO HELP YOU AND THE FAILURE OF THOSE IN AUTHORITY -OTHER SOCIETIES/ LEADERS? Do you want to speak with confidence, to present with charm, to be able to be more employable, to advance in public speaking?Do you perhaps want to learn how to debate or have done so and simply want to continue?Or perhaps you just feel like having a good challenging argument –and your peers and professors offer simply no contest…Perhaps you simply want to just socialize and live and do more –but haven’t quite found a society or a way of doing so at uni…. –entirely open to ideas….

43

Introducing a new student university initiative –a public speaking and debating society, where we

decide what we want out of university, where we learn to progress in the world, whether in improving

academic presentations, in learning to debate with confidence, in socializing, improving our debating

and life skills, perhaps just having fun whilst making connections

Venue???

Time?

Interested in finding out more?

Please feel free to contact me

The future lies with us…. –for we have ideas… We have solutions and the answers. Have we ever decided to change the world and to be ambitious? What stops us from our potential? Others? They have failed to listen… They have failed to take us seriously… They have sought to deny our greatness; our individuality –and our potential… But through this society; we will proclaim to the world –that if we put our mind to it –we can accomplish anything… It is up to us to teach them how not to be apathetic! It is up to us –to show what can be done with sufficient, passion; energy and enthusiasm… -We have the ideas to resolve their mistakes….We will prepare ourselves for life.

How else can one make a difference? How else can one hope to achieve anything? No one ever

realises that inaction will be the bane and downfall of the human species. Too many never amount to

anything –they just flob about and achieve nothing of note or consequence. All they do; is inhibit those

who want to achieve something; to be more than just another waste of scarce planetary resources and

sperm –that should have never been fertilised… We have to ask ourselves in all seriousness: Do we

want to be this person? Or do we want to achieve something; to be a part of something that will outlast

us; but something that we can contribute to –and feel a part of? If we do nothing and leave no impact –

for better or for worse; are we even worthy of the mortality –the finite lifespan simmering with

opportunities and potentials that await for our will and energy; let alone the possibility of immortality that

we could ultimately be aspiring to –in one form or other –if only in the impressions and impact that we

leave on the world around us? Or we continue to let them… to let life, pass us by?... Otherwise; what is

the point of life. If we want to do something; if we want to be someone; accomplish anything –we should

just do it… Find support where you can by all means… -but if you cannot…. If you want to do

something –do not rely on others to found it for you –rely upon yourself… That way at least, something

might actually be done? For who is more reliable; who can you trust more; to know how committed you

are –and what you wish; than yourself? The question we should be asking ourselves; is can we as

students ever empower ourselves to accomplish anything. Anything can be achieved –that is what it

44

means to speak and act publicly, to learn to express ourselves confidently, to project our emotions,

reasons and ambitions across the world

The benefits of public speaking are myriad. They include socially, for academic presentations, in

applying for a job, in giving a formal speech/ presentation/ in a debate, to seek to charm and convince

people –if nothing else to practise, to do things/ to act/ to think –to have a decent time and make

something of it –not let all life be far away from us… etc. One pointedly noticed the absence of a

society here at campus. It is valuable to develop ones’ style and character. Each person has their own

natural style –you know what works and what does not. Options would consider the divergent

approaches such as British parliamentary format overview, African and US political rallies, more casual

Aussie style etc –viewing different Parliamentary channels, styles and means of speaking. Public

speaking and presentations overviews would involve the practise of speeches, debates, socialising, To

take a break and avoid social isolation it might have entailed perhaps joint trips, meals, screenings and

socials, presentations –from experts. It would consider uni offers for membership fee-idea about AGM.

Having positions look good on CV if little work. It helps to get somewhere in life to morph into those who

confidently articulate themselves.

It short it aimed to consider and embrace what you want in a society? What do you seek from public

speaking? What do you want from life? It was open to ideas –from recruitment –to contributing in ideas

and experience –can choose topics etc. It aimed to discover own strengths/ weaknesses, learn how to

assess others, how to improve debating, flexibility –argue and consider alternative points of view, to

challenge fear and uncertainty, improve employability skills. Exercise included who can think of

characteristics of the worst speakers ever heard…. those of the best…. It included to think of lecturers,

politicians –anybody who makes an impact. The aim was for members to suggest meeting times/ topics

for debates etc… based on what personal experience had observed in the UK and failed to observe in

the more exclusionary, centralised command authority approach of one’s Southern African university

counterpart. It needed funding and support from the student union –if you attend one where they

actually provide things for their students

It is not up to me –or our leadership to dictate to you what you wish to happen –ours is unique, -whether success or failure –what happens is up to you to decide… It all depends on what appeals to you… We merely facilitate ideas… We encourage all manner of contributions –if you feel that you are being ignored elsewhere –we pledge that we will listen… I envision an open-ended project –in which we can all become involved -Any ideas? –Remember; every great person in history; started off –as nothing more than we –as youth –as students… Each of them; could have sat back –and done nothing. But they saw a need to change… None of them; let these challenges vanquish them. They ignored

45

adults and society –and prevailed. They attained their objectives –and received the reward of immortality… If they can do it; why can’t we?

CHAPTER XI: The Balance…. Having a Life

There are no formal academic sources or glossy pamphlets advertising the PHD experience that

mention the fact that life outside university is overwhelmingly necessary but it remains essential.

However to maintain balance and sanity, to avoid dissertation dementia –Once you are lost, it can be

excoriating and extremely arduous to fully recover –Without health, without being true to yourself and

all other factors that interest you, keep you healthy, interesting , interested and sane –it can be

challenging to complete even the first few months –essential to concentrate on the optimal structure

from the beginning.

So how does one remain balanced? How does a person remain balanced throughout a turbulent world

and a tumultuous Age, ever recoiling and flinching from future shock? How does a person retain their

quintessence? Through retaining their true core character, their inner being, and adhering to their faith,

emotions, rationality, beliefs, attitudes and principles that got them so far towards their manifest destiny,

throughout being, form and existence… and which may help them to persevere, regardless of others.

How does a being retain their spirituality, their individuality, their integrity, imagination, passion, energy

and spirit of adventure in the world around them that seeks to eviscerate that which preserves you as

true? To retain spirituality, first and foremost, one must retain fealty –the fulcrum of belief with ardent

loyalty. Being task orientated –present situated yet past anchored and future gazed may aid one to

46

survive proactive not reactive –but it is not enough! That is why spiritual connections to one’s faith and

one’s planet Gaia and one’s topic are indispensable. Loyalty consists in being prepared to defend

these openly with ardour and conviction, for without a willingness to defend these, these are worth

nothing. It involves seeking to master and to understand why and how one chooses these over others

to be of free volition rather than unblinking, unwavering dogmatic orthodoxy. It consists of being publicly

prepared to publish, propagate and declaim –no matter how controversial or unpopular and striving to

preserve that against humanity and the world accordingly as the ultimate evidence of one’s actual

sincerity.

Realise limits –to identify what works for you/ when and why…From personal experience I know of

many PHD students that are so committed to this PHD that heedless of the fact they have 3 years –to

work on a single project they will devote hours and hours of toil, attaching themselves to the computer

screen –beyond the physical environment, screened from the climate, time and any social-cultural

interactions that occur on the university campus and beyond… anything in essence that might provide a

distraction-obsessed with their topic even where it might resulted in ennui –the challenge of hour to

avoid boredom and remain sufficiently stimulated by a topic meant to take so long –solid devotion –the

PHD is the way –the only way and the way is the PHD. With little monitoring of mental health of

candidates or concern by the academic hierarchy –which expect you to work full time for 40 hours per

week –numerous academic studies but little from the insight of HDR candidates. Universities assume

that even if they give you a scholarship –you are fine –that is all that matters –along with providing the

physical infrastructure/ resources necessary to complete a PHD. They seldom consider the extent of

the great personal sacrifice involved. Of course, one would expect scintillating conversation from PHD

students and faculty members but being so immersed in their research they become limited beyond

certain basic topics, isolated from the world and experience –Undergraduates actually provided a far

more engrossing, diverse and illuminating form of mental, emotional and physical experience fulfilment,

recalling what life is actually meant to be about and still prepared to risk and do far more… In contrast,

PHD students struggle when stretched beyond their topic on average –most praising supervisors and

so devoted as to have limited outside interests.

Useful to physical and other health –to make the most of your time –to travel, to explore the university,

city, area and around to make the most of what you want outside the PHD –cannot consider it all the

time.

Allow periods of productivity when you feel inspired but accept that it might not occur all the time –

periods requiring less attention can include proof-reading/ editing. When the topic provides too much or

bores you –try something else when the brain rebels/ when distractions/ fatigue swarm you. So many

47

waste time on ignoring serendipity and the fact that when you are typing, proof reading or distracting,

your mind really isn’t fecund and sufficiently germinating. Each of us possesses means to enhance

willpower, creativity, inspiration, efficiency, productivity and focus when necessary –identifying and

mastering these is the simplest secret of success when recognising limits. This minimises time

expended as wasted.

The most inspiring of philosophies is that of Carpe Diem……. Seize the moment! Seize the day… We

only have one life that we are assigned to and when challenged do we really only want to be known for

a thesis, the job we do or our offspring, when we can characterise ourselves by our abilities, our

achievements, our experiences and our legacies…. As a student from school to university I wasted a

ridiculous amount of my life and my youth, convinced that something better was going to happen and

that others would plan events and arrange my life to make it fascinating, utterly bored rotten in the

meantime… However, I realised that I had to make an effort to become involved. My undergraduate

British university experience worked out brilliantly because it had over 300 student societies among

15000 students, a cinema, theatre, 2 nightclubs, several pubs, cafes and restaurants, its own sports

complex, library, 300 acres of woods, a mile to the city centre, transport connections into Europe. My

Master’s university had student riots and bureaucracy/politics and religions completely dysfunctional

fairly often rather than conventional academia, whilst the PHD experience lacked even a debating

society and was more basic, believing only in work although it had a cafeteria, a library and

laboratories/lecture facilities. In essence; it is important to have a life –Do what you enjoy and find out

ways to do it. If a sport/society or experience doesn’t exist –start your own….

Between duty, virtue and hedonism, the spark of passion that humanises us, dies.

For example, I realised that as a PHD candidate, the priorities were to explore the wilderness, historical

culture, food and other attractions of the Oceanian islands I encountered. At the very least I would have

memories of not having wasted this time, being healthier and enjoying it, even if it meant being frugal

with my modest stipend. At times I think the limited scholarship funding is actively meant to discourage

anything but working on your thesis permanently. However, students could contribute further to the

local economy if we had the funds to actually see more. Mobility is challenging in many parts of the

world that respect only car users, who have the ability and can afford to. Few attractions outside major

urban areas, national or state parks are accessible by buses and trains. The university/existing

students organised the same 3 trips every year over a decade – and 2 were accessible by public

transport ironically. Eventually I decided not to be alone and devised the idea of personally contacting

the existing bus companies to charter a driver and bus. Its advantages were that I could plan the day

trip time, locations and cost and then market it to around 40-60 other students so the costs of

48

transport/national park fees would be covered. I marketed with glossy images and the caption: Seeking

An Adventure This September? it through the student union, student representatives, any students you

know personally and filtered from any student association you can get contact, my fellow PHD and

Postgraduate students, the social Facebook and university platforms, placed up posters with

authorisation from the union –They generally have the power otherwise it gets confiscated –campus

free expression cannot be permanently up for many universities/colleges). The best places to distribute

include bus stops, eating places, university common rooms and halls of residence, communal

laundries, the library, student centre, student computer laboratories and the front entrances/ central

noticeboards including door whether wooden or automatic sliding ones –anywhere that students

congregate, bored and waiting for something to happen. It helps to spread it to as many campuses and

facilities as possible as remote locations with less competitive posters, may attract further interest.

Email mailing lists are frequently an excellent source to provide contact details as well as saving time

and effort even if it can annoy people. If the university has a shop, campus radio or newspaper along

with social website/ platforms, these prove excellent ideas to spread your cause, whether a trip,

canvassing for a society/ election or anything to make life more brilliant.

There are also the social and networking advantages –the chance to interact with fellow candidates that

you seldom have a chance to talk to –or even recognise they exist. I pointed out how it is better to

choose those unfamiliar –again one never knows when a link may be useful to promote opportunities.

Another axiom of the world is that most of all, people can be really keen to do something and really

interested –they just wonder if anyone else is interested. If someone actually take the time to make an

effort and organise an event that appeals –I added cultural history, nature in dramatic caves, cliffs and

beaches along with chocolate and cherry produce samples/shopping as a day trip, then it will be

supported as value for money. Initiative will be rewarded if you respect the fact that people can be too

busy to arrange things themselves and appreciate as much warning as possible to plan their lives. One

of the most disconcerting university experiences is being told of an event a week, but far more often

only a day or 2, even 3 hours, an hour or 10 minutes just before it starts –and often still expected to

RSVP rather than just turn up. I gave 6 weeks for this initial event and around 4 for following. In this

world of pressures and deadlines, completely unexpected randomness even when its something we

want to do or need to do can often prevent so many humans from doing all that we want to or even

being able to prioritise…

How many social opportunities does the university provide? How many just pass by, without

postgraduates paying attention. For example I joined in the undergraduates and halls of residence

activities from food bingo and trivia quizzes to organised trips to social barbeques to art exhibitions to

concerts to public lectures or eavesdrop on random talks, tried to found societies and join them –when

49

that failed. It is amazing though how social experiences in Africa, Europe, the USA and across Oceania

and the Pacific all have one thing in common –revolving around food, drink and conversation… If you

really want to be popular instantaneously; arrange free food, suggest a social takeaway, turn up at

organised events or arrange cheap drinks specials –or suggest the equivalent of a pub crawl or new

drinking game experience…. However, activities generally happen from the hard work of an underrated,

underecognised few

It all depends on what works for you and what sort of social experience and lifestyle you seek. Many

postgraduates seem comfortable focusing just on research and a few friends. Yet invariably and

frequently when it is really discussed, the social isolation feels conspicuous. It is often raised and

paradoxically when efforts are made many cannot be bothered to turn up –and so these things fail. Or

alternatively students would like to take part but like the Internet, there is often no filtering mechanism

to help people really locate what arrives. The lack of orientation –formal academic and social apiece

unlike undergraduates can completely dishearten people. You are pointed to your cubicle, assigned a

laptop and an official email address and basically the rest ends up being up to you. If you are lucky you

can find someone willing to be friendly but to pry open the secluded cubicle of people industriously

tapping away or flickering pages can be really unnerving. Therefore, I made a point of introducing

myself, leaving my contact details present and turning up for whatever activities I could find and doing

what I could to spread awareness/market events and experiences for others. Initiative also can fail from

lack of enthusiasm –so it helps to encourage people by endorsing their ideas proactively –taking part in

ones you are interested in with time. So, they become more creative and willing to produce more, whilst

simultaneously enhancing your own social networking –can help against supervisors, pressures,

ignorance, uncertainty, chaos and other issues -really challenging to find this out on one’s own

Other ideas suggested included free newspapers, communal meetings/trips; seminars to promote

sleep, meditation sessions –even a dog to release pressure. Whether ideas actually materialise… often

only if you are persistent and bug them enough, never ceasing so they forget. One idea for which I

never heard anything was to provide all PHD students with a free T shirt so that we could recognise

each other across faculties and be able to initiate social experiences easier to counter loneliness.

Campus accommodation also claimed they wished to improve customer service, values and leadership.

A number turned up but forty five minutes of reading a mission statement/seeking publicity and not

really emphasising discussion failed to impress. All attention was diverted by the bribe of free pizza

turning up, proving that the old adage of the way to a student and their participation is through their

stomach. Most left shortly after… Social interactions are simplest to initiate when there is a common

cause, shared vision or collective purpose –i.e. not when you are clutching a drink, skulking about

seeking to avoid the death of social ostracism… For example, with a lecture or just simply killing time

50

queuing at an event even for stall freebies or a food truck… Whilst undergraduates and postgraduates

may seem different, these immersions in real life, with societies, trips, free film screenings, talks etc.

provide a way of knowing people beyond your immediate cubicle, laboratory, hall of residence or

lecture theatre neighbours. However, if you invite people and they persist in ignoring opportunity –this

can be challenging!

What can the university provide academically, networking, socially, financially, in skills and in

opportunity? What chances does the place provide? After it was suggested the university turned to

mental health activities to counteract the manically depressed and suicidal angst that plague students –

especially when exams and pressures of deadlines arise. Squeezing rubber stress balls was promoted

to release the tension…. Massages were also encouraged whilst for those more inclined to have faith in

non-human animals over humans, the therapeutic, soothing caressing of a dog, a cat… even a lamb

were summoned to alleviate stress. Then there is physical exercise –by exerting yourself –the pain and

ordeal can singularly drive focus away from whatever assails you at the moment. Being preoccupied

with something meaningful, enjoyable, stimulating, entertaining, compelling, fascinating and above all

not remotely related to whoever or whatever really gripes you as a student, researcher or individual

human being, really can help that balance and pursue your life, rather than just letting it pass by…

51

CHAPTER XII: Tutoring Teaching/ Work Experience

Whether voluntary, co-opted or accidental, a PHD may offer the chance to tutor, lecture, mark, be an

exam invigilator or research assistant or alternatively involve something else that is not entirely work

based An additional source of income, the chance to contribute knowledge, improve your CV

qualifications; gain potential connections, make a difference –and importantly do something that isn’t

your PHD/ gain experience –and equally important not to forget what you have previously worked so

hard to attain. As long as the thesis itself gets finished within a reasonable time frame it should be

fine… Technically for those classified as full-time students, they are meant to devote their working week

(9am to 5 pm Monday to Friday) on the PHD itself as with conventional employment throughout the

world. Often any funding or condition of acceptance signed in the small print requires such. However,

nothing is legally binding –and outside those hours, the university itself has no power to prevent one.

Many universities gradually rely on postgraduates as a cheap form of labour resource to exploit, freeing

up veterans for their own research, publishing and consultancy duties

What can it be like to teach and is it worth it?

Characteristically it depends on the students, topic, workload, university administration, experience and

finally the pay involved…. Whilst transferring scholarship and the chance to inspire new generations

may encourage some, another indication of how universities fail to advance humanity and the humanity

of their students is by most postgraduates teaching, tutoring, preparing, researching, marking and

supervising areas for which they barely have more experience, knowledge and interest than the

disenchanted undergraduates themselves. Universities are only PHD centric and often only empower

the candidate to provide seminars on their directly assigned topic regardless of their interests, abilities,

experience and qualifications. Simultaneously the university often neglects the trove of past

experiences upon which other students can draw upon. If the workload is only 1-3 hours per week that

is manageable, but the pressure during exam and assignment times to mark 50-60 identical

assignments in one night with a few hours’ notice when you have your own life to juggle becomes far

from attractive. The majority of undergraduates can decidedly perturb even the most zealous as they

often seek the laziest or simplest ways, rather than volunteering willingly and being actively engaged.

Such arrangements do not benefit either the junior academic or the students themselves… However at

least candidates are less likely to experience discipline issues. One noted advancement, that political

52

correctness aside, one key advantage of transferring to staff is having the University administration

itself behind you in confident support.

Be wary as a casual employee paid per hour/job, with greater job insecurity, lower pay and benefits.

There are also unions. Be careful as to how flexible leave/public holiday (generally more permanent

employment)/ pension benefits, deductions, tax threshold arrangements, salary payments, insurance

and other factors. One should be paid for marking, reasonable student preparation, lectures,

workshops and tutorials/meetings/materials, exam invigilator duties and research/laboratory assistance.

It can be essential to ensure that any work commitment does not interfere with personal life/welfare nor

that of research. –preserve academic and personal autonomy.

Funding Application Proposal Example

Field of Research: Environmental, Development and Maritime/ Port Economics

Topic/ Title of Research: THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE FUTURE OF PACIFIC

MARITIME ECONOMIES, SEAPORTS AND SHIPPING AND HOW TO SURVIVE…

1.0: PREFACE. 1.1: Background/ Introduction: -1.2: Problem Statement:

1.3 Motivation and Significance: Why Is this Dissertation Necessary?

1.4: Research Aims/ Objectives.I: Is it possible to standardise a definition and methodology approach for climate change, resilience and adaptation strategy?II: What is the historic impact of climate change upon the maritime sector in Oceania?III: What is the current and future projected impact of climate change upon the future of seaports in Oceania?IV What is the current and future projected impact of climate change upon the future of shipping in Oceania?V: What is the current and future projected impact of climate change upon the future of Oceania’s maritime economies? VI: Is it possible to standardise an assessment criterion capable of identifying and defining hypothetical risks and vulnerabilities of each to climate change? How and why is each port vulnerable?VII: What are the costs versus benefits of proposed climate change for each?

53

VIII: What are the country/ seaport specific constraints/ barriers to resisting climate change?IX: What are possible stakeholder identified solutions to adapting ports/ shipping to climate change in Oceania and are they feasible/ to what extent will they be efficacious?

II –IX: will be evaluated for those places in Oceania identified under Study Location .

1.5 Dissertation Structure Synopsis1.0: PREFACE.

1.1: Background/ Introduction: -

1.2: Problem Statement:

1.3 Motivation and Significance: Why Is this Dissertation Necessary?

1.4: Research Aims/ Objectives.

1.5 Dissertation Structure Synopsis

Abstract.

Table of Contents.

List of Abbreviations/ Definitions/ Graphs, Figures etc:

2.0: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Introduction

2.2: The Purpose of Seaports

2.3. Defining Climate Change, Resilience and Adaptation Strategy

2.4: Literature Summary: Theoretical Climate Change Impacts on the Economy

2.5: Literature Summary: Theoretical Climate Change Impacts on Seaports

2.6: Literature Summary: Theoretical Climate Change Impacts on Shipping

2.7: Identifying Hypothetical Risks and Vulnerabilities

2.8: Literature Review of Proposed Methodology/ Assessment Criteria

2.9: Theoretical Motivation of this Dissertation’s Significance

3.0 METHODOLOGY.

3.1: Idea/ Introduction.

3.2: Assumptions.

3.3: Time Horizon:

3.4: Data Description.

3.5: Variables.

3.6: Definitions.

3.7: Research Design Methodology and Strategy.

54

3.8: Identifying Key Port Users

3.9 Identifying and Defining Current Seaport, Shipping, Marine Economy Vulnerabilities

3.10. Identifying and Defining Future Risks

4.0: RESULTS:

4.1: The Impact of Climate Change –meteorological etc

4.2: The Costs versus Benefits of Climate Change and Adopting Adaptation Strategies

4.3 Climate Change Future Scenario Risk Analysis for each port

4.4: Port User Concerns over Climate Change

4.5 Identifying Site Specific Constraints/ Barriers to Resisting Climate Change

4.5: Proposed Port User Adaptation Solutions

Conclusion –similarities versus differences in approach; risk; costs; solutions….

6.0: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

6.1 Limitations of Study/ Directions for Future Research.

7.0: REFERENCES–Primary Sources.

7.1: References –Relevant Unpublished Work:

7.2: References –Relevant Published Research:

APPENDICES:

Budget Proposal

Economic, Environmental, Social Consequences of Climate Change on Shipping, Seaports, Maritime

Economies of Asia

Structured Questionnaire

Interview Summaries with respective Stakeholders: Academic; Government; Local Businesses;

Customs Administration and other Harbour Stakeholders: i.e. NGO’s; the Public Community etc.

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW:

55

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION This section introduces the methodology to be used in this study. It mainly describes the study

population; methods of data collection, data management and analysis. Usage of this methodology will

address the key objectives by a pilot study. It will resolve the central questions through a literature

review; interviews and a survey. It will empirically seek to verify the aforementioned hypotheses through

standardising a set of assessment criteria –empirical/ graphical if possible aided by stakeholder

perspectives to evaluate external costs/ benefits of both policy options –of expansion versus efficiency.

Finally, it will compare and contrast with other case studies; identifying strengths and flaws; proposing

recommendations.

3.2 TYPE OF RESEARCHThis will be both a socio-economic cost-benefit analysis, a field research sampling strategy consisting

of interviews and a technical feasibility study to assess existing preparations/ propose solutions.

3.3 STUDY LOCATION3.4 STUDY POPULATION3.5 SAMPLING

3.5.1 Strategy 3.6: DATA COLLECTION 3.6.1 Measurements Information for the study will be collected through structured interviews/ surveys for relevant

participants; empirical calculation, graphical and statistical analysis; along with summarising existent

literature

3.6.2 Variables4.1: REFERENCES –RELEVANT UNPUBLISHED WORK:

Greetings

I sincerely apologise for the intrusion upon your valuable time but following previous correspondence and interaction with your esteemed authority, would highly appreciate any financial assistance towards my PHD Research “….” given the potential benefits to…. of its student being able to further specialise in the benefits provided by…at the University of …. I would highly appreciate this as remains my intention upon the completion of my studies to come back to South Africa and enter academia/ consultancy through the potential to enhance the quality of maritime education and skills training and then be able to further contribute towards my country’s future. so that I can improve the survival and sustainability of our ports, transport and coastal communities through directly applying their research to

56

our own country and continent. At the moment, the University of…. have offered me a tuition-based scholarship covering the tuition fees but not a living allowance or any other related costs, which I would highly appreciate your illustrious authority providing as much financial support as it can, especially for the visa, health insurance and plane ticket/ initial living costs. This would enable to enable myself, my country and my continent to mutually benefit from this chance so that I might be able to afford to undertake this offer, as no comparable university in Africa specializes in a PHD in maritime affairs or my related topic. It remains my ambition in the spirit of the African Renaissance to establish greater academic capacity towards furthering the maritime economy and maritime education as well as climate change/ economics in South Africa and Africa as the prime catalysts for economic growth/ opportunity and related skills development for the twenty first century.

Please find attached the signed form, my …. PhD acceptance letter to confirm OSHC costs, a copy of my research proposal, covering letter, CV and below, a budget proposal which I would highly appreciate any financial assistance that … could provide to assist me. I am also willing to provide any further information, sign anything including confidentiality and agree to any reasonable request or condition in exchange, share the results of my research directly and provide anything else that may be necessary to assist you in evaluating my proposal. My email is ... My phone number is ….

With the greatest of possible respect and thanksQ…

Proposed PHD Budget Outline:University Research Publication Incentive Scheme Proposal May 2016

To Whom It May Concern

As a second year PHD student number…and previous casual lecturer/tutor in at the University, I would like to apply for the above incentive scheme funding as I have been accepted for both peer reviewed conferences and a…. This funding would be highly appreciated as these conferences will enhance the research experience, network connections and publication record of this candidate undertaking a thesis in…, also expecting to undertake field research late 2016-2017. Both conferences will have papers published in the proceedings, the first one potentially adaptable for a journal submission whilst the conference paper based on this candidate’s proposed thesis chapter has been accepted as a peer reviewed edited and published book chapter in the Publications book: The publication contract details are attached. This candidate intends to utilise the funding to particularly cover the significant research travel expenses incurred in conference registration, air travel, transport, accommodation and meals

57

incurred for the overseas Conference, if potentially successful. The proposal has been discussed with my current supervisors. I can provide any additional information and attach proof of the conference registration/acceptance and a current curriculum vitae.

With all thanks and respect

Jack Dyer

ELIGIBILITY CHECKLISTWill you be on suspension from candidature during the proposed Conference/Research training trip? If YES, you are not eligible NO

Have you exceeded the maximum period of your candidature? If YES, you are not eligible NO

Doctor of Philosophy: maximum period of 4 years Full Time or equivalent Part TimeProfessional Doctorate: maximum Degree Period as approved by Academic Senate and set out in the applicable University course and unit handbookMaster of Research: maximum period of 2 years Full Time or equivalent Part TimeJoint/Cotutelle Doctoral Degree: maximum period as specified in the Candidate Agreement

Have you previously been successful with an application for funding under this scheme in your current candidature? If YES, you are not eligible NO

Is your Confirmation/Annual Review up to date? If NO, you are not eligiblePlease check your Action Dates in iGRad YES

Have you submitted your thesis for examination? If YES, you are not eligible NO

Have you presented a poster or given an oral presentation at the annual Graduate Research Conference? YES

If you answered YES, please specify which year you attended: _______2015__If you answered NO, it is expected that you will present at the annual Graduate Research Conference as part of your XGR502 requirements unless you receive an exemption.If you received an exemption, please attach evidence in your supporting documentation

Do you intend to take personal leave within the same trip?Please refer to the Graduate Research Conference and Research Travel Scheme Guidelines and the University Travel Policy

NO

CONFERENCE PARTICIPATION AND/OR RESEARCH ACTIVITY

Title of the conference and/or research training activity:i.e. methodology course, internship with experts in field

IAME Conference Kyoto June 2017

58

Note: Multiple conferences and/or research training activities can be supported by the Graduate Research Conference and Research Travel Scheme within the same period of travel on the same application.

Describe your participation in the conference and/or research training activity, e.g. poster or oral presentation:

Presenting 2 research papers:

Your conference and/or research training activity travel itinerary:Dates Location/s Activity

Have you attached a copy of your invitation to participate or written confirmation from the conference and/or research training activity organisers or hosts?If NO, this must be provided before your application will be funded

YES

59

ESTIMATED BUDGET Flight and accommodation quotes must be attached to your application Please provide two indicative quotes by performing a web-based search for return airfares for the proposed trip A similar search with two quotes for accommodation must also be included Living costs must be estimated with reference to the Australian Taxation Office for work travel costs and the University of Tasmania

Travel Policy

Item Description Total $AUDConference registrationCourse feeOther (where applicable)

$350

Travel

Accommodation(Cost per night x duration of chosen research activities)

Accommodation Quote I x 5 nights =

Accommodation Quote II x 5 nights

Meals/Incidentals(Cost per day x duration of chosen research activities)

$100 meals +$25 incidentals x 5 days

Total:Contribution by School/Institute/Other:

Scheme requirement (Maximum value $2500):

ACADEMIC OUTPUTS AND ACHIEVEMENTSPublications within the last 5 years:Fully referenced. Include published, in press or submitted only. Do not include copies. List using dot points.

Presentations:Where? Include dates and method (poster or oral presentation). List using dot points.

Exhibitions, performance or other non-traditional research outputs:Where? Include dates and method. List using dot points.

All reports/output below was presented/submitted/implemented to key stakeholders – certain parts distributed across Europe, South America, Africa, Asia and Oceania

Awards and grants

Key research project milestones achieved during your candidature to date:List using dot points.

Community/stakeholder engagement related to your research:List using dot points.

Networking through conferences, research reports, professional association membership, lecturing, tutoring and other output above

60

Field Research results chapter preparations/publishing whilst awaiting supervisors/ethical approval –to establish potential contacts

Joining ACCARNSI +Vulnerable Community Network,

CANDIDATE STATEMENT AND SIGNATUREProvide a statement outlining how the proposed travel will add value to your research: (max. 300 words)

Attending the most prestigious global maritime research conference will enable me to present global climate change risks for this sector as a key emergent area ignored by contemporary maritime research as a pioneer. It would enable me to further gain a synchronised, integrated system perspective capable of prioritising key stakeholder concerns from key experienced academics in adapting risk management/maritime ports, shipping and logistics to emergent climate change issues. This will improve my research quality, minimising maladaptation and reducing coastal vulnerability/enhancing system resilience with the chance to learn and network from renowned academics whilst sharing my findings. This aims to promote the university and myself with further journal publishing connections, possible funding opportunities and awareness of events plus researcher contacts that might facilitate field research in the Pacific. As 2 papers are accepted and my second year review of progress has just passed, this will further add value to my research to improve my method robustness prior to undertaking potential field research. It will provide the chance to develop my academic publishing/oral presentation performance tips prior to graduating before the PHD ceases enhancing the overall thesis/article quality through the peer revision process. It provides exposure/dissemination of my pioneering thesis as first to reflect climate change risks for Pacific maritime supply chains to consider climate change to an international audience of expert academics/policy makers, enhancing the university’s reputation and mine. Most of all; I believe that this conference; will offer me the chance to be a part of a new speciality that the world will need more of; learning from global renowned specialists; gain contacts; understand the challenges that face the maritime sector;–and the impact of climate change to ensure the global future of maritime supply chains

X I declare that all the information provided on my application is correct

X I have read the Graduate Research Conference and Research Travel Scheme Guidelines and understand therequirements of the Graduate Research Conference and Research Travel Scheme

X I understand that the Graduate Research Office will verify the information I have suppliedX I have read the Travel Policy and understand my obligations

X I understand an incomplete application will be deemed non-compliant and that a non-compliant applicationwill not be reviewed by the panel and will not be returned to me for correction.

Signature: Date:

3 March 2017

PRIMARY SUPERVISOR STATEMENT AND SIGNATURE I support this application and confirm the conference and/or research training activity is

relevant to thecandidate’s current research

I have read the Graduate Research Conference and Research Travel Scheme Guidelines

61

I confirm that the candidate is not on a Candidature Management Plan (CMP) and did not receive a C rating for their last Confirmation/Annual Review

I confirm that the candidate has not already received funding from the Graduate Research Conference and Research Travel Scheme during their current candidature

I confirm that participation in the proposed conference and/or research training activity will not hinder the candidate’s ability to submit their thesis/exegesis within the maximum degree period

I confirm that the candidate is up-to-date with their Confirmation/Annual Review and this is reflected iniGRad

I understand an incomplete application will be deemed non-compliant and that a non-compliant application will not be reviewed by the panel and will not be returned to me for correction.

Ordinance 8 Clause 2.2 Appeal 9 August 2017

Greetings

I wish to appeal further on the grounds that the specific questions I raised to Professor… as part of my appeal were never specifically answered. His responses were generic without specific examples given nor did he investigate my evidence of clear MLM discrimination over the allocation of resources. My points to his specific comments are highlighted in bold and italic below each point. Please find attached correspondence regarding your letter of complaint dated 6 June 2017.

Further to my email dated 16 July 2017 and your response dated 16 July 2017, I am writing to advise you of my decision in relation to the issues of concern raised in your complaint dated 6 June 2017 and supplemented by you providing additional information, and summarised as follows: 1. Concerns that DEPARTMENT students have been biased against compared to others. 2. Concerns that you have not been fairly granted the opportunity to receive access to the Conference and Research Travel Scheme. 3. Concerns that there were unnecessary delays in being notified of the outcome of your application. 4. Concerns that consistent assessment criteria were not used. 5. Retrospective applications should be allowed for conference funding. 6. You wish to be reimbursed by the University for half the funds for the conference you recently attended.

I have now finalized investigating this matter having gathered relevant information. My determination is as follows:

Issue 1 - Concerns that Department students have been biased against compared to others.

In relation to this issue, I have determined that the issue has not been substantiated as all HDR candidates are treated equally and on merit from all parts of the University.

62

I wish to appeal on the basis of indicating bias below and Professor Baldock has provided no indication that these specific cases of discrimination have been addressed/investigated nor answered anything for this generic statement

Greetings

Thank you for the swift response and taking the time and effort to consider this it is highly appreciated. Aside from the points addressed in the attached document and raised in the meeting there are a few points of concern. I would like to raise these given that my meeting was unexpectedly and without prior notice terminated for another.

As candidates are we competing with faculty for this scheme?

I would like to raise the concern of what specific criteria constitutes grounds for success for this and future rounds given the high failure/rejection rate?

How are students in this and other departments etc who do not receive devoted funds to support conferences/research activities, who depend on a fair chance at accessing this scheme supposed to compete fairly with those who compete for this scheme but in addition receive funding and other forms of support -i.e. Education, health etc?

I have contacted over 100 PHD students and only 5 indicated they actually got funding for conferences from the scheme throughout their 3 years? It is mentioned as a core UTAS benefit yet for a number of us at AMC our sole benefit apart from perhaps tuition/living allowance scholarships -was the laptop. We received no publishing incentive, conference support/travel grant, dissertation printing and binding allowance and self-funded attending the graduate research conference in Hobart.

Therefore: What funding resources are specifically devoted to us as HDR candidates from a budget perspective -centrally and to the school/department per candidate, especially to support our research activities i.e. is there a set amount for conferences/training/resources etc; how can we access it and who is responsible to ensure that we can get it? I.e. -what alternatives exist given you indicated only $50,000 or so was available throughout the scheme -about enough for 25

In relation to my application being non-compliant I would like to question why it was signed off and approved as if it were considered compliant by my supervisors, the GRC and Head of School? As a candidate I specifically asked these people and the Graduate research office throughout the 3 month process if there was anything else that I need to provide. Yet none of these parties throughout this period ever indicated that there was anything wrong without, implying that it was fine and they were/legally/administratively prepared to consider it fine? Given that I am a mere PHD candidate student lacking professional expertise; I have some expectation that others will oversight on something signed, especially when I have specifically asked? Given Professor N as Head of School indicated that she was prepared to release the funds -50% if the GRO agreed; this created the expectation that the application was not only compliant but merited enough to have a reasonable chance at participating -hence the several months of correspondence

63

On a second point I would like to raise the discrimination that department and school students in particular appear to receive internally. My first clear question is: Aare there any specific funding resources that the university distribute to the department/college etc give to support their HDR candidates, aside from the computer -the sole benefit that most of us gain? I would like to ask why if Professor…. and the department considered the applications of myself, X and Y in particular as so good that they were prepared to fund 50% -if GRO agreed; why was it conditional on GRO -when they have discretionary power over the funding? We would like to inquire as to why we could not receive even half the funding applied for in our application -Why do other schools/departments give 50% of funding -they can access to support their candidates yet despite our applications being considered compliant and motivated enough to the point where funding is mentioned; which indicates the resources are potentially accessible enough for us to access them -be distributed -can we not access them? I have tried raising concerns with the above parties as have other candidates but we have not received the professional courtesy of a response.

Issue 2 - Concerns that you have not been fairly granted the opportunity to receive access to the Graduate Research Conference and Research Travel Scheme.

In relation to this issue, I have determined that the issue has not been substantiated as all HDR candidates are granted the opportunity to receive access to the Graduate Research Conference and Research Travel Scheme.

The fact that my supervisors/ HOS/GRC signed off on a non-compliant application despite me specifically asking them and the GRO if there was anything else necessary to ensure compliance –to which they did not respond over 3 months; the lack of a specific answer over the assessment criteria to ensure an application is actually accepted, the cancellation of one round, the delayed 1.5 months start and condensed 3 week conference application period further reject his point 2 above. It substantiates my concern that I was therefore not granted fair access and opportunity to the travel round. This is substantiated by the bias and lack of clear answers over whether legally signed forms ensure a responsibility on all parties to ensure an application is compliant –by legal Services and a lack of clear policy over funding

On a second point I would like to raise the discrimination that department/school students in particular appear to receive internally. My first clear question is are there any specific funding resources that UTAS distribute to department students etc give to support their HDR candidates, aside from the computer -the sole benefit that most of us gain? I would like to ask why if Professor… and the department considered the applications of myself, Reenu and Armand in particular as so good that they were prepared to fund 50% -if GRO agreed; why was it conditional on GRO -when they have discretionary power over the funding? We would like to inquire as to why we could not receive even half the funding applied for in our application -Why do other schools/departments give 50% of funding -they can access to support their candidates yet despite our applications being considered compliant and motivated enough to the point where funding is mentioned; which indicates the resources are potentially accessible enough for us to access them -be distributed -can we not access them? I have tried raising concerns with the above parties

64

as have other candidates but we have not received the professional courtesy of a response.

Issue 3 - Concerns that there were unnecessary delays in being notified of the outcome of your application.

In relation to this issue, I have determined that the issue has not been substantiated as HDR candidates were notified of the outcomes of the Graduate Research Conference and Research Travel Scheme at the earliest opportunity once a decision had been made.

This candidate rejects this assertion on the following grounds. It must also be noted that Professor Baldock himself in a Skype meeting indicated with Megan Albion and Dr Kim Backhouse present that he himself had been responsible for ensuring the cancellation of one round, the delayed notifications, the postponement of the conference round to March from mid-January of previous years, the 3-week process and the delayed processes.

I: In response to one cancelled conference round and with 3 weeks to prepare a travel conference grant was submitted in March. All necessary requirements were attached and viewed as compliant by not just the candidate but his supervisors, HOS and GRC who signed off and never indicated otherwise

II: Funding was provisionally secured from the School/department and supervisor support, as conditional upon UTAS travel funding -so we could not even get half.

III: For over 2.5 months no outcome was heard. Finally a deadline of mid-May was indicated by the GRO. The candidate expressly notified a deadline of 31Mmay for their conference registration deadline in March to the GRO, repeated in May and June; creating extreme bias and problems for the candidate. Limited information was provided.

IV: This deadline was subsequently delayed by 3 weeks to 2nd June.

This second deadline was missed –the final outcome only known on 7 th June. No reasons for the delay was provided. No person accepted responsibility –raised concern to supervisors, GRC, HOS, HOD, GRO and Research Committee. When existing processes failed; this candidate being ignored by others reluctantly contacted the Student Union President, Postgraduate representative and Pro Vice Chancellor. In the mean time the conference deadline was missed. No indication was provided as to how long the approval/travel procedures might take if successful –what to do for deadlines. Reimbursement was not considered. This candidate had to personally convince the organisers to extend the conference for those seeking to participate. as attached

V: The conference registration could not go through the formal system but had to be separately accessed and financed. The Travel office indicated that it would take another month to process even if successful. This candidate received no certainty as to how it could be reimbursed if successful. For 2 of us at least –this will be our one conference opportunity prior to intended completion –and any other rounds won’t benefit us.

Why did it take 3 months for me to receive an outcome if it was supposed to be non -compliant? Again I formally asked the GRO over 3 months to let me know if anything else was necessary just in case and they never once told me it was not...

65

It was only when I prodded the GRO over 3 months that we actually received notification -hardly at the earliest opportunity...

Issue 4 - Concerns that consistent assessment criteria were not used.

In relation to this issue, I have determined that the issue has not been substantiated as consistent assessment criteria were used by the reviewers for all applications.

In violation of clause 3.7.2 of the HDR Minimum Infrastructure and Resources Policy I specifically asked what specific assessment criteria were used given so many applicants were rejected? Please see attached correspondence. In this generic response, Professor Baldock has still not provided an indication of what the criteria would be that actually allowed a candidate to be accepted. For example, mine was viewed as non-compliant –yet I have indicated how I sought for it to be compliant and thought that it was compliant enough given my supervisors/HOS/GRC signed off. 2 other department candidates were rejected on the grounds of not having published enough! Yet there is nothing to indicate this as a criterion in the attached form or by supervisors?

Issue 5 - Retrospective applications should be allowed for conference funding.

In relation to this issue, I have determined that the issue has not been substantiated as students are expected to work with their supervisory team early in their candidature to consider and plan in advance what application will be submitted to the Graduate Research Conference and Research Travel Scheme. The Guidelines indicate that a grant will only be awarded where the conference and/or research training activity has not already occurred or has not commenced at the closing date of relevant round.

This was only suggested as a proposed outcome in a letter 6 June along with the following points in response to allow candidates a fairer chance on the flowing grounds.

Proposed Outcome

I: Greater certainty over the specific assessment criteria used for successes and failure for candidatesSpecific feedback based on that criteria so candidates can understand why they succeeded/failed

II: Processes in place at GRO so scholarship/funding applications are not delayed. Sufficient notification of reasons for the delay and accurate indicators of when/how those delays might be avoided.

III: A sufficient time period for applications beyond the three weeks of this round

IV: An indication as to the number of places available and the funding available. Certainty as to whether the process is competitive –or implicit given certain departments have set funds for candidates and others have to openly compete

IV: Ensure that candidates at MLM and other departments are treated equitably with access to funding. It has been indicated that this is the funding that other schools provide for their candidates regardless of success through GRO.

66

V: A fixed proportion of places is allocated per department so that all have an equitable chance to compete. Priority is given to those candidates who have not yet had a chance –closest to graduation

VI: Greater certainty about who is responsible for school distribution funding, how is that funding allocated and what criteria. For example the head of MLM went away during the time period –who was responsible for funding in her absence. Greater certainty as to who has the power/responsibility to address issues over funding…

VII: Allowing conference funding to be applied for retroactively –i.e. not for future conferences but if successful to be recompensed for past conferences/travel with less time pressures –especially if self-financed. This would reduce time sensitive pressure on the University, GRO, supervisors and candidates to apply, approve and process funding applications.

VIII: If possible, reimbursement by the University of half the funds for the conference for this candidate would be highly appreciated.

Issue 6 - You wish to be reimbursed by the University for half the funds for the conference you recently attended.

In relation to this issue, I have determined that the issue has not been substantiated as the application you submitted was non-compliant as per the information provided in the Guidelines associated with the Graduate Research Conference and Research Travel Scheme. Further, as your application was non-compliant it was not considered further by the committee. I hope that the information set out above provides an explanation in relation to your issues of concern.

. Again this was a proposed outcome by the TUU Postgraduate Advocate given the stress, trauma, effort and discrimination I have experienced which Professor Baldock promised to consider. My question remains unanswered as to whose responsibility was it to ensure the application was compliant, therefore securing me a fair chance at funding without discrimination?

Again no answer has been given as to how so many people could have signed off on what was ruled by Professor…, the GRO and the funding committee as a non-compliant application. I would like to know why I as the candidate unfamiliar with University procedures am solely to blame when supervisors, GRC and the HOS signed off. Why did it take 3 months for me to receive an outcome if it was supposed to be non -compliant? Again I formally asked the GRO over 3 months to let me know if anything else was necessary just in case and they never once told me it was not...

In relation to my application being non-compliant I would like to question why it was signed off and approved as if it were considered compliant by my supervisors, the GRC and Head of School? As a candidate I specifically asked these people and the Graduate research office throughout the 3 month process if there was anything else that I need to provide. Yet none of these parties throughout this period ever indicated that there was anything wrong without, implying that it was fine and they were/legally/administratively prepared to consider it fine? Given that I am a mere PHD candidate student lacking professional expertise; I have some expectation that others will oversight on something signed, especially when I have specifically asked? Given Professor N as Head of School

67

indicated that she was prepared to release the funds -50% if the GRO agreed; this created the expectation that the application was not only compliant but merited enough to have a reasonable chance at participating -hence the several months of correspondence

I also specifically attach 2 emails on the basis upon which I raise my appeal. One is to Financial budgets who have so far not even answered as a courtesy to determine what are the specific resources we are allocated as PHD students -financially and how can we access them? Second is the fact professor…/ the GRO rules my funding application as non-compliant. However, when it is signed off by my supervisors, the Graduate research coordinator and head of school for MLM as if it were administratively compliant -do they not have the legal responsibility to ensure everything on the student's form is attached or compliant? I wish to formally complain as discrimination that legal services in the correspondence attached, refused to specifically answer as to whether administrative forms were legally/otherwise binding on those who signed it -staff not just students. I would especially appeal on this ground because if they are responsible in part then the parties who signed out, should be accountable not merely the student. This ensured a discrimination against my application -a higher probability of rejection -violating ethics. Unprofessionally they contacted my supervisor against my express stated wishes -stating it was up to him -students could not seek legal advice even over official university policy! I contacted Dr Kim Backhouse as Legal Service’s second suggestion but she has not responded with specific answers, again the basis for this appeal.

…..Greetings

Thank you for taking the time and effort to respond to my concerns under ordinance 8. I would appreciate knowing why the specific questions that I raised in my previous correspondence have all been most evidently ignored; as this may affect the basis for appealing the decision under clause 2.2. I am extremely concerned that the significant issues under the attached correspondence have not been resolved. On behalf of myself and the 100+ candidates denied funding and resources by the university however I thank you for affirming the University's lack of serious interest in considering our interest/welfare. It is unfortunate that I have had to personally invest over $6000 to support publishing/conferences this year alone excluding. Again no answer has been given as to how so many people could have signed off on what was ruled by you, the GRO and the committee as a non-compliant application. I would like to know why I as the candidate unfamiliar with UTAS procedures am solely to blame when supervisors, GRC and the HOS signed off. Why did it take 3 months for me to receive an outcome if it was supposed to be non -compliant? Again I formally asked the GRO over 3 months to let me know if anything else was necessary just in case and they never once told me it was not...

It was only when I prodded the GRO over 3 months that we actually received notification -hardly at the earliest opportunity... No answer has been raised as to how much the university has specifically allocated to support its PHD students aside from the laptop -our one benefit aside from free milk received? I have specifically raised my concerns about the HOS over this issue and MLM bias and you have not indicated how this was investigated

68

when I showed specific bias. There is clearly no point to applying for the so-called graduate travel funding scheme farce or reporting gross injustice if our specific concerns are ignored. Future applications can therefore receive a marked drop as other students can be advised not to waste their efforts on this clear fabrication.

With overwhelming concern, thanks and respect

Jack DyerFri 28/07/2017 16:30 1 attachmentJack Dyer Letter.pdfDownload all

our complaint dated 6 June 2017Greetings

Thank you for the swift response and taking the time and effort to consider this it is highly appreciated. Aside from the points addressed in the attached document and raised in the meeting there are a few points of concern. I would like to raise these given that my meeting was unexpectedly and without prior notice terminated for another.

As candidates are we competing with faculty for this scheme?

I would like to raise the concern of what specific criteria constitutes grounds for success for this and future rounds given the high failure/rejection rate?

How are students in the department etc who do not receive devoted funds to support conferences/research activities, who depend on a fair chance at accessing this scheme supposed to compete fairly with those who compete for this scheme but in addition receive funding and other forms of support -i.e. Education, health etc?

I have contacted over 100 PHD students and only 5 indicated they actually got funding for conferences from the scheme throughout their 3 years? It is mentioned as a core university benefit yet for a number of us at the college our sole benefit apart from perhaps tuition/living allowance scholarships -was the laptop. We received no publishing incentive, conference support/travel grant, dissertation printing and binding allowance and self-funded attending the graduate research conference.

Therefore: What funding resources are specifically devoted to us as HDR candidates from a budget perspective -centrally and to the school/department per candidate, especially to support our research activities i.e. is there a set amount for conferences/training/resources etc; how can we access it and who is responsible to ensure that we can get it? I.e. -what alternatives exist given you indicated only $50,000 or so was available throughout the scheme -about enough for 25

In relation to my application being non-compliant I would like to question why it was signed off and approved as if it were considered compliant by my supervisors, the GRC and Head of

69

School? As a candidate I specifically asked these people and the Graduate research office throughout the 3 month process if there was anything else that I need to provide. Yet none of these parties throughout this period ever indicated that there was anything wrong without, implying that it was fine and they were/legally/administratively prepared to consider it fine? Given that I am a mere PHD candidate student lacking professional expertise; I have some expectation that others will oversight on something signed, especially when I have specifically asked? Given Professor N as Head of School/ indicated that she was prepared to release the funds -50% if the GRO agreed; this created the expectation that the application was not only compliant but merited enough to have a reasonable chance at participating -hence the several months of correspondence

On a second point I would like to raise the discrimination that our department/school students in particular appear to receive internally. My first clear question is are there any specific funding resources that the university distribute to the school/department etc give to support their HDR candidates, aside from the computer -the sole benefit that most of us gain? I would like to ask why if Professor N and thee department considered the applications of myself, and the other 2 in particular as so good that they were prepared to fund 50% -if GRO agreed; why was it conditional on GRO -when they have discretionary power over the funding? We would like to inquire as to why we could not receive even half the funding applied for in our application -Why do other schools/departments give 50% of funding -they can access to support their candidates yet despite our applications being considered compliant and motivated enough to the point where funding is mentioned; which indicates the resources are potentially accessible enough for us to access them -be distributed -can we not access them? I have tried raising concerns with the above parties as have other candidates but we have not received the professional courtesy of a response.

Wishing you all the best with respect and thanks

Jack Dyer

CHAPTER XIII: The Literature Review

These are divisible into 2 types either a chronological approach in which one seeks to devise the

origins of a topic’s theoretical and methodologies before reviewing more recent research versus an

70

issues-based approach which concentrates on the most relevant background aspects and methods

arranged by theme and connected to the key research objectives

Introduction, Defining the concepts, Overview of past methodologies and literature by theme, including

case studies of successes/failures with potential solutions –consider motivation which emphasises the

study’s significance… After all those are completed… the challenge is to merge 2 chapters into 1 or

possibly produce 2 or more literature reviews, however a university thesis rule of thumb (though not

generally a formal requirement); is that any thesis chapter should not exceed around 50 pages,

especially literature reviews. For example a logical structure is provided below

CHAPTER 2: CLIMATE CHANGE DEFINITIONS AND IMPACTS ON MARITIME SUPPLY CHAIN

2.1 INTRODUCTION

2.2 DEFINING CLIMATE CHANGE

2.3: DEFINING MARITIME SUPPLY CHAINS

2.3.1 Definition Of A Maritime Supply Chain Through Stakeholder Requirements

2.4 DEFINING CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS FOR MARITIME SUPPLY CHAINS

2.4.1 Globalisation and the Magnifying of Supply Chain, Climate Change Disruption Risks

2.5 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON MARITIME SUPPLY CHAINS

2.5.1 Projected Climate Change Risks, Impact Costs and Adaptation Solutions for Ports

2.5.1.1 Identifying Projected Gradual Climate Change, Disruption Risks

2.5.1.2 Identifying Projected Gradual Climate Change Impact Cost Types.

2.5.1.3 Gradual Climate Change Risk, Port Adaptation Strategy Responses

2.5.1.4 Identifying Projected Sudden Climate Change Disruption Risks/Impact Costs

2.5.1.5 Projected Sudden Risk Climate Change Impact Costs/Adaptation Solutions

2.5.2 PROJECTED CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON SHIPPING

2.5.2.1 Projected Climate Change Impact Costs/Consequences

2.5.3: Climate Change’s Impact on Other Parts of Maritime Supply Chains

2.6 CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE STRATEGIES

2.6.1 Mitigation

2.6.2 Strategic Retreat/Surrender and Migration

2.6.3 Ecological Rehabilitation

2.6.4 Adaptation

2.6.5 The Further Need for an Integrated Supply Chain Stakeholder Adaptation Solution]

2.7 SUMMARY

71

CHAPTER XIV: Confirmation of Candidature Stage 1

The most credible universities operate as businesses –seek only to invest in those who offer them a

reasonable rate of return on investment. This process serves as a quality control check to determine

who succeeds and who fails, repeated annually. For the disorientated PHD candidate it serves as a

gruelling, excruciatingly, sadistic, feared, accursed and blighted trial by ordeal, especially those forced

to agonise over weeks of blathering dithering, deliberations as they await feedback on whether all their

effort has secured them the chance to continue for the next 11-12 months. It proves a struggle –

72

between what you dream of, what your supervisors command and the panel of examiners dictate… The

process conventionally includes a public presentation where one outlines their achievements so far,

their intended next year objectives including plans for publication, written work based on one’s

introduction, literature review and progress on sample method and a private interrogation session

based on that work. There are several outcomes to expect. One includes outright, abject failure! The

second and most rare, is to pass without any corrections or concerns whatsoever. The third is to be

considered so inferior that you relapse to a Master’s… even an Honours or undergraduate degree –

even though you may have already got one. However, the process is about ritual submission, humility

and humiliation. Academics having suffered through their own to reach the PHD experience, as with a

number of highly skilled professionals including doctors, engineers, lawyers and architects for their

qualifications, positions and experience, often think nothing of inflicting the same punitive pressures on

those students desiring the same…

The final and most common one is that of delaying your confirmation of candidature process which can

range from 1-3 months on average, depending on the extent of revisions that you need to undertake…

how many ‘errors,’ they can nit-pick over pedantically, whilst you attempt to master patience. In my

case I followed scrupulously everything on the website obscure guidelines and documents, gleamed

from other students, quizzed academics especially the hierarchy and witnessed others as guinea pigs

to identify the most frequent questions/issues raised. However, even when you give them more than

they asked for –I presented them with ethics provisional application, all forms, copies of publication

planned papers, all chapter drafts completed etc, they can still find means to delay you through

inventing spurious concerns. My feedback included adhering to an arbitrary 50 page chapter maximum

and predicting the exact number of words and pages for each thesis chapter including the results and

conclusions –and not being allowed to veer from them which delayed my chance of graduation and a

life for another pointless month. The most frequent issues raised were that of methodology, motivation

and practicality.

\ Of A Successful Candidate…. How To Thrive As A PHD Student.

A PHD is something that is considered to be a glamorous epitome of modern academic achievement

but the insider perspective of the ordeal to gain one is seldom chronicled to the world… Normally it

remains a personal struggle for those who achieve it –and those who try. The necessary skills needed

include Art of Publicity, Rhetoric, Salesmanship, maximising inspiration and creativity; exploiting

opportunity; skills development; journal skimming, preparing structure -2 theses that which you want to

o and that which you have to do. The resources needed are generally confined to the physical -i.e. a

soulless office cubicle, printing, Internet, stationary, tea and coffee facilities. Forget the psychological,

decent and secure accommodation space and a decent, supportive stipend enabling you to have a life,

73

travel or attend various networking conferences and events, unless you are really fortunate to secure

external funding or support.

The personal characteristics include diligence, self-motivation, passion, organisation, efficiency, proof-

reading, skilled –perhaps speed reading, to publish, to fund raise, to manipulate; to prompt interest in

others, to network, to be productive, withstand periods of isolation; patience, persistence –and above all

else the ability to manage failure and rejection; time management –the ability to be intensely focused,

to avoid distraction, active listening, be reliable ,organised, committed –no one else is really going to

prompt you to work on a daily basis –accept your strengths and weaknesses, while realising people

differ –how can you make the most from them and of yourself –sufficiently challenge yourself as a

human being. Time management is also imperative –the number of students that devote their lives from

7 am to 11 pm and beyond with scarcely a break, imposes the serious problems of dissertation

dementia and other verges of perpetual insanity…Additionally; one has to think conceptually –even as

an artist able to visualise high theories and abstract thoughts into simplified visual presences that

empower and enliven not just the thesis but presentations. These need to be combined with the skills of

a computer programmer to actually get somewhere whilst understanding elaborate data, graphs, charts

and figures, creating impressive presentations.

To succeed as postgraduate candidate it helps to maximise flexibility wherever possible and one’s life

by seeking proactive risk management under future scenarios –identify possible issues of

contention/foreseeable problems and prepare accordingly to swiftly assimilate to whatever random

iteration that life, university, supervisors, other researchers, bureaucrats and field participants may

throw at you. Extreme patience, endurance and persistence can be necessary to withstand critique and

obstacles as supervisors appear to be forever changing direction yet not moving your own.

Often the skills of improvisation and adaptive capacity to future shock –to withstand the fickle,

tempestuous essence of human nature, where you may think 3-4 year visions but your supervisor,

research contact, bureaucrat, political representative or fellow person flitters from moment to moment.

As a candidate you want to progress and avoid another predictable meeting of dealing with mercurial,

pedantic asinine galumphs that 'supervise' but do not work; that just happen to look at the first page

and make absurd comments and ignore another fortnight's work and 35 pages of method theory

framework. The challenge is to bug them as soon as possible to locate the specifics of what they

actually want from you, in extremely penetrating detail so that you can dash it off as soon as possible.

To be a proactive candidate it also helps to be prepared for disappointments. The university/institution

may promise a nurturing supportive relationship, environment, resources, facilities, generous benefits

and other incentives to entice such radical decisions to sacrifice three to six years of your life but to

74

succeed as a PHD candidate, one has to focus on finishing with optimal efficiency, interest and

dedication, without neglecting yourself, your principles, dreams, interests, friends and family. The

university proposed HDR Forums to ‘understand the student experience,’ but most of these initiatives

soon fizzled out like other grand plans and mission statements –it appears impressive publicity but the

actual substance does not encourage permanent reforms to ensure higher education places, allow

those voluntarily incarcerated to thrive or even speak.

To succeed as a candidate, one has to juggle multiple objectives and relationships as separately

detailed in this treatise. Relationships with supervisors, peer students, administrators, other faculties,

departments, staff –varying levels, postgraduates, undergraduates, ancillary services, campus activities

and the outside world…. The aim to finish –avoid publish or perish…. Improve the isolating student

experience as a common experience

Always be prepared for the idiosyncrasies and flaws of your university and supervisors. The ultimate

curse of free will, is the pressure of ultimate responsibility for our destiny. We cannot rely on them to

graduate us. So approaching mid-candidature and tentatively concerned about the lack of progress

from several months on methodology chapter 3, I elected to contact my supervisors by email,

summarising all the tasks I had undertaken so far to advance my thesis and willingly indicating that I

was prepared to do anything to progress on that methodology as efficiently as possible, given the need

for field research, ethics and the time constraints of the doctorate. Yet developing a model with

pointless tests and analytical framework in significant detail when a textbook can replicate the efforts

was counterproductive –only that which is new and relevant/necessary to be alive. If you never thought

of yourself as particularly spiritual or piously minded, research and the university experience can

certainly remind you how important it can be to have something –or several entities to believe in, hope,

inspire, nurture, encourage and motivate you simply beyond the degree itself…

One of the most significant impediments to effective research is the inability of this Age to design an

effective internet search algorithm that actually provides results related to your words and needs. Yet

this is still not located causing significant loss of research productivity, along with the fact that even

some of the most basic information is invisible and only accessible in physical documents located

across the world where you are not. Tracking down leading experts, academics, bureaucrats etc to ask

them for obscure secondary data/ to offer further context can assist in overcoming the potential flaws of

the Internet. Successful research skills include tapping into the university inter-campus document

delivery service, especially when searching for great books to order are further options for field

research scarce data but failed. Do not underestimate the bucolic weather effect –sometimes a

successful candidate has to accept when they can work and when inspiration fails –enjoy the weather

75

and remind them what works –few inspirational ideas when tapping or staring at a computer screen –

physically write, walk, think, breathe, feel… live. Remain stimulated, motivated, interested –focus on

your humanity and producing the thesis is far simpler.

CHAPTER XVI: How To Fail.

There are numerous ways to fail but several core important ones

By assuming 3 years is too long

By relying too much on others –on their research, for fieldwork, for funding, resources, support etc…

By dissertation dementia

By subjugating yourself only to the will of the supervisor only –sure it’s peaceful but you are virtually

guaranteed to loathe not just yourself but the project that you dreamed of…. It helps to retain some

measure off self-respect and to be able to say no and make a stand when you really need to

Never take things for granted and feel free to zap the pressure on the supervisor –they have multiple

students but ultimately they already have attained the qualification and the tenure –if you fail… chances

76

are they will find another student –there is a limit to their concern and often their willingness/ability to

proactively prioritise you, your life, your degree and your publication/ other efforts… One cannot rely on

the supervisors, bureaucrats, those stakeholders involved in field research and other forces. One can

only try to maximise the forces within one’s capacity to influence.

By denying yourself a life and all these other aspects you will fail as it has to be beyond merely the PhD

process and one needs to continuously remind oneself of all the reasons one initially elected to

sacrifice so much time. it is imperative too –taking time off, retaining those elements that keep you

sane, healthy, balanced –too easy to lose yourself in the process, even when you feel pressurised to

finish.

Often the supervisory relationship will unhinge a person along with the social, financial, physical and

psychological isolation and deprivation characteristics. One has to try and find a way not to be a lone

and hold onto anything which gives one peace, hope, joy, reasonable pleasure and some solace or

satisfaction in the process, gruelling ordeal that it may often appear at times.

CHAPTER XVII: The Methodology.

The one element guaranteed not to satisfy any academic at a conference, university seminar, a tutorial

with your supervisor or at your annual review of progress, this factor can really collapse the thesis.

Even when you feel that it is perfect, they will disagree, revealing their bias. However, there are several

fundamental structural components that can ensure a PHD candidate has a reasonable methodology

as provided below utilising one’s own thesis as an example below. It can help to identify past research

methods for several reasons. One of the most popular social, medical and general science research

strategies involves consulting key stakeholders and other primary sources as a first stage towards

understanding the topic. Qualitative methods involving a form of stakeholder consultation comprise the

vast majority of established method approaches, often through surveys, workshops or

semi-structured/structured interviews. Stakeholders complement literature through providing a

situational specific context; which is most appropriate to compensate for insufficient empirical data

availability and avoiding the duplication of superfluous research where previous studies have not

provided specific information/insight for the topic. This improves research credibility and accuracy when

accessing primary information.

77

Despite many methods proposed, most are variations of very few models sharing similar

characteristics. These can be divided into three groups: qualitative, model simulations (3.2.2) and other

econometric/quantitative methods. Although existing sources fail to provide a consistent definition or

description; the majority define qualitative research methods as similar to the following:

‘Qualitative research methods are interpretative and aim to provide a depth of understanding. Qualitative

methods are based on words, perceptions, feelings etc. rather than numbers and they include experiments,

interviews, focus groups, and questionnaires with open-ended questions’ (Author unknown, 2017).

Australian Survey Research (2017) define it as:

‘Qualitative research is aimed at gaining a deep understanding of a specific organization or event, rather than a

surface description of a large sample of a population. It aims to provide an explicit rendering of the structure,

order, and broad patterns found among a group of participants. It does not introduce treatments or manipulate

variables, or impose the researcher's operational definitions of variables on the participants. Rather, it lets the

meaning emerge from the participants. Concepts, data collection tools, and data collection methods can be

adjusted as the research progresses.’

The Web Centre for Social Method Research (2017) identified four main qualitative theory approaches

including ethnography (anthropology and culture); field research/physical observation with testing,

phenomenology (human perceptions and psychology), and grounded theory in which theory derives

from hypotheses and subsequent grounding/observations via coding qualitative data, recording

researcher insights and interactive diagrams to connect theory with data. From these and other

sources; the nature and characteristics of qualitative approaches depends on qualitative data and

information as those based on subjective stakeholder perceptions in response to an established

question/s or set of research hypotheses and theoretical rather than empirical data with pre-defined

variables. These often involve a literature review or form of stakeholder consultation through common

method, data collection instruments of surveys, workshops or semi-structured/structured interviews.

Stakeholders complement literature through providing a situational specific context; which is most

appropriate to compensate for insufficient empirical data availability where previous studies have not

provided specific information/insight, given developing nation constraints and avoiding the duplication of

superfluous research (Fletcher and Richmond 2010). Including this direct data collection method

approach to stakeholder consultation presents certain advantages including specific focus and

situational awareness of issues.

Qualitative method approaches have a number of research advantages and disadvantages commonly

identified in research sources (Bryman 2001; Gibbs 2007; Silverman 2015). Qualitative method

advantages include providing greater insight into specific factors/issues beyond pre-defined variables

and diversity of perspectives; permit human interaction and perception of risk, allowing flexibility in

developing theories, methods and approaches rather than pre-defined hypotheses. It overcomes

78

common research issues of limited data specifically relevant to a study and in directly accessing the

experience/knowledge of principal qualified stakeholders to obtain specific insight into key research

objectives. Grounded theory advantages include linking theory to field research to validate results and

observations. This thesis therefore identifies the need to consult key supply chain stakeholders for

grounded theory, to obtain accurate risks, impact costs and adaptation solutions increasingly favoured

by key field research. This improves research credibility and accuracy when accessing primary

information for integrated mixed method, research methodologies, given limited existing data and

empirical case study examples.

However, the time, resources required and complexities involved in establishing direct stakeholder

consultation, provides significant constraints to field research, particularly among geographically

isolated/large distances of small Pacific archipelagos.

Qualitative research disadvantages (Bryman 2001; Gibbs 2007; Silverman 2015) include being based

on researcher qualifications and capacities rather than scientifically independent, perfectly replicable

methods, potential researcher bias, especially for grounded theory. Phenomenology theory approach

disadvantages include a lack of external reliability and validity which may be subjective/biased from

stakeholder perceptions; leading to risk underestimation or overestimation. For example McNamara,

Hemstock and Holland (2013) used interviews and a survey of community views on the effectiveness of

climate change adaptation strategies. This creates a response bias or assuming respondent

stakeholder familiarity with climate change, its process, estimating risks and impacts, based on

individual perceptions not scientific evidence/empirical data. McNamara, Hemstock and Holland (2013)

also point out the psychological bias conditioning certain survey respondent answers for Pacific climate

change adaptation strategies. Aid agencies and communities may seek greater funding and publicity

through myriad workshops rather than focusing on implemented adaptation solutions. They may be

ignorant or exaggerate costs, consequences and solutions e.g. Trundle (2015) for Port Vila, Vanuatu.

Qualitative research approach result characteristics also ignore diverse results given some consulted

stakeholders may face asymmetrical information relating to climate change, which complicates

calculating risks, costs, benefits and consequences (Mach 2008; IPCC 2013; United States

Accountability Office 2015).

3.2.2: Quantitative Approach: Simulation and Mathematical Modelling Methods

Quantitative approaches similarly lack a consistent research definition and description to assist

stakeholders, however thesis references generally agree on the following characteristics:

‘Quantitative research is defined as entailing the collection of numerical/quantitative data and exhibiting

relationship between theory and research as deductive, a predilection for natural science approach, and as

79

having an objectivist conception of social reality. The most popular research methods are closed-ended

questionnaires, experiments, correlation and regression analysis methods (Bryman 2007 pg. 154.)

The IPCC (2015) upon which other sources depend for climate change impact and risk management

research approaches; define simulation and mathematical modelling methods as:

‘models representing physical/mathematical processes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and land surface,

as the modelling of various climate change risks to imitate the impact throughout an ecosystem or mainstream

activity, economy, system or sector over time in response to specific risk events.’

This section divides quantitative approaches into two areas and sections with separate theories,

characteristics, divergent applications for MSC’s, data collection methods, advantages and

disadvantages: simulation/mathematical modelling and other econometric/quantitative methods.

However, these approaches both involve a relationship between 2 or more pre-determined variables

aiming to be objective, reliable, valid and replicable.

Simulation theory approaches can be divided into climate/climate change specific models, risk

management models based on stakeholder perceptions/surveys and mathematical models including

Markovian chains to model physical disruptions/interactions of variables. Simulation method

characteristics typically advocate a combination of inputs e.g. sea level rise, as processes being drivers

of impacts; model associated consequences for given variables and sectors then propose various

response strategies outcomes. Models differ in variables, scale, complexity, spatial resolution, time

period, length and form. Simulation approaches are distinguished in not using physical data collection

methods; either using a top down approach, which applies the general global climate model and input

risk variables, downscaled to a regional/local scale for specific outputs/indicator variables including

economic sectors or a bottom up approach. This aims to define local resilience, vulnerabilities, impacts

and risks from variables and estimating the impact across various scales. These minimise human

interaction except in response to pre-defined inputs. Simulations are based on pre-determined

hypothetical assumptions, parameters, variables and conditions that can be swiftly altered in contrast to

qualitative/quantitative approaches that rely upon physical data. As simulation methods, approach

characteristics include ascertaining variables under conditions of uncertainty to produce outcomes.

All three simulation approaches possess a number of commonly identified research method

advantages and disadvantages (Bryman 2001; IPCC 2015; Silverman 2015). Simulation advantages

include providing insight where actual data is limited/conditions are uncertain; being cheaper, quicker

and requiring fewer risks/resources than physical experiments. Simulation testing is also more flexible

and easier to adjust prior to undertaking physical experiments/interviews, increasing accuracy,

efficiency, simplicity, reliability, consistency and precision for researchers and stakeholders. Simulation

approaches including risk management theory enable the testing of hypotheses and concepts to

80

enhance understanding/provide insight and feedback. Given climate change impacts and risks entail

multiple dimensions and factors (whilst currently only one planet supports humanity); simulations

reduce potential maladaptation risks and aid more effective decision making. It enables complex issues

to be conceptualised for results too complicated/challenging to simply replicate in reality. For most

research incorporating simulation methods presents advantages in identifying specific factors/variables,

hypotheses, causes and effects.

Simulation method disadvantages (Gujarati 2011; IPCC 2015; Silverman 2015) include the scarcity of

relevant model case studies; the complexity of isolating the total event impact for a single specific

cause/effect, (even if economically significant) and in calculating various risks/specific impact

magnitudes One of the most significant simulation approach disadvantages is that simulations are

based on theoretical approximations for specific scenarios, variable assumptions and boundary

conditions rather than reality. It frequently ignores key supply chain stakeholder experience. These

sources fail to test the consistency of past and future risk event and impact cost projections with actual

observed data.

One survey method limitation involves assuming respondent stakeholder familiarity with your research

process/topic area where responses are often based on individual perceptions not scientific evidence.

A bias may affect responses based on stakeholder perceptions; which may lead to risk underestimation

or overestimation. Some consulted stakeholders may face asymmetrical information, unreliable and

inconsistent empirical data and scenario analysis plus subjective weightings of perceived factors,

informational and situational bias. They may have ulterior motives or ignorant, –and unwilling to admit

to such. other disadvantages in only relying on qualitative methods for climate change risk-vulnerability

management methods including issues of asymmetrical information, Conflict of interests for the

researcher can be avoided if carefully managed, especially by being independently funded and by

interacting with stakeholders that are directly informed and offering independent perspectives with zero

or minimal conflicting interests, rather than naively relying on the self but also providing screening

criteria, standardised definitions, methods and physical case studies.

Although no standard definition or description of quantitative approaches exists; sources mostly agree

with the following definition (Gibbs 2007; Silverman 2015):

Methods entailing the collection of numerical data and exhibiting relationship between theory and research as

deductive, a predilection for natural science approach, and having an objectivist conception of social reality. The

most popular research methods include closed-ended questionnaires, experiments, correlation, content and

regression analysis methods (Bryman 2001 p.g.17).

81

Quantitative method characteristics aim to quantify answers to an initial research question/hypotheses

through data based on mathematical calculations, probabilities or modelling with underlying empirical

assumptions and logical framework rather than stakeholder perceptions based on the relationship

between 2 or more variables or factors. Quantitative non-modelling method approaches can be divided

into risk-management methods including probability distributions and other econometric approaches

including regressions for climate change impact research. Unlike qualitative data, research design,

method, variables and hypotheses are pre-determined.

Simulation methods concentrate on theoretical modelling as an approximation of reality. Econometric

models generally possess a number of certain research advantages for climate change impact

methodologies including being economical in cost, time saving substitutes for physical field research

and providing a theoretical quantitative approach towards climate change’s predicted impact. However

given limited and uncertain data, risk and cost estimates, any econometric/quantitative method may

improve understanding but is insufficient without stakeholder engagement, physical field research,

reviewing past literature and a cost-benefit impact analysis through specific examples and various

macro-scale projection influences, certain research limitations as they seldom incorporate sudden,

large scale factors or risk shocks apart from the complexities in accurately calculating these costs.

Often aggregate costs do not sufficiently allow for divergences across individual examples. Certain

econometric limitations can affect the research quality Models, information, effects and variable

parameters are overwhelmingly conditional upon certain theoretical assumptions postulated being

satisfied. These factors are often situation specific and can often lack specific relevance to this thesis’s

key research objectives. Many econometric model-based approaches often ignore location/site specific

physical characteristics. Solely relying on a theoretical econometric method approach which denies

qualitative information aspects and a practical application to solutions that might assist principal

affected stakeholders directly. Quantitative approach models, information, effects and variable

parameters including these sources are overwhelmingly conditional upon certain theoretical

assumptions postulated being satisfied as further research disadvantages. These factors are often

situation specific and lacking specific relevance to this thesis’s key research objectives . This thesis

agrees with Marra (2014) that many quantitative model-based approaches often ignore location/site

specific physical port, shipping, environment and Pacific climate specific characteristics along with

related individual nation, seaport, shipping and stakeholder consequences, requirements, concerns and

solutions.

The ideal method structure may equally provide elusive but the example below contains essential

elements from reviewing myriad theses that managed to graduate. A thesis method chapter should

82

focus on establishing the theoretical framework, equations, definitions and survey/interview/ data

collection technique that supports the thesis, especially as it answers the existing literature review

research gaps to support key research questions and results. However actual answers are preferred in

separate results chapters and appendixes. Justification of text neatens appearance. It helps to check

that every reference is attached in an end list and that each cited appears in the list and anything else

deleted as superfluous. To minimise pages, the actual survey, informed consent form, invitation survey

participation letter, reminder email and ethics application are aligned in separate appendixes, along

with any additional method notes and results, simply and concisely referred to in the research

methodology chapter. If equations are to be utilised, to appease supervisors it is advised to neaten

them consistently i.e. utilising the Microsoft Word Equation Solver Tool, to define all variables/ terms; to

provide a heading above in bold and insert the chapter number/equation number in brackets i.e. (3.1) =

Chapter 3 Equation 1 for referencing. It helps to avoid the same flaws so they creatively invent new

issues to harangue candidates about!

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY3.1 INTRODUCTION: PROPOSED RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND STRATEGY3.2 EXISTING CLIMATE CHANGE LITERATURE METHODOLOGY APPROACHES3.2.1 Qualitative Methods3.2.2 Simulation Modelling Methods3.2.3 Econometric Methods3.2.4 Addressing Current Literature Method Gaps: Establishing an Integrated Climate Change Impact Methodology for Pacific Maritime Supply Chain Stakeholders3.3 STAGE I: PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION: SEMISTRUCTURED INTERVIEWS3.3.1 Research Questions3.3.2 Pre-Testing Interview Process and Decided Interview Questions3.3.3 Justifying Specific Pacific Research Case Study Locations3.3.4 Justifying Specific Pacific Commodities3.3.5 Sampling Strategy/Identifying Potential Respondent Stakeholders3.3.6 Data Collection Methods3.3.7. Data Management and Storage3.3.8 Ethical Considerations and Risk Management3.3.9 Monitoring, Bias and Error Control3.4: STAGE II: CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY-RISK ASSESSMENT FOR A PACIFIC MARITIME SUPPLY CHAIN3.4.1. Defining Climate Change Vulnerability and Risks: (General, Long and Short Term).3.4.2 Climate Change Projections, Scenario Assumptions and Time Horizons

83

3.4.3 Risk Probability, Likelihood, and Consequences and Factors Affecting Risks3.4.4 Thesis Proposed Vulnerability-Risk Analysis Method StagesFigure 3.3: Proposed Vulnerability-Risk Analysis Matrix For A Supply Chain3.5: STAGE III: ECONOMIC IMPACT COST ANALYSIS FOR A MARITIME SUPPLY CHAIN3.5.1. Time Horizons and Climate Change Scenarios3.5.2. Impact Cost Analysis Theoretical Framework and Methodology Assumptions3.5.3. Impact Cost Analysis Model Limitations3.6: STAGE IV: IDENTIFYING CONSTRAINTS TO CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND ADAPTATION STRATEGY RESPONSE SOLUTIONS3.6.1: Existing Constraints to Climate Change Adaptation3.7. SUMMARY

In reviewing past climate change method studies; this thesis advocates that for a theoretical framework

methodology to be robust, reliable, accessible, understandable, consistent and valid for inclusion; it

needs to be specifically applicable to its Key Research Questions, overcoming previously identified

literature gaps. An economic impact cost analysis method for general and Pacific supply chains would

need to justify/consider the time horizon/s used, the projected climate change scenarios used; the

interest/discount rates over time; reasons to justify specific variable inclusion; econometric issues, data

availability, data collection and data analysis; plus data management policy and any potential ethical

issues as covered by this thesis in various chapters and sections. The method will need to consider the

direct economic impact costs of climate change inaction versus costs of adaptation for combined long

and short-term risks for Pacific supply chain stakeholders for a specific commodity across different

country examples and consider reasons for divergences in results. The number of countries to use; the

regression tests and statistical analysis to perform; how the method applies to the context of local,

regional and global ports, shipping and maritime supply chains would also need to be included and

justified, as this study’s unique conceptual contribution to economic impact analysis methods, in the

absence of any previous literature identified study methodology that sufficiently addresses all

theoretical framework methodology issues. It will need to consider the most effective methodology that

can compute the research objectives across divergent supply chains being generalisable to other global

examples, to be of further research significance. These research method techniques are

comprehensively covered in existing social science research textbooks.

Supervisors generally feel reassured by traditional structures even when you are innovative enough to

provide the prototype in your research area and there is fairly non-existent preceding literature.

Methodologies need to consider the conceptual framework which seeks to summarise your key

theoretical concepts and link them to previous literature to distinguish your contribution, the analytical

84

framework, data collection process, survey techniques, ethics and bias control. As a candidate I

ascertained empirical data tables of Pacific region climate change risk probabilities for maritime supply

chains where none previously existed to confirm to my supervisors that the experimental techniques

and equations were theoretically valid. Providing these estimates echoes this tradition of empirical data

that can be published and analysed. Regardless of the quality or accuracy; quantitative data is value far

more significantly than qualitative data –no matter how profound the insight.

Sampling data quality and validity is highly conditional upon the sample size, which in turn depends

significantly and increasingly on the psychological factor –how charismatic and perspicacious are you

are as an early career research at getting people to cooperate and provide data/information needed for

your study? Systematic sampling…. random sampling, convenience sampling, stratified random

sampling, purposive sampling, cluster sampling, accidental sampling, accidental quota sampling,

sampling error –random and systematic.

CHAPTER XVIII: Publish Or Perish…

85

If there is conclusive evidence about the perverse nature of modern academia, it consists of the fact

that it is not the quality of one’s research nor the quality of one’s teaching, nor the capacity to network

and attract industry support and funding that matters. It does not matter how many conferences and

papers which are accepted or even book chapters, nor the winning of prizes –nor even the capacity to

advise the chief executive officers of global corporations and government ministers/ secretary cabinet

level of a G20 nation and transformed the world; nor how much media exposure and attention your

work has created –and even more impressively that you managed to achieve it on your own, that

matters… It is not what who know but who you know, how flattering and journal internal quoting/how

much money you have or prestigious reputation? The sincerest proof of how our universities fail to

advance our humanity, is that none of these accomplishments really matter –not even doing a PHD

itself that counts, but of the pestilence that blights the tertiary education sector –the pressure to publish

or perish! The sole criterion on which scholarships, tenure and ratings are motivated consist of the

ability to secure publication in so called peer-reviewed journals. These journals are valued on the basis

of reputation –more specifically a metric known as the impact factor. The higher the impact factor, the

greater the journal prestige.

It can be extremely challenging to publish yet the security of tenure exists on the power wielded by an

unelected, unaccountable and potent cabal of unqualified editors, reviewers and professional readers

no matter how imperative or valuable the work might be in reality, it is often dismissed on spurious

grounds such as annoying certain members of the cabal, failure to follow some archaic, pedantic

proofreading requirement or insufficient citation of the journal’s own previous papers or issues. I have

pioneered the first academic work in several areas, especially as an African and have known others

who have similarly done so. Yet work has often been rejected as unoriginal or lacking references from

that journal… despite journals. Yet how much research languishes, simply because it can never be

published –because universities insist on this pressure yet provide no forum to do so. In addition the

process of relying upon a handful of obscure journals is arcane and obsolescent to the myriad

challengers that plague this world. Publishers complement universities failure to advance humanity with

complete and utter irrelevance, often dictating that articles should indicate specific applications not just

theoretically but contribute to policy makers and stakeholders, whilst ignoring the evident fact that

industry, communities and individuals are scarcely aware of, interested or actually bother to read these

journals thus further deriding the validity of impact factors… Equally, publishers fail to accept practical

industry experience or from non-formal academia, even those whose research may be perfectly valid

with sound contributions and innovative, prejudiced in requiring submissions to formally proclaim their

academic affiliation –often biased towards a recognised list of existing universities.

86

Given this, why do you want to publish? In academia it is expected and mandatory, but for those of us

who seek life beyond university, the motivation to persist on this time engulfing ordeal needs to be

considered –if only for what it demands from you personally.

Although considered the only metric of intermediate and continuous success (given how long it takes to

complete a PHD –and that it is considered not so very impressive to jaded academics who already

have theirs –perhaps even a second and post-doctorates as well), there is little guidance formally given

by many universities as to how to succeed in publishing and just what it takes to navigate this

quagmire. Yet it will be reminded again and again and again by supervisors fervently. Many leave it to

the discretion of the overcommitted, harried supervisors or the ignorant, fledgling candidate to figure it

out for themselves. It does help if supervisors are willing to assist you in converting it. Alternatively, if it

is accepted at a conference, publicised sufficiently, is of sound research quality and you network

brilliantly, then this might maximise its exposure to lurking journal or book editors always snuffling about

for anything that might pep the marketability of their publications.

In response to the fact that my supervisors and universities created this unreasonable expectation to

publish research output, I sought advice from a variety of areas beyond my supervisors including

books, the Internet, contacting other students, academics and policy makers who had succeeded –or at

least experience, along with desperate appeals to the journal editors and professional reviewers

themselves to decipher this mystery. Although rejection is painful and the probability of actual

publication is remote, there were a number of publishing techniques and tips that arose through months

of slogging laboriously to increase potential –or minimise automatic rejection. Journals prefer a paper

that can clearly present its incremental contribution against related literature in the areas rather than

something planet shatteringly original by clarifying: (1) the importance of the issue addressed and

problem solved, (2) novelty and distinctive features of proposed methodology/models/approaches

against published methods, and (3) important findings/ managerial insights/ policy implications drawn

from analytical results. Journals are biased towards empirical work; citations of myriad previous articles

and results. They favour generalised results over local case studies; are biased in disdaining junior

academics and students no matter how impressive. The Research Question needs to be motivated as

to why it is significant and worth publishing/researching-What difference will the method make and how

does it differ/improve upon existing sources and linked clearly They claim to seek original contributions

but limit such: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication? It is a collection of recent literature sources on the topic

<b>2. Relationship to Literature:  </b> Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources?  Is any significant work ignored? Yes it does

87

<b>3. Methodology:  </b>Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed?  Are the methods employed appropriate? There is no clear methodology but only conceptual discussion in very general terms

<b>4. Results:  </b> Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?  Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper? There are no any empirical results

<b>5. Implications for research, practice and/or society:  </b>Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society?  Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)?  What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)?  Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper? The author is at early stages of his research in this field, and there are no any practical results at this point

<b>6. Quality of Communication:   </b> Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership?  Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: consider conceptual and literature review pieces if they are well done and make a significant theoretical contribution; the journal website has several editorials posted written by the editorial team that are designed to familiarize prospective authors with the sort of research the journal seeks. Similarly, what previous studies published in the journal are relevant to your topic? How can you position your research to establish relevance for the journal’s readers? In other words, please do the diligence and build a case for why your research belongs. There are also experienced journal editorial board members from your area that you might wish to contact for advice or perhaps your major professor has experience positioning research for publication at journals in our field?

Journal articles like conference papers include the title, author/s affiliation, abstract and keywords,

mentioning funding sources, acknowledgements and references to conclude. Divergent types of

publication papers including the more conventional structure with purpose/aim, literature review,

88

method, findings, conclusions and policy implications/future directions of research; and those that are

much rarer with far lower probability of being published but more valued as conceptual literature

papers. Conceptual papers occur if you are not making an incremental contribution to research as with

most, or applying an existing theory/framework but have something entirely new and brilliant. Then

there are literature review papers meant to summarise but increasingly more stringent requiring formal

methods and “results,” –preferably empirical from an editorial perspective. Literature review methods

can be summarised into issues based, narrative and systematic

Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review Marco Pautasso 2013

Rule 1: Define a Topic and Audience

How to choose which topic to review? There are so many issues in contemporary science that you could spend a lifetime of attending conferences and reading the literature just pondering what to review. On the one hand, if you take several years to choose, several other people may have had the same idea in the meantime. On the other hand, only a well-considered topic is likely to lead to a brilliant literature review [8]. The topic must at least be:

i. interesting to you (ideally, you should have come across a series of recent papers related to your line of work that call for a critical summary),

ii. an important aspect of the field (so that many readers will be interested in the review and there will be enough material to write it), and

iii. a well-defined issue (otherwise you could potentially include thousands of publications, which would make the review unhelpful).

Ideas for potential reviews may come from papers providing lists of key research questions to be answered [9], but also from serendipitous moments during desultory reading and discussions. In addition to choosing your topic, you should also select a target audience. In many cases, the topic (e.g., web services in computational biology) will automatically define an audience (e.g., computational biologists), but that same topic may also be of interest to neighbouring fields (e.g., computer science, biology, etc.).

Rule 2: Search and Re-search the LiteratureAfter having chosen your topic and audience, start by checking the literature and downloading relevant papers. Five pieces of advice here:

i. keep track of the search items you use (so that your search can be replicated [10]),

ii. keep a list of papers whose pdfs you cannot access immediately (so as to retrieve them later with alternative strategies),

iii. use a paper management system (e.g., Mendeley, Papers, Qiqqa, Sente),iv. define early in the process some criteria for exclusion of irrelevant papers

(these criteria can then be described in the review to help define its scope), and

v. do not just look for research papers in the area you wish to review, but also seek previous reviews.

89

The chances are high that someone will already have published a literature review (Figure 1), if not exactly on the issue you are planning to tackle, at least on a related topic. If there are already a few or several reviews of the literature on your issue, my advice is not to give up, but to carry on with your own literature review,

Figure 1. A conceptual diagram of the need for different types of literature reviews depending on the amount of published research papers and literature reviews.The bottom-right situation (many literature reviews but few research papers) is not just a theoretical situation; it applies, for example, to the study of the impacts of climate change on plant diseases, where there appear to be more literature reviews than research discussing in your review the approaches, limitations, and conclusions of past reviews,

i. trying to find a new angle that has not been covered adequately in the previous reviews, and

ii. incorporating new material that has inevitably accumulated since their appearance.

When searching the literature for pertinent papers and reviews, the usual rules apply:

i. be thorough,ii. use different keywords and database sources (e.g., DBLP, Google Scholar,

ISI Proceedings, JSTOR Search, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science), andiii. look at who has cited past relevant papers and book chapters.

Rule 3: Take Notes While Reading

If you read the papers first, and only afterwards start writing the review, you will need a very good memory to remember who wrote what, and what your impressions and associations were while reading each single paper. My advice is, while reading, to start writing down interesting pieces of information, insights about how to organize the review, and thoughts on what to write. This way, by the time you have read the literature you selected, you will already have a rough draft of the review.Of course, this draft will still need much rewriting, restructuring, and rethinking to obtain a text with a coherent argument [11], but you will have avoided the danger posed by staring at a blank document. Be careful when taking notes to use quotation marks if you are provisionally copying verbatim from the literature. It is advisable then to reformulate such quotes with your own words in the final draft. It is important to be careful in noting the references already at this stage, so as to avoid

90

misattributions. Using referencing software from the very beginning of your endeavour will save you time.

Rule 4: Choose the Type of Review You Wish to WriteAfter having taken notes while reading the literature, you will have a rough idea of the amount of material available for the review. This is probably a good time to decide whether to go for a mini- or a full review. Some journals are now favouring the publication of rather short reviews focusing on the last few years, with a limit on the number of words and citations. A mini-review is not necessarily a minor review: it may well attract more attention from busy readers, although it will inevitably simplify some issues and leave out some relevant material due to space limitations. A full review will have the advantage of more freedom to cover in detail the complexities of a particular scientific development, but may then be left in the pile of the very important papers “to be read” by readers with little time to spare for major monographs.There is probably a continuum between mini- and full reviews. The same point applies to the dichotomy of descriptive vs. integrative reviews. While descriptive reviews focus on the methodology, findings, and interpretation of each reviewed study, integrative reviews attempt to find common ideas and concepts from the reviewed material [12]. A similar distinction exists between narrative and systematic reviews: while narrative reviews are qualitative, systematic reviews attempt to test a hypothesis based on the published evidence, which is gathered using a predefined protocol to reduce bias [13], [14]. When systematic reviews analyse quantitative results in a quantitative way, they become meta-analyses. The choice between different review types will have to be made on a case-by-case basis, depending not just on the nature of the material found and the preferences of the target journal(s), but also on the time available to write the review and the number of coauthors [15].

Rule 5: Keep the Review Focused, but Make It of Broad Interest

Whether your plan is to write a mini- or a full review, it is good advice to keep it focused 16,17. Including material just for the sake of it can easily lead to reviews that are trying to do too many things at once. The need to keep a review focused can be problematic for interdisciplinary reviews, where the aim is to bridge the gap between fields [18]. If you are writing a review on, for example, how epidemiological approaches are used in modelling the spread of ideas, you may be inclined to include material from both parent fields, epidemiology and the study of cultural diffusion. This may be necessary to some extent, but in this case a focused review would only deal in detail with those studies at the interface between epidemiology and the spread of ideas.While focus is an important feature of a successful review, this requirement has to be balanced with the need to make the review relevant to a broad audience. This square may be circled by discussing the wider implications of the reviewed topic for other disciplines.

Rule 6: Be Critical and Consistent

91

Reviewing the literature is not stamp collecting. A good review does not just summarize the literature, but discusses it critically, identifies methodological problems, and points out research gaps [19]. After having read a review of the literature, a reader should have a rough idea of:

i. the major achievements in the reviewed field,ii. the main areas of debate, andiii. the outstanding research questions.

It is challenging to achieve a successful review on all these fronts. A solution can be to involve a set of complementary co-authors: some people are excellent at mapping what has been achieved, some others are very good at identifying dark clouds on the horizon, and some have instead a knack at predicting where solutions are going to come from. If your journal club has exactly this sort of team, then you should definitely write a review of the literature! In addition to critical thinking, a literature review needs consistency, for example in the choice of passive vs. active voice and present vs. past tense.

Rule 7: Find a Logical StructureLike a well-baked cake, a good review has a number of telling features: it is worth the reader's time, timely, systematic, well written, focused, and critical. It also needs a good structure. With reviews, the usual subdivision of research papers into introduction, methods, results, and discussion does not work or is rarely used. However, a general introduction of the context and, toward the end, a recapitulation of the main points covered and take-home messages make sense also in the case of reviews. For systematic reviews, there is a trend towards including information about how the literature was searched (database, keywords, time limits) [20].How can you organize the flow of the main body of the review so that the reader will be drawn into and guided through it? It is generally helpful to draw a conceptual scheme of the review, e.g., with mind-mapping techniques. Such diagrams can help recognize a logical way to order and link the various sections of a review [21]. This is the case not just at the writing stage, but also for readers if the diagram is included in the review as a figure. A careful selection of diagrams and figures relevant to the reviewed topic can be very helpful to structure the text too [22].

Rule 8: Make Use of Feedback

Reviews of the literature are normally peer-reviewed in the same way as research papers, and rightly so [23]. As a rule, incorporating feedback from reviewers greatly helps improve a review draft. Having read the review with a fresh mind, reviewers may spot inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and ambiguities that had not been noticed by the writers due to rereading the typescript too many times. It is however advisable to reread the draft one more time before submission, as a last-minute correction of typos, leaps, and muddled sentences may enable the reviewers to focus on providing advice on the content rather than the form.Feedback is vital to writing a good review, and should be sought from a variety of colleagues, so as to obtain a diversity of views on the draft. This

92

may lead in some cases to conflicting views on the merits of the paper, and on how to improve it, but such a situation is better than the absence of feedback. A diversity of feedback perspectives on a literature review can help identify where the consensus view stands in the landscape of the current scientific understanding of an issue [24].

Rule 9: Include Your Own Relevant Research, but Be ObjectiveIn many cases, reviewers of the literature will have published studies relevant to the review they are writing. This could create a conflict of interest: how can reviewers report objectively on their own work [25]? Some scientists may be overly enthusiastic about what they have published, and thus risk giving too much importance to their own findings in the review. However, bias could also occur in the other direction: some scientists may be unduly dismissive of their own achievements, so that they will tend to downplay their contribution (if any) to a field when reviewing it.In general, a review of the literature should neither be a public relations brochure nor an exercise in competitive self-denial. If a reviewer is up to the job of producing a well-organized and methodical review, which flows well and provides a service to the readership, then it should be possible to be objective in reviewing one's own relevant findings. In reviews written by multiple authors, this may be achieved by assigning the review of the results of a coauthor to different coauthors.

Rule 10: Be Up-to-Date, but Do Not Forget Older Studies

Given the progressive acceleration in the publication of scientific papers, today's reviews of the literature need awareness not just of the overall direction and achievements of a field of inquiry, but also of the latest studies, so as not to become out-of-date before they have been published. Ideally, a literature review should not identify as a major research gap an issue that has just been addressed in a series of papers in press (the same applies, of course, to older, overlooked studies (“sleeping beauties” [26])). This implies that literature reviewers would do well to keep an eye on electronic lists of papers in press, given that it can take months before these appear in scientific databases. Some reviews declare that they have scanned the literature up to a certain point in time, but given that peer review can be a rather lengthy process, a full search for newly appeared literature at the revision stage may be worthwhile. Assessing the contribution of papers that have just appeared is particularly challenging, because there is little perspective with which to gauge their significance and impact on further research and society.

preventable barriers to publishing in this Journal. These barriers include:

1) Lack of theoretical contribution. I am surprised when I see a manuscript that is submitted without mention of theory. This typically leads to an immediate reject. Interestingly, most of these manuscripts do make meaningful contributions to theory, but the authors never discuss the theory. A more common occurrence is

93

when authors mention a theory on the front-end of the paper as a reason to motivate the study, but then fail to explain any meaningful contribution that the research makes to theory. Authors need to not just mention theory or use theory as a basis for the research, but instead clearly show how and where their research contributes to building or extending theory. In some cases, bringing in and testing theory from other disciplines might represent a theoretical contribution, but authors should be cautioned that contextualizing theory or constructs is not a contribution in itself. Instead, authors should describe where these theories fall short in explaining logistics/supply chain management (L/SCM) phenomena, and show how the theory can be extended or modified to adequately explain phenomena. In sum, research needs to be rooted in theory and also contribute to enhancing our understanding of theory.

2) Poor writing or grammar. r. Professional proof-reading services are widely available. Although typically not cheap, these services can help make the difference between an article that is difficult to understand (which I will not send out to reviewers) and one that has potential to progress through the review process. Finally, I also urge authors to not merely use a friend who has better English skills to proof the paper. Indeed, even I, a native English speaker, still require grammatical editing from time to time. If you are asked to have the paper professionally proofed before resubmitting, then please do just that. Better still; please have this done before submitting the original manuscript.

3) Too specific to research context. to a certain region or country –not generalisable4)5) Using context as a contribution. Related to the above, specific contexts can

represent useful laboratories for testing theory in a meaningful way. However, a context in and of itself is not a contribution. n. Instead, authors should seek to find something about the context where additional theory needs to be used to fully explain phenomena. Or, perhaps they can show that a theory essentially fails to predict outcomes in a given context, which then drives scholars to rethink the basis of that theory. Taking this kind of approach can be a useful way to use context as an appropriate laboratory for extending, or refuting theory.

6) Failure to contribute to the literature When I see a new submission that seems to span across topics (say, OR, management information systems, industrial engineering, etc.), one of the first things that I do is review the references section. More often than not, I find that there is little to no mention of articles from L/SCM journals. I am by no means recommending that authors should arbitrarily include references to IJLM and other top journals in the field, but once a paper is written and there are few references to these journals, authors should seriously consider whether or not IJLM is an appropriate outlet. If authors wish to target IJLM, they should be deliberate in their positioning of the article.

7) Failure to provide actionable recommendations for practitioners. I see many great research articles that barely mention (if at all) implications for managers and other practitioners. IJLM has a rich history of publishing articles from which someone outside of academia can pick up and glean useful and actionable information. This tradition needs to continue, and research articles that do not provide significant managerial implications will have little chance of acceptance.

94

8) Poor article structure and failure to include basic elements. Although there is no “one size fits all” format for a research article and different methods call for different structures, there are some foundational elements that need to be included in every article. There are also some points that need to be made at certain places in the article. I outline some of these, below.

a. The article should start off with motivation for the research, defining the problem in a way that shows relevance to both academicians and practitioners.

b. The research question and/or statement of purpose need to be very clear and stated early in the article. The contributions of the research for theory and practice need to be explicitly stated in the introduction.

c. The article must include enough of a literature review to show where this article “fits” into the general stream of L/SCM literature. I reiterate this point that I made earlier (#6, above) because it is often a primary reason for a desk reject. Although literature from outside the discipline can surely be used here, the case needs to be made for how this new article complements and extends knowledge in the L/SCM area.

d. Theory needs to be discussed throughout, and emphasized on both the front- and back-end of the article.

e. The method description and analysis procedures need to be consistent with other recent articles published. With rare exception, the research context and specifics regarding the research population or sample frame do not need to be discussed in the front-end of the paper; save this discussion for the method section.

f. The results need to be presented clearly and concisely, yet with enough detail to demonstrate validity and reliability.

g. The article should include adequate discussion, and should further describe the previously stated contributions and implications for theory and practice. I see too many articles that skip a discussion section, moving straight from a presentation of the results to a conclusion that only briefly mentions the meaning of the study. If the research doesn’t provide enough motivation to present a well-articulated discussion, then one might question if that research was even worth doing in the first place.

h. There should be a presentation of limitations, as well as future research ideas.

9) Submitting an article simply to “receive some feedback.” Some scholars believe it is a good idea to submit an article to a journal (knowing that it is incomplete or doesn’t represent his or her best work) in order to obtain useful feedback. However, I don’t find this to be an ethical practice. Journals expend finite resources to review manuscripts. One review typically represents at least a half-day’s work for a reviewer (if not much more), and editors and associate editors spend a good deal of time managing the review process, reading manuscripts, and making decisions. I ask that authors don’t submit anything to IJLM that does not represent their best effort. I also encourage authors to send their prepared manuscripts to colleagues and senior scholars to receive “friendly reviews” before submitting. These colleagues can spend a fraction of the time reviewing the paper as they would doing a formal review, and

95

can usually offer more pointed and candid feedback. Articles that are sent to IJLM that obviously don’t represent a best effort are likely to be desk rejected.

Avoid plagiarism even self-citation and reuse–Cross-Check Software or Turnitin are often used by

editors. There are peer review process that are reputedly double blind. Yet the perverse thing is one is

often asked to nominate reviewers, even if not from same university a foolish proposition. It is

considered an honorific; yet as with the articles themselves, reviewer positions are unpaid and the

profits such as they are; go not to the reviewers or authors but perversely the editing company and

occasionally the editors as a monetary, academic scam for the most past. To aid in one’s chances of

being published, it is useful to consider editorial preferences not just past articles. I.e. to perhaps

research their background interests as well –ensure sufficient citation of their sources – pandering to

vanity and egos valued far more than actual scholarship. Networking is core at any conference. To run

into favourably impressed reviewers and editors -often who you know more than what you know. Seek

to be co-authors with influential, publishable names even if they do none of the work and often wish to

seek all of the credit as leading author. Above all –something original that reviewers and editors are

unfamiliar with is highly unlikely to get published as the journals are ultimately conservative relying on

existing sources. The most obvious is to check past issues –copies of those accessible online or in print

given specimens are often freely available to save the expense of purchase. The journal Maritime

Economics and Logistics was suspended for 2 years invalidating publication records because it was

found that too many authors were resorting to the inferred practice off the editors to inflate their impact

factor artificially by citing too many papers that were in the journal as opposed to having citations from

other journal publications

‘8 reasons I accepted your article' Journal editors reveal the top reasons a manuscript gets published, Elizabeth Zwaaf 15 January 2013

1. It provides insight into an important issue – for example, by explaining a wide variance when numbers are spread out from the mean or expected value, or by shedding light on an unsolved problem that affects a lot of people.

2. The insight is useful to people who make decisions, particularly long-term organizational decisions or, in our particular field, family decisions.

3. The insight is used to develop a framework or theory, either a new theory or advancing an existing one.

4. The insight stimulates new, important questions.

5. The methods used to explore the issue are appropriate (for example, data collection and analysis of data).

96

6. The methods used are applied rigorously and explain why and how the data support the conclusions.

7. Connections to prior work in the field or from other fields are made and serve to make the article's arguments clear.

8. The article tells a good story, meaning it is well written and easy to understand, the arguments are logical and not internally contradictory.

To publish effectively and strategically involves not just the right topic with a significant literature review,

method and findings but the right choice of journal/ editing and significant amount of patience, dogged

persistence, being impervious to caustic rejection and critique. One has to establish a point of contact

asking editors/reviewers for their advice

to ensure that you show that your manuscript is relevant to the journal (maritime focus), has reviewed existing relevant manuscripts published by the journal (to show this link) and is well structured and thought out. It is also important to make the link between theory and reality as theory can only be a representation of reality and the shortcomings should be examined in your discussions. –MPM

97

TRE adopts the following three major criteria for paper assessment. Therein, TRE may prefer a paper that can clearly present its incremental contribution against related literature in the areas of Transportation and Logistics by clarifying: (1) the importance of the issue addressed and problem solved, (2) novelty and distinctive features of proposed methodology/models/approaches against published methods, and (3) important findings/ managerial insights drawn from analytical results.

Good research is both timely and timeless

Good research is both relevant and rigorousGreat research remains meaningless if it is not well-communicated

It has nothing to do with your English writing skill, but more importantly related with following certain

stereotype of writing. As I told last year in my special lecture and most of Editor-In-Chiefs (EIC) tell us,

we should follow this rule as you are often desk-rejected due to the mistakes in this aspect: TRE EIC

more than 50% desk-reject and myself similar. Therefore, not just following this process, we lose the

chance of making it reviewed. Just to summarize it again, try to show these key elements in a very

compact and logical way at maximum 6,000 words including tables, figures and references:

• major research questions and why these are important for academia in terms of contribution

• literature review in the state-of-the-art form on less than 2-3 pages: it should be critical review

type, e.g., summary and your evaluation very objectively (subjectively) as the authors are more likely to

see your evaluations as the potential reviewers

• methodology: robustness and novelty

• data, results and significance

• implications and further research with limitation of your study.

A manuscript will be considered for publication:(a) only on the assurance that it has not in whole or in part or in substance been published or

submitted for publication elsewhere;

(b) on the understanding that it may be submitted in confidence to at least two expert

referees for evaluation; and

(c) on the understanding that the editors reserve the right to make whatever changes they

consider desirable:

(i) to bring the manuscript into the house style of journal;

(ii) to eliminate errors of typing, grammar, syntax, punctuation, spelling, idiom and the

like;

98

(iii) to eliminate ambiguity, illogicality, tautology, circumlocution and redundancy;

(iv) to produce accuracy and coherence;

(v) to improve the mode of expression and style of writing; and

(vi) to avoid possible criminal or civil liability.

It helps if you can persuade you supervisors or someone relatively known/ established in that area –or

at least in that journal to co-author not just to provide feedback. Journals like to be cited –so cite even

peripheral studies over more relevant journals given concise word limits if they occur in the same

journal field as this perversely inflates their own impact factor statistics…The question remains –to co-

author or not to co-author with supervisors and others

Candidate's publication and authorship

At the moment it appears that I will aim to produce/write it myself as it has been reviewed by the editors and is scheduled for publication but although it may be modified slightly depending on revisions,

Regarding your book chapter publication, the following points are noted:· Attached is the University’s policy on authorship. This policy should strictly be followed. Any ambiguity should be clarified, discussed and agreed upon. If you want us or your former supervisors to be co-authors contributing to the book chapter, you need to let us or your former supervisors know so we can work together with you to improve the quality of the paper; we don’t want to be authors of a poor quality paper or paper that we have not made any contribution to. If you want to be the sole author of the book chapter, feel free to go ahead as long as the book chapter does NOT use inputs from us. You also have the right to include it in your thesis as a chapter (as long as it is relevant to the thesis). But if it was published under your sole authorship, the thesis should have a statement something like: ‘The chapter XXX has been published as a book chapter of XXXX (provide the publication detail) with the candidate as the sole author and was written solely by the candidate at his own decision’. If the supervisors are not the authors of a published paper, they have no responsibility for its contents. You should try to publish a paper based on the literature review chapter that you have worked under our supervision. Moreover, you should have a plan for publication from your other chapters of the thesis.

How to fail at publishing

Supervisors harp on about co-authorship –contributing little to the process. We are supposed to

miraculously publish with little guidance even at the expense of significant research milestones

99

How one responds to feedback is incredibly delicate. Email is not the most secure communication and

social networking is also dangerous. I was reprimanded by the university because a journal editor of

one of the leading supply chain management journals too immature to ignore or address me personally

when I wrote a critical counter-response to his detailed critique and rejection of my article, breached

confidentiality requirements for correspondence and forwarded it to third parties. The university stated

that although they did not contribute to the research, that I wrote my critique in my personal capacity

not representing the university, they could violate rights. This was despite a so-called University

Communication policy that guaranteed email privacy between me and the respondent). Never mind I

was entitled to use my university email; because I represented myself as a student of that university/

researcher (which I was –what else do I describe myself); that they could intercept my emails;

reprimand me and do whatever they wished, if the editor asked them to. The university concerned for

its reputation rather than defending its student’s rights of privacy, psychological/mental health and

welfare, publicly apologised. It also asked me to disassociate myself from the university by not calling

myself that university’s PHD student if I intended to respond to editors in the future.

I cannot understand why a journal has contacted you when it should be confidential between me and the editor if it is the journal or why my emails have been invaded if the latter-it is extremely personal and dependent on me not the university. Secondly I apologise but as clearly mentioned I currently physically cannot meet, having provided an indication previously of being away and do not intend to meet as it is my business. Therefore I would point out most sincerely that it really is only my affair as I sought publishing advice previously from my supervisors/ the university but had to figure it out on my own. Having journal articles rejected is painful -but the humiliation should be my own -I do not know how my communication reached you -my privacy has been violated and respectfully I would like to know how it reached your attention and what business my communication is of you or the university. If journal editors misunderstand my article and my communication then naturally, I will refute a reply -as they will reject me anyway regardless of what I write. I really do not have any interest in publishing with that journal ever again but wrote the reply aware of those consequences so that they know. It is not a formal legal university requirement that I publish but I have tried to comply without any formal assistance from the university or supervisors as a candidate. If this happens as a result then I am less inclined to trust you or the university again in the future. Otherwise I might have to transact all communications using a secure email service and interpose further restrictions on my email. In the future it is my business, my life and my concern so I do not see why my candidate interests and personal communication has been so violated and would like to know how you became aware of this and how safe are my emails or my efforts at publishing or

100

contacting anyone else as I am convinced it is a violation of laws and university policy. I may even take legal/university advice in formal complaint at this gross intrusion as I did not ask for intervention or any meeting etc.

Be wary of predatory publishers in the urgency to be published. These frequently bombard inboxes of

hapless, desperate, fractured researchers, seeking to secure tenure and justify their several year

commitment to graduate or postgraduate studies/ a profession in research; from their school, from their

funding agency; from peers; from others… especially after conferences and other events. Trawling the

Internet; they promise a quick solution –they will publish your brilliant masterpiece… it is only later that

you realise you will have to pay heavily for the price; that you forfeit all intellectual property and

copyrights in perpetuity –and worse; it does not make any difference or matter because these journals

have no impact factor or credibility among any who matter. Worst of all; this threatens one’s own

credibility, forever tainted with the stigma of desperation and being incredibly gullible

In relation to rejecting the paper prior to peer review, the editor acted in accordance with the Journal’s author guidelines which state “A submission is initially evaluated by a Co-Editor-in-Chief concerning the appropriateness of the manuscript for JSCM. If the paper does not fit with the Journal's mission, or is deemed as not sufficiently strong in terms of theory or methodology, it will be rejected at this point.” Further, in the email sent rejecting the contribution the editor gave detailed reasoning as to why the paper had been rejected. Such action is in keeping with Section 7.1 of the International Standards for Editors which sets out: “Editors may reject a paper without peer review when it is deemed unsuitable for the journal’s readers or is of poor quality. This decision should be made in a fair and unbiased way. The criteria used to make this decision should be made explicit. […]” 

2.)   In relation to contacting the author’s institution, we believe that the editor acted in good faith and took a considered approach. Further, there are situations in the COPE flowcharts in which the editor should contact an author’s institution to resolve an issue, so it is not an action that is prohibited. Therefore, after considering the editor’s reasoning, we find no fault with his decision. 

3.)   In his complaint, the author refers to his “confidentiality [being] violated” and wants to understand if there are any “confidentiality guidelines or any other legally binding policies”. There are no guidelines or policies of the Journal which require the editor’s communications to be kept confidential, and the authors manuscript was never shared, so there is no fault. Further, at this stage no agreement had been entered into between the author and the Journal/Wiley, so there is no contractual obligation of confidence. The final issue is then whether the author is owed a legal duty of confidence; as the Journal is published by Wiley Periodicals Inc. the laws of the state of New York would apply. Our legal counsel sees no basis for a confidentiality claim upon the facts.

Therefore be warned –publishers can defecate over your future and you have no recourse other than

the power to smear and besmirch their professional reputations in the media and social networking,

causing boycotts.

On the other hand, it is an increasing trend of universities to give credit to those students who

miraculously win this random lottery, through publication incentives and also through the ability to

101

incorporate it as a thesis chapter –or even to create a thesis based entirely on publications apart from a

connecting introduction and conclusion chapter. However there are certain risks –a publication plan and

strong level of supervisor support and intervention is strongly cautioned otherwise one surrenders a

vast degree of autonomy and control –subject to editorial review/critique –which can take months and

months only for them to reject you…One point of friction involves that of the co-authorship policy.

Regardless of academic contribution; supervisors frequently wrestle with candidates to receive acclaim

if a conference paper or journal article succeeds the ordeal of publish or perish. I heard an example of a

female supervisor who absent on maternity leave was infuriated when she heard a student having not

managed to contact her, decided not to wait and published anyway –without the supervisor as an

author. The supervisor complained, delayed the thesis examination process, eventually left the

university and the student stranded –the student had to try again with another supervisor –cautionary

tale!

Some common features of publishable papers are a bit different from yours in terms of style, layout and emphasis. It is not just what you did, but perhaps more importantly how you present it in a standard way of academic writing. In this aspect, I suggest two things:

1. style: too wordyI received a similar review comment on my just accepted paper for Sustainability journal with my former PhD student. The reviewer pointed out that the draft is too wordy and I agreed with him/her as my student's writing style is similar to yours. Your sentences are mostly too long and wordy. This gives a bad impression in the beginning of reviewing it to the reviewers. So, I suggest that you streamline all the sentences by using maximum three lines per each sentence. Some of your sentences are even eight to nine lines.

2. Keeping key parts and showing contributionsI told you that most journals require manuscript to be less than 6,000 words and there are specific guidelines on how the manuscript should be presented in detail. Your layout is way different from typical published ones due to style and layout. So my advice on this is: please try to keep only necessary parts of your paper in relation to contribution, method, data, analysis and results with major findings. Perhaps if I were you, I will try to delete most of your writing while keeping minimum necessary parts. My experience in this aspect is that one of famous Editor-In-Chief in transportation are-TRD- cut all accepted papers to maximum four pages. He himself cut a lot even after accepting it. In the beginning, I was upset about this attitude, but later on I got to understand why he did this. In short, try to minimize what you are going to say. If you write long, you show more weaknesses to the reviewers. If you like me to streamline it, I can do that as I do this kind of job quite often. But current form of papers are not ready for my editing work. So if you agree with my editing work for joint-publication and once you restructure the papers following my two tips, then I can start my editing them in preparation for journal submission

102

The irony of the above statement is that this supervisor never actually physically contributed to the

thesis or aided in publication, despite being a highly reputable academic in his field internationally,

involved in myriad publications and contacts. He barely acknowledged his PHD student’s presence at

the most exclusive of international conferences of maritime economists at least twice. The below

provides an example of publishing manuscript and author rights –PHD students

CHAPTER XIX: Second Year –Annual Review of Progress

The unknown! Assuming that you have survived two years without suicide or murder, comparatively

sane and stable; what can you expect? The bad news is that most universities fail to provide any formal

103

guidelines or even expectations explicitly stated about how to formally prepare. Most focus on the first

year as their quality audit control of determining who is worthy to continue and who is an abject stain

besmirching the corridors of higher academia to be blotted away, nothing but a distant memory for all

their dreams. They also focus on the final thesis submission and examination process to try and justify

the rate of return on investment and resources/ gain publicity and glamourize their faculty and

supervisor’s reputation. The good news means that provided you don’t make any influential

adversaries, continue working with some progress, made at least a token effort to consider the

suggestions raised last time and obey the university policies/laws; it should be the easiest hurdle to

spring over. In Australia they glibly chant the mantra “No worries.” However, when you seek guidelines

and none exist. When it has to be raised and be rescheduled several times to occur. When it takes

weeks or longer to find out the results and there is nothing you can formally show to pass/fail to

concerned tax authorities, banks, bureaucrats, funding sources, fellow candidates, friends, family,

faculty and community, naturally there might be just a tad of concern. As students, as humans, we seek

to minimise uncertainty whenever it assails us personally –determining our entire future. PHD

candidates have few formal chances to prove themselves personally, to the University and others; to

convince us that this track was worth it and indicate progress.

This stage is less formalised than the confirmation of candidature. –The prime aim is to convince

supervisors that as a candidate you appear to be effectively working around halfway through your

research journey. As such the emphasis involved updating one’s research plan and Gantt chart or

projected timeline of specific objectives along with a moderately impressive publication plan. As a

candidate one completed and passed administrative coursework by now and indicated high progress in

the research methodology, survey and ethics process. Completing at least one public seminar since the

first year review to a wider audience is also considered standard. The main point of contention or

concern often centres around individual progress and whether or not you are likely to finish within the

prescribed 3 year degree deadline or require an extension. This can raise concerns of

finance/time/resources/attention etc from the supervisor/university’s perspective but health, welfare,

career prospects and ever venturing out into having a life from a candidate’s perspective. The other

standardised point is for each party to raise any concern/issue that they might wish to express.

However, candour isn’t always appreciated given concerns of tact. If your supervisors are being

evasive, distracting or painful to have them in the same room as the independent moderator means that

only the more daring, really concerned or the suicidal are likely to open up.

Expecting to pass however…

104

105

If a candidate does experience issues even if it is due to an unsupportive administration or personal

supervisory relationship affairs, they may face academic probation. This can involve further delays to

one’s research, personal life, vocation and dreamed future of escaping the confines and strictures of a

PHD. It can involve a candidate management plan where you are assigned certain tasks even if they

appear random, to apparently steer you in the course the institution seeks to ensure you finish on time.

They are not interested in the personal cost or equity or consequences, waste of resources/time etc –

only on ensuring a reasonably timely submission as a rate of return on their investment. Again this

illuminates how our universities fail to advance humanity via the PHD/ early career researcher

experience. For example, humiliatingly certain tasks are prescribed to specific dates, even if arbitrary,

pointless and counterproductive or not required by any other student.

106

Often the candidate forfeits choice –even if the tasks are superfluous, ignorant, ridiculous, contrary,

random or otherwise. For example having to change every single sentence so that it prescribes to three

random readability statistics using Microsoft Word Spelling and Grammar. This requires + Average

number per sentence of 25 words or less (including long academic references) + Flesch Readability

Ease level of 35 or higher, + Flesch-Kincaid Grade level of 16 or lower These requirements will be

maintained throughout the CMP process. The last 2 are at the level of US Army training manuals –

designed to be simplified to the level of a 9 th grade college level student at most although no recorded

thesis example could be found from that university nor any other student inflicted upon it. If you refuse,

you can be threatened with being hurled out.

CHAPTER XX: Ethics and Research Integrity

Apart from supervisors, getting stakeholders to participate, time and financial resources, one of the

most significant impediments to progressing one’s research and obtaining results through field research

107

is the ever increasing and more complicated requirement for researchers to follow ethics clearance

approval to ensure academic integrity through mandatory ‘virtue’’ being enforced.

Ethics Research Questions generally follow a similar template with a minimal risk process and one

which involves a full risk management ordeal with frequently recurring questions regardless of whether

your research involves non-human or human animals; just involves surveys/interviews; access to

secondary data or no ethical concerns whatsoever… If medical/ involving the below categories it can be

more challenging. Pregnant Women, Minors, i.e. children under 18 years of age, People highly

dependent on medical care who may be unable to give consent, or dependent relationships, People

with a cognitive impairment, an intellectual disability, or mental illness/vulnerable communities/ who

have experienced trauma, People who may be involved in illegal activities, People in other countries

and indigenous people. People who are identifiable by their membership of a cultural, ethnic or minority

group/ People whose primary language is other than English?/ Most research involves a summarised

project title and description and research background, motivation to indicate the study’s research

significance; the research location/s, the research questions/objectives and intended outcomes plus an

overview of the methodology; the process of data gathering (interviews, surveys and

psychometric/physical tests and sample stakeholder recruitment strategies; All funding sources also

have to be accounted for to assess potential conflict of interests. Universities also query whether the

ethical application process is conditional upon the approval of any other party –it can help to increase

the chances of acceptance if additional approval is necessary, as reassuring the Ethics Committee of

an alternative, professional evaluation and how efforts will occur to acquire the necessary information.

The forms often ask for a CV or to list qualifications of the researchers as reassurance.

108

Certain ethics forms also raise questions of intellectual copyright and property as well as identifying the

potential individual stakeholder, community and host nation benefits to motivate justifying the research

–and the time/effort invested in the research form. They also ask for the expected number of visits and

stakeholders -the project is anticipated to involve one main participant visit -the research initially submitted in advance where possible and is expected to take approximately 45 minutes -1 hour. Any additional/ follow up visits depend on the rate of participant compliance/ participation and if the participant is interested in a follow up interview. 6. BUDGET 6.1 Please supply a budget for this study, including a description of all financial support to be received by the researchers, such as fees or expenses.6.2 Does the researcher, the host department or the host institution, have any financial interest in the outcome of this research?6.3 Will there be payments according to the number of participants recruited? If so, please specifyWhat are the likely benefits to participants? Are there any potential risks to the participants?

Will participants be asked to provide any information or commit any act, which might diminish self-

respect or cause them to experience shame, embarrassment or regret?

Will any procedure be used which may have an unpleasant or harmful side effect?

Does the research use any stimuli, tasks, or procedures, which may be experienced by subjects as

stressful, noxious, or unpleasant? (NS 2.1)

Will you induce or create physical pain beyond mild discomfort?

Does your research explore potentially confidential business practices or seek to elicit potentially

confidential commercial information from participants?

If you answered yes to any of the above, please describe how your research will comply with the

National Statement (2.1). In addition, please describe the process(es) you will use to manage possible

risks (e.g. if interviews may cause distress, provide details of support processes that will be put into

place). If participants are to be referred to support services, contact details for these services must be

included on the participant information sheet.

How will potential participants be identified?

What relationship, (if any) will participants have to the researchers?

How many participants is it intended to recruit?

What are the inclusion/exclusion criteria?

How will participants be recruited, e.g. advertisements, notices?

Will there be any financial cost to the participant?

Who will explain the project to the participants? Will an interpreter be available?

Will a competent interpreter be available, if required?

How much time will be allowed for the potential participant to decide about taking part?

109

Will the participants be capable of giving consent themselves?

- If not, to whom will the project be explained and who will give consent?

In what form (written, or oral) will consent be obtained? If oral consent only, state reasons why.

INFORMATION AND CONSENT

(Note: Consent should be obtained in writing, unless there are good reasons to the contrary. If consent

is not to be obtained in writing the justification should be given and the circumstances under which

consent is obtained should be recorded. A protocol should be attached, indicating the form of words to

be used on the Consent Form and on any relevant Participant Information Sheet.)

Who will explain the project to potential participants?

Is there any special relationship between the person explaining the project, or any of the investigators

and the participants (e.g. teacher/student; doctor/patient)?

When and where will the explanation be given?

Will a competent interpreter be available, if required?

How much time will be allowed for the potential participant to decide about taking part?

Will the participants be capable of giving consent themselves?

- If not, to whom will the project be explained and who will give consent?

In what form (written, or oral) will consent be obtained? If oral consent only, state reasons why.

Specimen examples of university forms are provided below:

University/Official crest/logo

Invitation Letter to participate in an interview/survey about …...

110

Dear Sir/Madam

I sincerely apologise for the intrusion upon your valuable time. My name is …. and I am a doctoral candidate at the …. College, University of… in…. This research is conducted as a partial fulfilment of my Doctor of Philosophy Degree in …. under the supervision of …. The main focus of this research is to identify the potential….and to evaluate potential …. response strategy solutions, including possible constraints to implementing adaptation. As your insights, experience and knowledge are expected to be highly relevant to improve this research, I would kindly request you to participate in an interview that will help me to gain greater awareness of your current status concerning information related to as it currently and potentially may affect your …. throughout the entire maritime supply chain. I would also highly your views on any potential adaptation solutions, including possible constraints to adapting solutions.

Your interview participation is very significant for this research as it represents the first study located, to concentrate specifically on …. stakeholders directly affected and considering …. constraints to adaptation. It will take approximately 45-60 minutes of your highly valuable time. A copy of the interview questions is attached. All individual responses collected through the interview, including the results will be treated as strictly confidential and the anonymity of participant, company, authority and individual stakeholders is assured. For your reassurance, this survey has been peer reviewed and approved by the …. Social Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). The ethics reference number is…This committee and researcher consider this essential to preserve your rights under the 2007 Australian Code For The Responsible Conduct of Research, sections 1.6-1.8 (detailing researcher responsibilities towards research and participants and section 2 (detailing the requirement for researcher responsibilities towards safeguarding research data and primary materials), the similar researcher responsibilities outlined in section 1 of the updated May 2015 version of the 2007 Australia National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research, along with the ethical responsibilities of researchers under the University …Research Ethics Policy section …. These codes are viewable online on the University of …. website and a full copy can be emailed to you by this researcher if required.

If you agree to participate, please sign the attached consent form and let me know the best time and venue to conduct the interview within the next …. months by replying to this email. While your participation will be highly appreciated, we will respect your decision to decline or withdraw at any stage. Your participation is entirely voluntary and you are free to withdraw it at any time without providing an explanation. If you agree to participate you will have the right to request the relevant results chapter to ensure that your rights are safeguarded in regards to confidentiality and anonymity. You will also have the right to ask that any data you have provided is removed from the study. While there may be few direct or immediate benefits to you and your organisation/company for taking part, but it is hoped that research investigating the …. will provide certain indirect or long-term benefits towards aiding …. stakeholders such as you, in preparing to …. with minimal disruption costs. It is anticipated that the data collection should be completed by mid2017 but final thesis approval and publication may extend to…. This research’s findings may be presented and published in journals/conferences but only aggregated, results without personal identifying information. If you are interested, I would be willing to email you a copy of this research thesis and any associated research output in the attached CV after it has formally been examined, accepted and published, in thanks for your generous attention to this email.

With the greatest of respect and thanks

Name, surname Full university/research organisation contact postal/physical address, contact number and emailOfficial logo

111

PHD Reminder Email 2016

PHD Topic: THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE FUTURE OF PACIFIC MARITIME SUPPLY CHAINS, SEAPORTS AND SHIPPING: HOW STAKEHOLDERS CAN ADAPT.

Dear Sir/Madam

Once more I sincerely apologise for the intrusion upon your valuable time. As you will be aware from my previous email dated…), I am conducting the first PHD research study on …for …. stakeholders and to evaluate potential adaptation response strategy solutions, including possible constraints to implementing adaptation. In our previous email (repeated below), we invited you to participate in a survey and express interest in a following interview. If you have completed the survey, we thank you for your valuable time and insight. If you have not, we invite you to complete the survey again through the link… or through the attached pdf questionnaire form and emailed directly to the email address provided below. …. is projected to have many uncertain risks and costs, especially for ….and this research’s purpose aims to enhance stakeholder’s … through awareness and adaptation. We would highly appreciate any assistance that you might be able to provide to enhance the quality and relevance of this research. It is anticipated that the data collection should be completed by mid2017 but final thesis approval and publication may extend to 2018/2019. As indicated earlier, If you are interested I would be willing to email you a copy of this research thesis and any associated research output after it has formally been examined, accepted and published, in thanks for your generous attention to this email.

With the greatest of respect and thanks

Yours sincerelyName, surname

Physical address and university logo

Specimen University PHD Participant Informed Consent Form July 2016

PHD Topic Title

This form is to be completed by …. stakeholders who have received a copy of the PHD sample survey and interview letters inviting participation in this study, a copy of the proposed survey/interview questionnaire, the ethical clearance authorisation form granted by this study along with this university participant consent form.

1. I agree to take part in the research study named above.2. I have read and understood the Information Sheet for this study.3. The nature and possible effects of the study have been explained to me.

112

4. I understand that the study involves participation in a survey and interview estimated to take approximately …. minutes in total; that the purpose of the study has been explained and that I will have the opportunity to review any draft containing my participation via an electronic email submission prior to submission of the thesis for final examination5. I understand that participation may involve potential risks of disclosing commercial information and personally but these risks will be mitigated through the preservation of the conditions of anonymity and confidentiality proposed.6. I understand that all research data will be securely stored on the University of …. premises for five years from the publication of the study results, and will then be destroyed or I understand that all research data will be securely stored on the University of…. premises for five years from the publication of the study results, and will then be destroyed unless I give permission for my data to be stored in an archive.I agree to have my study data archived. 7. Any questions that I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction.8. I understand that the researcher(s) will maintain confidentiality and that any information I supply to the researcher(s) will be used only for the purposes of the research. Any personal information will not be disclosed to other participants, only aggregated results in exchange for consenting to participate in the study, if sought by the participants.9. I understand through the invitation to participate that the researcher has indicated how my ethical rights will be safeguarded under specific portions of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research and by the Social Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC).10. I understand that the results of the study will be published so that I cannot be identified as a participant. or if with permission I agree to be identified as a participant in the publication of the study results. 11. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I may withdraw at any time without any effect. If I so wish, I may request that any data I have supplied be withdrawn from the research until [date]. or [if it will not be possible to withdraw data] I understand that I will not be able to withdraw my data after completing the survey and interview as it will have been collected anonymously.

Participant’s name: _______________________________________________________

Participant’s signature: ____________________________________________________

Date: ________________________Statement by Investigator

113

I have explained the project and the implications of participation in it to this volunteer and I believe that the consent is informed and that he/she understands the implications of participation.If the Investigator has not had an opportunity to talk to participants prior to them participating, the following must be ticked. The participant has received the Information Sheet where my details have been provided so participants have had the opportunity to contact me prior to consenting to participate in this project.

Investigator’s name: _______________________________________________________

Investigator’s signature: ____________________________________________________

Date: ________________________

Thank you for the valuable time and attention that you have committed to answering the questions. If there are any additional concerns, if you would like further information and/or a copy of this research once completed and supervisor approved prior to submission as a thesis, please feel free to contact the principal field investigator … at….

CONFIDENTIALITY AND USE OF RESULTS

How will data be handled to safeguard confidentiality (both during and after completion of the research

project)?

How long will the data from the study be kept and who will be responsible for its safekeeping?

Who will have access to the raw data and/or clinical records during, or after, the study?

If recordings are made, will participants be offered the opportunity to edit the transcripts of the

recordings?

What will be done with the raw data when the study is finished?

If audio or videotapes are used how will these be stored and disposed of?

Describe any arrangements to make results available to participants, including whether they will be

offered their audiotapes or videos.

Is the data collected about individual participants: a) Non- identifiable?

Non-identifiable data is data which have never been labelled with individual identifiers or from which

identifiers have been permanently removed, and by means of which no specific individual can be

identified. A subset of non-identifiable data are those that can be linked with other data so it can be

known that they are about the same data subject, but the person’s identity remains unknown.

b) Re- identifiable?

114

Re-identifiable data is data from which identifiers have been removed and replaced by a code, but it

remains possible to re-identify a specific individual by, for example, using the code or linking different

data sets.

c) Individually Identifiable?

Individually identifiable data is data where the identity of an individual can reasonably be ascertained.

Examples of identifiers include the individuals name, image, date of birth or address, or in some cases

their position in an organisation.

Will any restriction be placed on publication of results? If yes, please supply details.

Are there any aspects of the research that might raise specific cultural issues? If yes, please explain.

What ethnic or cultural group(s) does the research involve?

Describe what consultation has taken place with the group(s) prior to the project’s development.

The Cook Islands asks for a rationale for the Project with links to the national priorities of Cook Islands

and potential contribution to knowledge and economic, social, environment and health goals. It asks for

a lay summary of the research, a description of methods used and potential research

outcomes/outputs. Any physical samples intended also need to be detailed. As with other nations it

seeks a CV/list of existing related research to assure them the researcher is experienced and not

wasting their time as they aim to appoint an official liaison (under the Field Research chapter). Certain

nations also ask investigators to demonstrate how their projects will contribute towards improving local

institutional capacity building. Sometimes this can offer fiscal, time or other forms of material

compensation beyond a summary of the research results.

E.g. ‘As the project is a University PHD thesis primarily initiated, developed and advanced by the student principal field researcher investigator incurring significant time and budget constraints under a PHD there will be limited resources, capacity and opportunity to adequately develop local postgraduate research training. However, the researcher is willing and able to forward all research output to various stakeholders including local educational facilities, the University, NGO’s, community networks and students direct. The researcher is willing to support and assist them with any thesis specific –related research queries/information that researcher can directly aid them. The student researcher anticipates contacting local researchers/ potential students to acquire additional insight into conducting local field research. The researcher may contact them for information specifically related…. Depending on time and resources available, the student is willing not only to share relevant research output but be available to directly aid postgraduate research training. They offer the chance to directly contact the researcher, be involved in the distribution of surveys/interviews and either participate in the

115

research/listen to the findings once present.’

A full ethics application can be aided by an editorial review to minimise the chances of rejection. The

ethics form often also asks if there are any risks to investigator safety and if a monitoring and

evaluation process exists to ensure research integrity is preserved. The survey and semi-structured

interview schedules were pre-tested in an editorial peer review to enable the ascertaining of a generic

sampling strategy response, to test ethical considerations, research design feasibility, strength

reliability, accuracy and clarity, grammar, spelling, style, structure, question relevance and minimise

sample bias, systematic and random errors. Pre-testing enables the resolution of whether a survey or

interview schedule represents a pragmatic, effective mechanism to resolve key research questions.

The peer review process involved members of the public, intended target audience sample, other PHD

students, the primary supervisor, 2 co-supervisors and the formal written and oral confirmation of

candidature along with advice from other academics from other faculties and non-academics to

evaluate all documents for editorial/other corrections.

Did this School approval process ensure that the project?

Has a set of clearly identified aims? Is well designed and methodologically sound? Is based on a thorough review of the current literature and previous studies on related topics? (NS 1.1(c)) Has been designed or developed using methods appropriate for achieving its stated aims? (NS 1.1(b)) Is expected to yield valid and useful data, if conducted according to the protocol? Will be conducted or supervised by persons with appropriate experience, qualifications and competence? (NS 1.1(e))

1. Is justifiable by its potential benefit? (NS 1.1(a)) Dissemination of Research Results (I page)a. Please explain how the results of the research project will be disseminated.b. What plans will be put in place to ensure that the Cook Islands will benefit from the

research. Description of Research Capacity Strengthening (half page) Please describe how your research will contribute to research capacity building (e.g. postgraduate

research training)

Significantly underestimated by those whose work does not involve vulnerable target populations,

biological, scientific and medical experiment research; numerous universities take this seriously. This

candidate knows of master’s degrees that were delayed or denied on the threat of ethics applications

116

alone –even when eventually passed. From personal experience the simplest mechanism is to review

both the institutions’ ethics policy and quote from the appropriate national/local research code and

guidelines wherever one exists. For example.

Although no direct physical, personal, legal, environmental, social, cultural, political, technical,

operation or financial risks are envisioned to participants, undertaking any academic research project

involving human participants at the University or country requires reassurances that ethical issues have

been considered to protect respondent rights under the 2007 National Statement on Ethical Conduct

For Human Research, section 1 to protect research integrity, ensure merit and respect for participants

by identifying risks. This thesis, undertook full peer-reviewed interview pre-testing and confirmation of

candidature presentations and receiving ethical clearance approval from both the Ethics Review

Committees. It specifically outlines how any projected ethical considerations i.e. respondent rights and

risks including commercially sensitive data, participants from foreign countries, confidentiality and

anonymity will be addressed in Appendix ethical clearance form). The statement’s section 2.2 requires

sufficient information granted to participants to enable an adequate understanding with a free choice to

participate or withdraw, made clear on the form. Participants were given a month’s notice, subject to

ethics approval and 4-5 weeks to decide to participate in the interview, with reminders over several

weeks; to indicate availability for an interview over the next 6 months. Access to confidential or

commercially sensitive to information is anticipated in calculating supply chain economic impact costs

but only with the prior consent of participants. Participants are further protected, being notified verbally

117

and via specific invitation, reminder and informed consent forms (Appendixes I-IV) of their rights,

contact information if they have any research concerns to the investigator and committee, with the

ability to withdraw at any time and that their data can only be utilised with formal signed consent.

To consider participants’ rights in other countries under the 2007 Statement (section 4.8); this research

undertook a separate ethics review committee Participants will be also offered the chance to review the

aggregated results once personal identification has been erased. All data collected will be treated in the

strictest confidence, will be aggregated and made non-identifiable with specific personal contact details

removed, will be securely stored and managed = to further protect specific rights prior to

publication/dissemination. There are no ethical considerations or risks expected for other research

stages which involve data analysis, with no human interaction or need to be based outside the

university campus or country. The investigator not the participants will bear the fiscal costs and risks

that may develop, through field research and contact. From a risk management perspective, there is a

slight element of personal risk that occurs from conducting physical field research in foreign Pacific

countries that might be susceptible to climate-change related natural disasters, social, climate and

economic/political instability as developing nations. However, aside from articulating how various

issues/risks will be resolved in the attached, approved Ethics Committee applications; this researcher

notes the historic stability of the target case studies, the experience of stakeholders for generalised

climate change research and development projects; the fact that this researcher has extensive travel

experience over time has conducted similar survey field research on three continents and

lived/educated Any adverse event or unexpected development that affects this research including risk

will be formally reported to the University and Ethics Committees, with an explanation wherever

possible, to minimise risk.

To reduce potential sources of bias, ensure error control and ethical considerations and research

quality, this thesis will undertake several monitoring procedures for quality assurance. These monitoring

procedures include regular scheduled meetings with PHD supervisors, an academic panel peer

reviewed Confirmation of Candidature and subsequent annual Reviews of Progress, the ethical

application process (Appendix granting of ethical clearance) to the Ethics Committee with subsequent

annual and final reports noting any specific issues that may occur throughout all stages of this

research. The interview schedule was also subject to peer review, pre-testing to provide a further

source of bias and error control. The process revealed the need to reduce ambiguous or double-

barrelled questions, to simplify questions and to provide more explicit, concise, relevant information as

suggestions, which were adopted to improve the probable success of the respondent participation rate.

118

Finally, respondents will be offered the explicit choice of being able to ensure errors were controlled

and minimised in being able to review aggregated, non-identifiable data results, prior to thesis

submission and identification reducing issues of selective recall/ subjective awareness of events.

Personal interviews allowed for clear articulation of responses. Any participant who withdraws at any

stage and indicates that withdrawal, will have their results removed from the study and accumulated

data destroyed. However, it is possible that stakeholders may communicate with each other, given

normal interactive proximity to conduct business, inadvertently refer to the interview/research process

as a source of bias, (though not from the investigator conducting the research). Often issues of omitted

variable bias, spurious regression correlation; random and systematic sampling error and survey bias

where the way it is framed/presented can alter the response.

To reduce response bias, the interviewer/all appendix sheets adopts neutral, unemotive language and

tones, not revealing personal preferences but clearly establishing a range of fixed choices but also

allowing open ended responses to endorse stakeholder participation. Given potential sensitivity over

climate change; the study and research methodology concentrates on specific risks, impact costs,

constraints and solutions to seafood as a key maritime supply chain commodity, rather than

communities as covered in previous studies It avoids subjective judgements or perspectives,

emphasising anonymity to facilitate research candour. It provided a literature established source of

risks, impact cost types and adaptation solutions to prevent overdemanding recall with sufficient time

warning/opportunity in advanced notice to establish solutions. However, past training/experience of

climate disruption risks might alter perspectives and responses significantly. A positive response bias

might only be overcome through third party verification; calculated impact cost analysis and field

research to ascertain direct vulnerabilities, risks, impact costs, constraints and degree of proposed

adaptation response strategy effectiveness, confirming through other stakeholders indirectly checking

response data for further validity/veracity with stakeholders prior to submission.

For this thesis, several factors may influence the nature of participation responses and limited

stakeholder sample response participation rates including asking for potentially commercially sensitive

cost information. Adaptation strategies may lack attention, resource priorities, be commercially sensitive

or established at headquarters with little or no local autonomy to influence policy responses. Certain

participants preferred open ended questions which they can contribute more personally relevant

perspectives. Insufficient data may exist or interviews may be unpopular in taking scarce time although

to incentivise participation; a free copy of this research once approved was offered. Projected climate

change uncertainty and inconsistency in existing research induces moral hazard and risk adverse

stakeholders. Additionally for stakeholders a risk of over-information and exposure combined with aid

dependency reducing autonomous initiative exists; as stakeholders become tired of the same questions

119

repeated since existing aid agencies/researchers appear not to consult previous research in

stakeholder consultation and in proposing adaptation project solutions.

Data Management and Storage

In accordance with the 2007 Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research section 2.1 and

the University Data Management Guidelines section 4.3, all research data will be securely stored in a

safe University location for a minimum of five years until being destroyed, except with the signed

permission and informed consent of participant stakeholders. Only aggregated nonidentifiable data

from which personal details/perspectives is removed; will be publicly published and disseminated. All

physical data will be locked in a filing cabinet, all electronic data in a University secure, password

protected computer, in a safe location which only the researchers involved in the study will have

access. Data will be backed up through a secure online University Cloud service and through working

copies on password protected flashdrives that will not be used on public computers with unrestricted

access, to maintain file integrity.

Pre-testing surveys truly reflects how much humanity remains present on a university campus.

Students are generally far more sympathetic and willing then faculty and administrators to respond and

provide advice. The extent of a poor work ethic is tested by limited faculty member opening hours –

when actually able to be stalked in their office or elsewhere. Many shun contact with those they are not

formally responsible for –and those they are, the contact can be grudging and perfunctory rather than

collegial.

Ethics Actual Approval however is not the end. One still has to prescribe to the various conditions

attached in the letter. If involving participants with external government, research or other nation

institutions, the researcher often has to face the protracted pangs and delays of additional ethics

applications. They often have to reconfigure their plans to adjust for the specimen conditions any ethics

process may entail such as the attached example provides. This does not provide the end of ethical

risks. Respondents and adverse incidents/risks can still derail your efforts at recruiting volunteers,

arranging experiments, visits, access to information, funding, resources and actual field research for

materialising. They may be slow to respond threatening your intended timing and even graduation.

From personal experience, several may even complain. This candidate knows of PHD students whose

research, ethics approval and even entire future was jeopardised by the pettiness or unpredictable

response of complainants. Several formally objected to being contacted in relation to ‘the unsolicited

blanketing of emails” and “coercive language” at gentle reminders to kindly volunteer to participate.

Overreacting they ignored the ethics forms and the researcher and complained to the University –even

120

at deputy Vice Chancellor Level after just 2 mild reminder emails had been sent. Rather than declining

they threatened the student (Note parallels with the Publish or Perish saga above) and claimed they

would refuse future business with the University and blockade any correspondence as Spam. The

student had passed a peer reviewed, university ethics approval with this issue not raised.

We are pleased to advise that the Social Sciences Human Research Ethics Commmittee approved the following project on 28 August 2017. This approval constitutes ethical clearance by the Social Sciences Human

121

A just initiated research candidate and even those more seasoned are advised to learn patience, tact,

measures to defuse tension and personal endurance etc. In the above example I advised the student

there was no profit in personal interaction or correspondence –even to apologise. They were advised to

point out it complied with the approved ethics application, it was entirely voluntary, no coercive

language had been used and only 2 reminders. Past theses and web surveys had used obtaining

emails from a publicly available website/database as a recognised means of stakeholder recruitment

and data sourcing. The student was also recommended to seek advice as to how to respond most

optimally to such.

CHAPTER XXI: Results –Field Research and Ensuring Cooperation

122

Preparing

In a universe of possibilities, with discoveries to encounter in every celestial and terrestrial realm, the

majority of research projects are confronted with the same problems. How to actually get the answers

they are looking for? Where secondary sources fail; the outer world remains, through field research…

There are many potential benefits to declaim for field research…

To ensure successful field research regardless of the topic area, certain factors are necessary. The

most essential resources include enough time to take it, sufficient finances –and supportive supervisors

and university administration that begrudgingly concede its necessity and that you can be just as

productive and innovative beyond the walls of a small office, windowless, airless cubicle among other

drones, as outside if not more so…. It often involves a series of time consuming official approvals and

the art of persuasive manipulation –your funders, your supervisors, the university Graduate Research

office that it is necessary and not just an excuse for a protracted vacation (even if you think it might

be0, the ethics review committee, any other sources from which you need to get ethics/research

permission including an official permit from Immigration, rather than a simple tourist visit in the host

country, those with access to potential stakeholders and finally reluctant stakeholders themselves that

their time and effort will be profitably spent. At times these barriers can frustrate one to wonder why

being so devoted to original, path-slashing research can be so fatiguing and stressful, with so many

barriers?

The comparative advantages and disadvantages of surveys were summarised in the method chapter

but regardless of the topic, often candidates need to rely on these for their results. Without formal

guidance, researchers are often expected to produce these automatically and so some pointers are

provided here. The elements necessary for a well formulated survey/interview question design can

minimise any problems including time and effort spent on getting results, ethical clearance approval

and cooperation among stakeholders for field research. For layout, official logos/crests of your

research institution/organisation and a separate cover page outlining the key research

questions/objectives, a place for individual respondent code and submission date appear more

professional and credible. The first page/s generally provides stakeholder profile/ sampling background

information where respondents identify demographics such as the broad category (i.e. academics,

community/NGO’s, small/medium/large business/ individual/government department etc.) which the

stakeholder can be classified, age, education and professional experience or years as part of the

organisation along with more study specific criteria possibly including gender/culture/income/religion etc

and background information, prior to the actual research questions as filtering mechanisms to validate

123

the inclusion of these stakeholders in the research. However, a do not wish to disclose option for those

really concerned for confidentiality can also assist. Layout can include simple box ticks/crosses, scales

ranking in numbers, filling in tables or open-ended questions (Not having lines inserted allows for

handwriting and for participants to feel freer in the response rate). Question titles numbered and in bold

with enough spacing to not look cluttered and evenly spaced boxes are essential to avoid rejection as is

ensuring correct spelling/grammar etc. Although it depends on the particular question/hypothesis

having pre-selected criteria/ factors from which responses are sought can investigate certain factors

and ensure particular research relevance to the thesis/project.

Including open ended questions can however encourage participant response rate to feel valued in

offering their perspective and can improve the qualitative aspects of research to clarify particular factors

or issues. Addition of an optional section also increases the probability of a response rate after they

have committed so much time and effort to the process: ‘Are there any other concerns/issues/information/ contact details of potential information sources or other stakeholders that you would like to provide related specifically to the questions raised in this survey assessing….? Please feel free to add more pages if desired (Once more unless permission is granted explicitly by you, all sources will remain confidential).’ Thanking participants for their valuable contribution, not restricting

their contribution and providing physical, postal and email address/ phone number contact details along

with the chance for a follow up interview at the end can further improve the participant response rate

and address ethics concerns. Also asking them what they would prioritise, especially with limited

resources and if they need any specific information and willing to share with them research

results/related output can help them feel their contribution is particularly valuable; that the research is

related to them and can further offset any impressions that their valuable time was not wasted,

especially as investigators are seldom able or willing to remunerate participants for their cooperation

and opportunity cost of time and life allocated to it.

As stated in the Ethics and Research integrity chapter, surveys are aided if pre-tested for specific

issues to ensure research quality and integrity. Surveys also need to consider having a sufficient

number of questions to sufficiently address the key research objectives to provide enough data and

stakeholders sufficient to ensure that this aspect of the results can be less whittled apart by tetchy,

pedantic supervisors and examiners. However, too many questions causes problems as most

stakeholders are unlikely to devote more than on average 30 -60 minutes –and if really lucky perhaps

90 minutes to 2 hours for either surveys or interviews. There is also the problem of memory recall –

most answering the questions will typically not retain significant information in front of them nor recollect

more than the most recent experiences/information present. The simplest means to alleviate time and

information constraints is to provide stakeholders with advanced warning –granting them enough time

124

and flexibility/opportunity to acquire the survey/interview questions; address the research and then

submit it, considering that Ethics Committees can typically meet once every 1-2 months, require a

minimum of a month -6 weeks to evaluate ethics forms and then grant it (Unless at certain Africa

universities which took up to 7 months). It can take weeks to initiate response and even secure

cooperation initially plus a few weeks to complete the research and more to consider arranging

interviews/ distribute surveys and field research.

Applying for official permission for the next ethics process and actual field research can involve several

stages. Official institutions, corporations, NGO’s –and any large organisation, often mandates this.

Aside from research committees that may seek a transfer fee, it may require further evaluation by

reviewers not just your university/research institution. Receiving their ethics approval first is advised to

save time and effort. That way there are no official barriers and it appears more credibly peer reviewed

–has been revised already from more stringent criteria. It forestalls possible further ethics complaints

with disastrous consequences. From one’s South Pacific experience, one was designated official

points of contacts from key organisations –handle correspondence, meetings, material/data, publicity,

logistics and actual stakeholder recruitment/interaction with designated official mouthpieces and those

personally interested. A foreign government can help or hinder the quality of research and recruitment

by channelling you into an official liaison. It is advised to charm them thoroughly and not overwhelm

with multiple correspondence. Provide as much advanced warning of logistics plans (such as the

examples below), schedules of availability, provisional participant lists, questionnaires/research

information as possible.

One’s PHD involved aiming to mobilise an entire nation across a supply chain for climate change, aside

from a backup Pacific case study. The following guidelines increased the number of interested

respondents provisionally agreeing to interviews and physical field research to many of the most

experienced and pertinent.

Customised Emails. Although time consuming –this avoids accusations of chain emails,

circumvents spam filter software and encourages recruitment as people feel more personally

connected. A couple of these and adjusting for any responses/updates i.e. additional

recruitment sources as below; can gradually persuade the reluctant to cooperate more.

Recruitment sources –networking, government, chamber of commerce, NGO’s, telephone

directory, secondary sources; conference and workshop participant sources, funding agencies,

professional social media –LinkedIn, Facebook –often need names –telephone, Skype, email

and often just linking their names/combination of initials in the format of the organisation for any

other emails you receive. E.g. if Emmaline Pankhurst worked for Nonsuch Productions but you

125

only had Melody Singh’s at m.singh@nonsuch.org you could adjust it -

e.pankhurst@nonsuch.org. This especially worked for CEO’s/board members, Cabinet

ministers and other senior sources.

Securing attention and focus –using existing agreements/tentative responses can convince

people that were reluctant to prioritise it as more serious so they are not left out. Although one

has to be careful to insert only the relevant passages and persons, altering emails accordingly,

–copying in the email of any professional associations such as Chambers of Commerce does

actually increase sample agreement. It recruits the reluctant as does providing various contact

mechanisms as opportunities such as Skype, WhatsApp etc.,

Flexibility –adjusting responses –promising data/conditions –any insight into their time

Patience and persistence –moderate reminders without badgering.

Do not badger those agreeing

Provide specific range of dates etc where possible –their schedule to determine

Media –offer stories as a free source of publicity/offer an exchange for research and to

emphasise the significance.

Research background of those saying yes and filter to ensure personal messages/interviews

apply so as to not waste your research priorities/time nor theirs. It also helps to ensure you are

interested in them personally, their work/contributions/experience etc to develop networking

capabilities. They may also be able to point you in the direction of other information sources,

contacts and opportunities

Professional associations are useful to arrange meetings of members and forward

correspondence on your behalf even if they seek to preserve individual autonomy

Survey Monkey

Backup case study. I prepared contingency plans in case data failed and recruitment proved

unreliable. Data received should also be backed up physically as soon as possible to avoid

error/ loss –in archives, emails, online clouds, flashdrives, hard drives, paper –other sources

etc.

Translate survey etc into local language –i.e. Google Translate

Seek professional advice –check past theses into likely research conditions, time lags,

expectations etc.

Provide provisional participant list –dates free/unavailable; etc

Offer to cooperate in any way possible as detailed under ethics applications

Preparing an optimal field research plan

UNIVERSITY PHD THESIS FIELD RESEARCH TRIP PLAN MAY 2017

126

SURVEY PLAN

Following previous UTAS pre-testing of the survey and ethics approval, the candidate Jack Dyer will

plan the survey based on previous identification of stakeholder contact details. Primary data collection

will be acquired through physical field research with direct stakeholder consultation, semi-structured

interviews and surveys. Contact details are obtained from a variety of sources including the Yellow

Pages telephone directory, previous conference networking, websites, professional associations,

previous Pacific research and related secondary sources. As detailed in the ethics application, prior to

field research; maritime supply chain stakeholders will be contacted and invited to participate in a pre-

testing sample of 10-30 to validate the survey/interviews online, post or telephone. All potential

stakeholders will be selected through stratified sampling from an existing directory this candidate has

compiled of all prospective stakeholders. Once the pre-survey has been validated/finalised; the

candidate’s survey plan is to contact stakeholders inviting them to participate.

Participants will be invited via email, telephone and in person where necessary, to participate in the

survey/interview by signing the attached informed consent form (Appendix I) and completing the survey

questionnaire agreeing to establish an interview/survey schedule for field research. This request would

ask if the invitation, survey and consent form could be circulated to relevant maritime supply chain

contacts, who can voluntarily choose to participate/disclose contact details for further recruitment.

The interviews/surveys will be conducted for those agreeing to participate electronically. The candidate

can then confirm the travel itinerary below, conducting the survey over 1-3 months for field research

once there. Following my return with the data, approximately 1 week and 2 weeks later, polite reminder

emails (Appendix IV) will be submitted to any respondent stakeholders who have not submitted their

forms, encouraging them to do so by emphasising the value of the research and their participation. The

candidate can then work on data/survey analysis, transcription and results chapters’ completion.

PROPOSED TRAVEL ITINERARY. DATES/PROPOSED SCHEDULE: 1 August 2017 – 30 September 2017 Daily

5-7 am: Prepare for Daily Research

8 am -6 pm Monday-Saturday: Conduct surveys/follow up interviews as pre-arranged.

8pm-9:30 pm. Ensure results are transcribed, backed up and securely stored

FLIGHTS

XXXX: Average flight duration

127

Return: XXXXX. Average Duration

ACCOMMODATION XXXXX

LOGISTICS

The Islands for further research contacts are internally accessible via flights and across-island buses.

CONTACT/RISK MANAGEMENT

At all times I will ensure access is possible through my registered mobile contact number and University

email address. Risks and other factors will be managed as detailed previously in the ethics application

and compliance with the University Travel policy/ Candidate responsibilities.

CYCLONES/ACTUAL EVENTS AND RISKS MANIFESTING?These included climate which determines how pleasant physical data and person chasing can be,

Fire –… 27 October destroy mobiles and Internet, Ministry contact on leave 14 th November. No permit

sent 2nd November. Permission mentioned 17th October, University ethics granted 27th August,

application 8th September –Cook Islands. Research Permit official contacted away 23 rd/24th; 29th

October -3rd November, time delay lag –core stakeholders not responding, excludes 3 months CMP and

awaiting HOS and bureaucrats; 15 -18 months of supervisors needing convincing the need for field

research not allowing ethics –methods, 4 months original supervisors not meeting, 20 th December -7th

January government closure/University closure/public holidays festive period business, several

stakeholders not present, home leave 8th December -18th January. Throw in all these delays and

anything else and achieving anything seems miraculous.

Resources Required to Note/Take. Consider work and other physical requirements/limitations –

possible meeting locations, transport accessibility, personal leisure, laundry, groceries etc/funding.

LAPTOP –VOICE RECORDER/TAPE RECORDER –FLASH DRIVES; backup emails physical copies,

visa, research permit/correspondence –phone/email details saved and accessible –counter

bureaucracy.

ONLINE SURVEY

PHYSICAL PAPER SURVEY trying to print sufficient copies and translate

MOBILE PHONE –AIRTIME

FUNDING

128

PACK EQUIVALENT, CAMERA, CHARGERS, PASSPORTS, ADAPTER

Consider local news/events for the past week, month, year… that may potentially relate to your visit

and research so as to not be unaware.

Issues/ Questions?INTERNET CONNECTIVITY –be prepared if in a foreign place, PHONE

PRESENTATION/WORKSHOP REQUIREMENTS MMR –be flexible but as soon as possible on the

first day confirm schedules, ensure enough local phone credit, acquire the permit and confirm all

logistics arrangements

STAKEHOLDER EXPECTATIONS/CONDITIONS –ensure ethics is followed but be prepared to deviate

from official scripts where necessary to local advice/customs/environment/awareness/demographics/

experience etc

LOCAL LIBRARY/ARCHIVES and basic background information etc that the Internet or libraries cannot

simply provide including perhaps local costs/events/updated news etc.

LIST OF CONTACT DETAILS –SECONDARY SOURCES

? AVALIABILITY/TIMING OF STAKEHOLDERS –never guaranteed even if they say yes

SUPERVISORS CONTACT and family/other useful needs as required?

Official country warnings – from embassies etc

With field research, be prepared for the unexpected scenario. Personally, despite forethought and

preparation/advanced notifications and factored in months for over 3 years, one received less than a

week’s warning/sudden phone call 24 hours –to squeeze all pre-trip logistics before condensing field

research/holiday itself into 3 weeks –to manage before returning home thousands of miles away for a

December family annual leave.

DATA COLLECTION

Even failures and non-responses can be analysed –although supervisors and publishers may disagree.

One cannot always predict or compel research participation –it is the one variable of the PHD process

that can be the most frustrating not only because the time it involves and the effort (especially

personalised responses) but because it is so utterly unpredictable and outside one’s apparent control or

influence. And yet supervisors still carp on about timely completion rates not appreciating that there is

only so much you can prepare, design, cajole, wheedle, beg and otherwise try to prod a response. Field

research is preferable where possible for greater personal contact grants you a chance. The trade-off is

the dependency on another research process and availability of a point of contact.

129

Some curiously preferred physical interviews, others telephone/Skype –others will only look at web

surveys. Chances for most participating in web surveys are frequently made virtually immediately –

skimming the first few questions so it is essential to focus on enhancing the quality of those. Even a few

responses are better than none –reveal not just the content but that the participants thought the

question was well designed, of value and applicable to their experience. Even if the entire survey/

experiment is not completed –those phases that are can still be used to provide additional verification

CHAPTER 22: Third Year and the Finish

How does third year differ? Or for many candidates this may actually extend into the fourth, fifth or

even sixth year… with the finances zapped, social ostracism pervasive and utter disinterest prevailing

and surplassing passionate emotions At this point; you are committed –the end might be in sight –or at

least you hope it is… By now if you haven’t found a way to adjust to your supervisors or being cast out,

you may be floundering or under advanced symptoms of dissertation dementia… By now it becomes

really necessary to obtain some results and conclusions –even if stakeholders themselves do not really

understand as you really want to move on with your life… Time dilates, establishing a balance and

remembering that there is more to a life than a PHD, are hastily flung aside…Intrusions always pop up

at critical junctures when trying to focus –as if the Fates themselves challenge your capacity to

withstand pressure

Greetings

I can confirm at this stage it appears as if I will be staying until Friday 8th December -day -but it could change until I hear from the government ministry and other stakeholders -Otherwise I would go from mid-January onwards. I would like to know how given I have violated no laws, no contractual obligations and always promptly paid rent, out of all students I alone am being penalised with an unjustifiable rent increase over $43 compared to other students charged only $8 at most? I also have no university internet access included

130

unlike every other leading campus accommodation service in Australia and the world, had poor maintenance and had to conduct my own cleaning unlike those at cheaper rates. For $220 it would be cheaper to physically stay out in the South Pacific or in Africa until the end of candidature -it cannot be afforded so ridiculous and unjustifiably above market rates/inflation when there is no scholarship increase.

I was moved to the flat because of reporting crimes, noise, hygiene and physical threats/assaults to my personage and other resident's contractual violations; which Accommodation Services did not evict the parties involved or penalise them with even higher rent charges. Your own apartments only charge $201 not 220 for Newnham as the image below taken this morning confirms for 2018. The flat doesn't even have a door separating the lounge from the bedroom and has inadequate heating yet it is still preferable to being physically threatened and attacked at Leprena Q15 where I was moved but the occupant there got to remain. Additionally no written warnings have been provided to me nor any validation as to my I am not entitled to be considered to stay in cheaper halls of residence or have other tenants actually honour my rights, follow laws and UTAS's own contract regulations. I have also fulfilled all PHD and university administrative requirements timely and efficiently, even when others at the university have hindered my progress unjustifiably including Accommodation Services.

It is my perspective and legally, I should not be penalised or biased and discriminated against in being denied access to other accommodation on campus at a cheaper rate, when I have not done anything wrong? As a PHD and International student; I must protest at the University of Tasmania Accommodation service's efforts to affect my continuance of studies on campus at the University. Its unreasonable funding not only violates the National Rental Housing Affordability Scheme agreement (significantly higher than market rates of $120 -$160 including internet which we do not get as campus residents); but also, adversely affects financial conditions at over 44% of my scholarship income devoted to rent -if at $220 -excluding living expenses. My scholarship at $13.33 per hour is already below legal minimum wage despite having a Master's degree and several years’ experience. The University has denied me substitute top up scholarships and employment funding and I still have to personally pay for my own field research/conferences etc unlike other universities; which actually support their student activities that benefit the university publicly. It affects not only my financial status but my health, welfare rights and future capacity to be physically active at this PHD rather than continuing studies, especially if there are no guarantees to a scholarship extension.

Additionally it also threatens my studies, when as I have previously indicated I am involved in trying to arrange field research and PHD data collection with correspondence from officials in the Cook Islands from the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet secretaries, media, corporation CEO’s and downwards from November to February; -to go and come back at any time and am also home in Africa from 8th November -18th January. This makes private sector alternatives also impossible to investigate, given few options and the fact most contracts would require a 6 month -year long commitment. This is impossible as a PHD student when all I need is data collection really before considering returning home to Africa and working on my PHD studies there if I cannot afford somewhere on campus; given my rent is only $177 this year. This continued contempt and even legal violations towards me as

131

a PHD international student, personally and my academic studies; further violates the rules of Graduate Research and other indications that a considerable number of individuals and entities University continues to be expressly biased and prejudiced towards my rights, health and welfare during this PHD process, deliberately discriminated against when compared to other students.

With high concern to all parties in this email…….

Accommodation ServicesThu 02/11/2017 16:21Hi Q, Sorry my mistake, I have re-activated your application for next year. We are happy for you to continue to reside in the flat. Our new contracts start on the 4 th February and the 2018 rate for the Flat will be $220. We will be unable to provide it to you at the discounted rate that we have done so this year. Given the ongoing issues that you have in communal living we will be unable to offer you a single room in shared block. For you current booking if you could please let me know via return email what date you will be here until so I can amend your booking. We will securely discard of the Request for Refund form you submitted and ask you to fill out a new form when are leaving. We need to hold your current security deposit for your ongoing booking. If you have any questions please feel free to ask via return email. Kind regards,

L

Jack DyerFri 27/10/2017 09:26Sent Items

Greetings

Thank you for this it is appreciated. I only completed the refund request because it was attached and I thought we had to; and that it would be deducted next year once more if the application was successful. As I still aim to be here next year for my PHD which officially at 3 years runs at least into April 2018 I would appreciate it if accommodation as an application is not cancelled arbitrarily without me actually asking for it as I will still need it and it is incredibly difficult as a PHD international student to arrange any alternative when completing field research in the South Pacific or when home in Africa from 7th December -18th January. Given at this stage I do not know if I will be actually in the Cook Islands over November or have to do it upon my return from 18th January to mid-February -I may need an extension either over the end of this contract as mentioned or when I return early before

132

the new contract or both -such is being a PHD student trying to conduct field research without anxiety from Accommodation Services

Wishing you all the best with respect and thanks

Jack Dyer

Accommodation ServicesThu 26/10/2017 15:35Hi Q, Thank you for your email, and no need for an apology.

I have forwarded your request for refund to our Finance Department to hold onto until you depart. At this stage I will extend your booking in the Tutor Flat until the 7th December. If your trip Islands gets approved and you are going to be departing early please just let us know so as we don’t over charge your account. Given you are getting your deposit back I will assume that you will no longer be returning next year so I will cancel your application for 2018. If I can be of any further help please let me know via return email. Kind regards,

Wed 25/10/2017 14:37Sent Items 1 attachmentUTAS Reques~.xlsx

Greetings

I sincerely apologise for the intrusion upon your valuable time. Please find attached the refund request. At this stage I would like to apply for a summer extension up to my intended departure Friday 7th December, although I remain unsure as I was hoping to conduct PHD field research in… during November up to 5th December but await a response from the government -I could be leaving within the next 10 days. I would appreciate being able to remain in the tutor flat given no other occupants rather than moving if possible. Summer storage will not be needed

With all thanks

From: Accommodation Services

Sent: 16 October 2017 12:53

To:

Subject: IMPORTANT information for Check out, Summer Extensions & Storage

133

NRAS 1 Semester ApplicationsDear

This email has important information in regards to checking out, summer storage and summer extensions. If you require any of these please take the time to read this email.Check out process

As your departure date is approaching, we wanted to say thank you for living with us in 2017. Please ensure that when checking out of your room, you take all of your belonging with you. Check out is prior to 10am and you can either see us in the Student Centre to hand your key in, or if you are leaving outside office hours please leave it in your room and close the door behind you. As you have paid a $500.00 Security Deposit, please complete the attached refund request form and return it to the office or via return email prior to check out. Hard copies are also available at the Student Living desk.

Summer ExtensionsYour current contract with us ends on 26/11/2017 if you need accommodation with us after this date you will need to respond to this email with your nominated check out date. Please note that we need these extension applications prior to 27th October 2017. Anyone extending for more than 3 nights will be relocated for the summer period. Student Living will send you an email confirming your extension over this period. Summer StorageSummer storage will be available to any current resident with a 2018 accommodation application. The minimum cost is $75.00 for 5 boxes. Residents are responsible to source their own boxes. Should you wish to store more than 5 boxes you will be charged an additional $15.00 per box. Please complete the attached storage form and make your payment with Student Living or online via the portal. The storage container is located at Investigator Hall and will be open from 4-5pm and 7-8pm daily, including weekends. If you cannot make the above mentioned times, please contact an RSO on the help phones or on 0417 318 091 after 4pm to arrange an alternate time.

134

CHAPTER 23: RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS

Moving onto the third year and compiling the data analysis as usual one prioritised on minimising the

work load through preplanning.

(ELEMENTS FOR AN EFFICACIOUS RESULTS CHAPTER)

Provide an effective chapter title/outline, consider headings and subheadings Consider the list of tables, diagrams, images and figures To consider the word/page limit of + - 30 pages/ 10,000 word limit compatible with the COC

predicted thesis outline Structure and layout, formatting, spelling, grammar, content, presentation quality Does it fundamentally address the Key and Subsidiary Research Objectives stated in the

methodology, introduction and survey/forms –is it compatible? To consider what information is necessary to address KRQA, for the chapter, to validate the

literature review, to establish a theoretical and empirical thesis contribution, for a statistically significant robust sample

Avoid repetition, maintain consistency and coherency Is it compatible with the literature review, other result chapters VI and VII, the conclusions;

chapter IV climate change projections ? Does it effectively implement the projected risk-vulnerability integrated risk management

method matrix and risk-vulnerability event tree? Is it compatible with summaries/existing research sources? Does it satisfy stakeholder requirements? Is it applicable/replicable across the Pacific/to other global supply chains/ maritime supply

chains –to systems, individual stages and/or individual stakeholders to identify climate change risks, considering vulnerability, factors affecting the probability of risk occurrence and affecting risks –direct and indirect?

Is it empirically valid/robust/ consistent and is it relevant? Is the information accessible ? Are references actually appropriate –how many are necessary except to provide situational

specific information

135

Consider tense It is essential From the Pacific regional to the local case study –emphasising the significance of the particular

case study and generalisability of results –concern of examiners

Chapter Outline

Need Introduction/Background Incorporate survey results….

Evaluate/Analyse/ Assess/ Prioritise Risks/ Monitoring and Evaluation

To provide the assumptions and basis for calculating the probabilities of risk occurrence

CONSIDERATIONS/ASPECTS

Can the method/results be adjustable to changing climate change scenarios/risks/ time horizons especially climate change uncertainty?

How are perceptions of risk influenced by climate change related natural disasters/variability/ extreme events and adverse conditions?

How necessary is the asset to supply chain performance?

It is also crucial that the results satisfy other criteria including objectivity/consistency

-- Is it original

-- Does it make a significant contribution and is it of PHD level quality

-- Qualitative versus Quantitative

-- Would/ Does it satisfy examiner requirements? in answering the key research question –is it

necessary/significant –does it validate the method and previous chapters/ existing literature? Does it

validate theory and hypotheses? If it differs –are adequate logical reasons provided, is it practical –

policy implications. is it simple to understand to a non-technical/technical audience –could it be

presented?

-- Would it satisfy supervisor expectations consistent with feedback –peer review and your

contributions/discussions/ the Review of Progress? Does it reflect that of the intended objectives/

research plan –justify each stage?

--Is it compatible with peer -reviewed publishing requirements?

--Does it consistently adhere to ethics application and research conduct protocols, does it consider

local customs?

---Is it compatible with researcher permission/ funding conditional requirements?

136

--Is it legal?

---Does it satisfy copyright?

---Is it commercialisable/ Can it be patented –and is it worth it

? Is it transferable/ complementary to existing projects/funding or objectives?

--Is it of interest/value/ pragmatic/ -to community, individual stakeholders/ supply chain system/

businesses etc?

Does it offer a holistic/systematic perspective?

Is it compatible/comparable or does it contrast to existing results –does it contribute academically to

theory or does it possess practical policy implications?

The need to evaluate existing primary/secondary sources to obtain the information; identify sufficient

stakeholders and ensure the survey is compatible.

Would the method/results as implemented through a specific/multiple case study examples such as for

the Cook Islands prove thus to be an efficient approach for climate change risk management for global

and Pacific maritime supply chain stakeholders/ academics theoretically? (Outcomes inspired

approach) -especially given LDC/Pacific/ business/ smallholder/ individual/ community constraints to

adaptation, asymmetrical information/moral hazard etc Aim to prove that the Cook Islands is not just an

isolated example but demonstrates locally, global implications –across Pacific/ low lying island and

coastal states/ territories etc. How valid/conditional are the results for risk? Can the results effectively

predict/anticipate future risks as risk events increase over time? What are the risk implications for

stakeholders/policy makers? How capable are existing risk management frameworks? Would it support

the hypothesis –underlying premise and assumptions that stakeholders cannot afford ignorance or

apathy/indifference –need to act now for risk management –can only be averted/moderated/minimised–

need to prioritise Pacific and global climate change adaptation if we wish for future of economies and

nations –trade etc –through future of ecosystems, infrastructure etc? More localisation not globalisation;

decentralisation and autonomy but coordinated; ecosystem-based adaptation, not just mitigation or just

adaptation

For effective results to occur networking contacts need to be sufficient, willing, able, qualified and

accessible for each supply chain stage and across the system for a representative sample poll,

sufficient resources –of time/ financial need to be arranged with an effective logistical-coordination

schedule –other field research objectives

137

The world of humans, the environment, our planet and nature of research and technological progress

do not remain static. To consider demographics, Pressures; research capacity and possible capacity for

technological and other innovation over time, population and migration pressures, environment,

resources available for stakeholders, basis of economy and projections for seafood, trade partners –

consider the extent of subsistence economy –local, regional and international interdependency; extent

of competition, asset condition; ecological value; existing and proposed research/ adaptation/ project

priorities Methods and results that consider cumulative events/variables or changes i.e. climate impacts

over time and non-climatic stressors i.e. pollution/ coastal erosion, overdevelopment/urbanisation etc

but also successful climateproofing and adaptation projects –

138

CHAPTER XXIV: Interaction with Industry –Beyond the PHD and Ensuring Research Matters In Reality….

As with life; there are two kinds of fates with research. The first is merely to exist –to speculate and

concentrate on modest efforts with moderate, incremental contributions. The second is to actually make

a difference and contribute in a way that extends merely beyond the oblivion of yet a hundred millionth

published book or obscure journal article. For those of us who seek to ensure our research matters in

reality; this section provides further insight how we can interact with industry, government, the

community and other essential stakeholders to move beyond the article, research, project or thesis in

ivory tower theory. As I identified in why should one consider becoming a PHD student; part of me

wished to

Industry and the Real World

3-4 years is commonly assigned as the time period to undertake a PHD full time across the world –This

represents a huge amount of one’s life to sacrifice to one particular topic, without often doing anything

else. Even when financial assistance and support is provided by the university/ other funding sources

they are seldom extravagant to the point of being able to support what you might make in alternate

sectors. We sacrifice a stable home, luxury of travel, free weekends, a nonhierarchal relationship –

facing university accommodation, isolation from family/ supportive colleagues, the real world;

supportive working environment, variety of conversation,

How much attention do many candidates actually devote to preparing themselves beyond the PHD?

For those who are not fortunate enough to have secured an existing position, have it stipulated in their

funding or get offered a chance, the modern world finally arrives at some point as a reality check after

cocooned for several years in education. Whilst universities and colleges generally train their students

to become professional researchers and teachers, they often neglect the essential task of transferring

general employability skills for the future. There are several components to thriving in an increasingly

competitive world, where qualification inflation means that you have to pressurise to make an

impression on recruiters when others are doing the same, unless your vocation has greater demand

than supply. The several key elements include a brilliant cover letter, curriculum vitae and often

139

selection criteria which enable a candidate to be evaluated for psychometric testing and interviews

rather than swift and humiliating rejection.

CV

PERSONAL DETAILS

ADDRESS:

MOBILE/ Home phone number

EMAIL ADDRESSES:

EDUCATION DETAILS: POSTGRADUATE/GRADUATE/ Undergraduate DEVELOPMENT: A current

indication of your present position; personal development skills including languages and information

technology/ capacity to drive etc, a personal section including awards, prizes, scholarships and

achievements along with members of any networks, sports, leadership activities, volunteering, culture

and societies past and present, a list of recent publications, research output, other output including

seminars, keynote addresses along with supply 2-4 references and an outline of existing employment

history. For format it helps to border, allow reasonable spacing and paragraphing and start with the

year/date, then the achievement/employment.

CAREERS AND EMPLOYABILITY SKILLS: For employment prospects, CV’s, career preparing,

enterprise creation, interviews and placement tests. Part time/volunteer work, guiding

websites/checking past alumni and the resources offered to the alumni Annual careers fair and any

recruiters on campus, registered career. One has to consider after several years in a place and a

university –is it worth remaining? Are employment prospects likely? Have I not exhausted everything

and surely a change is preferable? That is if funding or visa requirements or other opportunities do not

intrude…

How do you actually manage to attain a job after all you have experienced? Being isolated in academic

cloisters scarcely prepares you, among those with greater security.

140

Conclusions, Discussions and Directions For Future Research

When assessing solutions, researchers seldom evaluate potential project/research successes/failures

over time –as a post-study feasibility assessment.

University supervisors often advocate a minimum 3-6 months just to assemble the whole thing together

including drafting the conclusion chapter. This chapter includes not only summaries of each main

argument and other chapters but also discusses both existing limitations of your research and ideas for

extending future related research. Drafting the conclusion chapter is not best left until the end. Many

supervisors advise drafting it in parallel with the case study’s result’s findings. When the end appears in

sight, many emotions from utter incredulity and scepticism to the glimmerings of hope emerge. But

fatigue is far more likely to trump any remaining vestiges of creativity as the overwhelming

preoccupation of one’s being is just to get it over with rather than any truly visionary insight. As the

prime desire of many bureaucrats and faculty is to overcomplicate and try candidates’ lives, students

are recommended to complete as much of each chapter as possible, to minimise drafts, waiting and

later efforts. This includes proof-reading and perfecting references and appendices as a working draft

to which the final chapters can just be slotted into.

Thesis structures vary at each university but include a cover page, abstract, acknowledgements,

declaration of originality, declaration of authorship (or co-authorship if applicable), ethical conduct

statement, table of contents, table of tables and figures, a glossary and list of abbreviations and

acronyms. The references are followed by the Appendixes, ethics forms, survey questionnaire, any

supplementary data, calculations, lists of publications, previous articles and in essence, anything you

wish to include. The one advantage is only Chapters 1 to the conclusion count in the word count. Even

when you actually manage to get to the thesis submission itself, supervisors and administrators

invariably drag out the process even more. Overcommitments, poor diligence, time management,

efficiency, organisation and prioritisation offer skills which candidates are presumed and expected to

master. However, as previously mentioned, no such binding restrictions are unfairly demanded of the

faculty and administrators. Numerous supervisors believe in deluging students with volumes of

contradictory and acrid feedback in the last frenetic weeks prior to submission. Even more they forget

or are callously indifferent to the facts of students having their own life to be concerned about. More

appropriately, we just want to get it over with. So when faced with an impossible instruction of curtailing

over 100,000 words in a week, rather than give up; once more one achieved the impossible!

141

Never mind the fact they had begrudgingly and reluctantly approved every single preceding chapter

and exact phraseology used, even the reference format and appendixes, they still sought to foil one

being done with one delay. So one resorted to desperate tactics, even on a high intensity vacation.

Curiously most online sources focus on padding academic works with superfluous words, more seldom

the converse. Deleting the appendixes and preceding sections proved a good start. Every table, figure

and chart could be saved as a snipping tool or other form of image, removing word counts. Clipping

anything not absolutely necessary is excruciatingly painful but not impossible. Using contractions,

removing adverbs, writing in active not passive tense along with not repeating any phrases or content

(i.e. chapter introductions and summaries) also helped. However, the most useful was placing quotes

and definitions as inserted on a new line and saved as images -a tactic not actually mentioned but one

discovered. After all, why should the quotes of others be added to ones’ word count when one cannot

manipulate them? Of course they frown on footnotes and using numbers as substitutions for

references.

One’s third supervisor contributed nothing to the thesis, had only 4 meetings in 2 years of candidature,

scarcely communicated, showed no car and did not respond for over a year. 3 days prior to the thesis,

he requested an indefinite thesis submission date –so he can ‘read the thesis.’ This inferred he hadn’t

bothered in over three years to actually read anything one had previously submitted. Common sense

infers he was unlikely to do anything in the next 2 months either. This being May, one really sought to

graduate before the end of the year. So one complained and pointed it to my supervisors, who crapped

on me taking his side, brazenly lying that he had contributed a lot and his family issues (ongoing for 2

years) were valid enough for an unknown extension. As one pointed out, we all have family issues but

we do not allow them to provide legitimate figleaf excuses as to why we cannot do anything for 2 years.

In the meantime both my other supervisors -who had actually commented (more preoccupied with their

titles than whether I’d actually answered the research questions); begrudgingly signed off and

acquiesced to submission. The dean merely dismissed the issue as a trivial affair that should be

resolved by me and my supervisors. So I invoked a right which he had mentioned before or

conveniently forgotten. Candidates can submit their thesis at any time, even without their supervisors

and Head of School or University’s approval, provided they notify all parties. Obviously it helps to

pretend that you might actually care about their approval -but its not necessary.

A form of correspondence and the justification are provided below.

The Examination Process

142

And finally, assuming that you survive this far…. there is the examination process. Examiners can vary

so one of the most ridiculous pieces of advice received from the supervisors who quit on me despite

nominating my original candidature, was to consider what the examiner wants… For example,

considering that climate change does not exist just because a sceptic might be appointed and it would

‘offend them.’ The most common issues that caused a number of candidate failures include too small a

sample size, too specific without being able to generalise; the literature review but most of all the

method and research objectives.

From examination to graduation entailed first the initial preparing for submission as detailed through the

above process. Once it actually was submitted it took a laborious, time consuming, harkening ordeal of

another year or so to actually get through the procedure and be declared a graduand then graduate. So

one’s prime advice is to brace yourself! The flight and nightmare are not always guaranteed to be over

with the simple submission of the thesis itself. Many more frustrations, compromises, tragedies, pitfalls

and the angst/terrors of dealing with recalcitrant, belligerent and obstructive supervisors, along with the

idiosyncrasies and whims of examiners combined with the contradictory and pedantic nature of Exam

Review Panels, always on the sides of the supervisors and institution, not you await… If you have tried

valiantly to defend your scholastic masterpiece against everything, it may not suffice as you are forced

to make a decision between sacrifice and compromise, or possibly ultimately failing; should you be

misfortunate to face the above beings preventing you from trying to recover the rest of your life, sanity

and emotional stability or career -life beyond the PHD, postdoc or other consigned, extended research

position. One first submitted in May but only had examiners appointed in August. They were supposed

to have up to 6 weeks to mark the thesis but required another several weeks beyond that, so one only

knew of passing examiner comments in October. This provides another indicator of thoughtlessness,

considering one’s academic and employment prospects were essentially put on pause throughout the

more than year long, post-thesis submission process. As stated previously, there are no consequences

for examiners, supervisor’s or bureaucrats failing to adhere to their own time schedules and no

apologies.

To provide an indicator of what one would have to do to get a thesis passed and to assist subsequent

candidates into penetrating the arcane mysteries of supervisors, one attached one’s personal referee

report for the PhD thesis. The examiner response is in red font: One’s initial student response is

presented in black font using Arial Narrow. A thesis generally has two examiners but can have a third or

more depending on whether they agree in their verdict and the complexity of the topic concerned. The

process entailed 2 revision rounds of responding to examiner comments, presented here. Each

required supervisors to comment before subsequent submission. Even when they agreed with the

changes made, it was still rejected by the Exam Review Panel, composed of academics across the

143

faculties. These had their own feedback issues that had to be resolved. However, this took 3.5 months

– (March 2019) before they actually mentioned that they were dissatisfied with the nature of your

revisions and responses to examiner feedback and then set one 2-3 weeks to comply or face failing the

entire thesis. They then took several weeks to review this, delaying processes further. Only then when

one finally passes this process can one submit the final stages needed to graduate. This requires

submission to the Academic Senate of the entire University, meeting only once every 6 weeks (moving

into June/July) providing further pressure to graduate by August (over 14 months later). Final

submission stages require an electronic uploaded copy to the Library and Graduate Research Office; a

form determining whether or not to authorise electronic/physical access to one’s thesis, an extended

abstract to post/publish and a 40 word summary to read out at graduation. Then one can only worry

about the physical ceremony itself, the robes, photographs and expense of deciding whether or not one

can be physically bothered to turn up, especially when one is thousands of miles away, seeking to

restore one’s life.

REFEREE REPORT FOR PHD THESIS

Overall Comment: This thesis makes an audacious and a comprehensive attempt to examine the impact of climate change on maritime supply chains. I have not seen many theses that directly link climate change to supply chains. The topic chosen for investigation is therefore valid and relevant given the context of the Pacific Island nations. This thesis provides both the basis and justification for the investigation. Having said that this thesis is too long, hard to assess and requires substantial work. The writing is disjointed and fragmented throughout the thesis. It is hard to follow the logic. The standard of writing is variable, sentences are obtuse and too wordy with no proper referencing. Major restructuring therefore is required to consolidate the literature review, methodology applied and the presentation of results and findings to create a coherent structure. It is marred with poor formatting, grammatical errors, cut&paste of diagrams/figures/table and poor referencing.

Candidate Response

In response to both examiners’ comments the entire thesis has been proofread again for formatting, grammar, style and referencing. The candidate would point out the first examiner has provided few specific examples of any of these factors to address. All sentences are no more then 3-4 lines including references hardly too wordy or obtuse. Referencing includes citing over 100 pages and over 1000 references -hardly no proper referencing. All sources used have been cited in text correctly and referencing follows the university and Harvard approved style with no critiques from the report specifically citing referencing. The examiner wishes the author to provide a couple of referencing sources for risk probabilities/statistics. However, the vast majority of data including this occurred as the candidate’s contribution to this research as data did not exist in an accessible format in many cases as frequently indicated in this thesis, prior to actually creating it. All examiner 2 specific comments were addressed including removing 129 commas. This candidate has had it professionally checked in

144

addition to supervisors and is willing to amend specific proof reading/editorial revision errors that are pointed out by pages and adjusted.

Abstract:

This abstract needs to be clearly rewritten to illustrate what this thesis aims to achieve, what research methodology is adopted, what the candidate found and what are the potential implications of those findings. I suggest embedding RQs into the abstract.

Candidate’s response

The abstract has been modified to address these points. However, the original May 2018 version and the attached version’s abstract clearly specified all of these points and included RQ’s embedded in the end of the abstract.

The presentation and discussion in Chapter 1 are all over the place. It would be good to clearly highlight the interaction between CC and MSCs instead of providing too much details on Climate Change and its impact.

. The structure and discussion are clearly explained following the layout of past examined and approved PHD theses including those of the University of Tasmania. First climate change’s research background is provided; then the research gap for MSC’s; then the research questions; then significance of the thesis and its attempted contributions then the structure of what is covered in each thesis. Revised but Chapters 2-8 provide an entire thesis on the topic of climate change and MSC’s. To understand a topic as discussed and approved by supervisors; it is essential to provide a background introducing climate change’s impact globally to all sectors prior to emphasizing MSC’s given the bulk of existing studies. Revised to highlight climate change and MSC’s.

There is no need to state the aim of this thesis in research background in page 25.

Amended

Motivation reads like a rationale. I suggest the title then or the listing of motivational factors for this piece of research. Changed Title

Graphs can be presented better in black and white. Typically, we write the Figure at the bottom of the graphs/diagrams.

In an electronic age with no need for physical printed copies; this requirement does not appear necessary for graphs or explanations as to why these can be presented better without colour. There is no formal convention for black and white graphs/figures as mandatory in existing examined and approved University/other PhD theses. It is this candidate’s perspective having had it passed by supervisors; that colour presentation more clearly illuminates differences in risk event occurrences between regions; identifies the significance of increasing risk event frequency; displaying divergences in risks; impact costs; solutions etc. There is no formal convention for Figure titles placed at bottom of graphs/diagrams. This subject has received much discussion with supervisors and this candidate has faithfully complied with placing it at the top as ardently recommended by supervisors and in other examined and approved University PHD thesis

145

1.3 section Page 31, remove the first paragraph and write the AIM of this thesis in simple language and 3-4 research questions or objectives that you have answered in this thesis. Note that these questions should be directly related to your work, not the work of others. Remove the embedded literature review from this section.

Modified in accordance with received feedback

Try to merge motivation and significance with a focus on MSC and CC.

Modified in response to above comment. Rationale links to identifying research gap focusing on MSC and climate change. Significance of thesis refers to justifying the need for research; how and why this specific thesis will overcome this research gap. This follows existing standard UTAS and other theses.

Chapter 2, 3, and 4 are all reporting on literature reviews, they could be substantially reduced and if possible amalgamated into a single chapter. Alternatively, the key concepts and theories related to CC, MSC and associated themes can be presented first, followed by methods, approaches and frameworks.

This response was previously raised and discussed with this candidate’s supervisors. The existing format was agreed to as all theses possess separate thematic literature review and method chapters and cannot be substantially reduced without failing to answer the questions and provide enough references to ensure all important references, themes and methods are justified. This avoids having excessively long chapters and follows the consistent format suggested by the examiner as key concepts and theories related to climate change and MSC’s are addressed first. The first chapter focuses on theory/themes, definitions and concepts in the order mentioned in chapter 1.5 and RQ focus/results area. Chapter 3 focuses on providing a review of existing methods to validate the thesis’s proposed integrated, mixed research methodology approach as clearly justified in the thesis. Chapter 4 is an entirely different theme not literature review focused providing a South Pacific specific context with climate change risk scenarios and projections essential for KRQA. It provides a background chapter detailing policy implications and the existing solutions linking to ARQI/KRQC. All chapters have been previously presented/published as peer reviewed articles, conference papers or book chapters and validated.

Chapter 2 Climate change can be defined in one page, tell us 5 or day widely used definitions.

The candidate did define climate and climate change on page 40 only. Second part of comment not clear why 5 or day definitions?

The concept of maritime supply chain is not clear, needs to make it a bit more explicit. Is this maritime supply chain or commodity chains? Table 2.1 is a misfit here.

This has been revised as it clearly refers to a maritime supply chain. However, to illustrate the thesis devised concept an example was presented with a maritime supply chain transporting a maritime commodity of seafood/pearls including a diagram. Table 2.1 is justified by showing a MSC can be understood by its functions in response to different MSC stakeholder requirements expected of it and the extent to which it successfully addresses these requirements.

Are we talking risk or vulnerability? They are different concepts.

These concepts are clearly defined and treated as separate on page 46 specifically in the May 2018 version of this thesis but also in Chapters 2 and 3 throughout the thesis. They are often linked with a

146

hyphen as Risk-Vulnerability because they are connected as necessary parts of the same integrated methodology.

What is the basis of building the table 2.2? Is this table being compiled and collated from previous studies?

As amended on page 49 in response to examiner comments. This table was devised by a combination of candidate innovations and existing Chapter 2 identified sources.

Page 57, could you revisit sentences starting with “this thesis idenitifies…”, just summarise Long Term Impacts…and make not too many claims. Sections in these chapter have superfluous information and discussion that are not related to the title of the sub-sections. I suggest removing the irrelevant information and consolidate each section to reflect the title.

Page 57 comments are changed. Amended but no specifics have been provided as no information is superfluous.

Table 2.5 and 2.6 are good but it is important to show how they are compiled.

For Table 2.5, as amended on page 77/78 in response to examiner comments. This table was devised by a combination of candidate innovations and existing Chapter 2 identified sources.

It would be good to talk about risk assessment framework which would include mitigation, adaptation…a diagram would be good to insert to provide a broader perspective.

Section 2.7/page 85 plus page 120 is amended to include this integrated risk assessment framework

For Table 2.6: This table was devised by combining Tables 2.3/2.4, candidate ideas and existing Chapter 2 identified sources.

Section 2.7. an integrated supply chain stakeholder solution is a bit abrupt, it needs to be clearly highlighted earlier in addition to other approaches.

Revised and highlighted in both sections 1.5 and 2.1 but alluded to and justified throughout chapters 1 and 2.

It would be good if the candidate identifies and succinctly state the research gaps and suggest the appropriate approach. Conclude this Chapter by presenting the summary of the key findings.

Supervisors suggested this constant need for summaries wasted words given constraints of 100,000 words as the chapter already mentioned these findings. Key findings are illustrated in each section and in 2.7 as validating the need for a joint solution to overcome existing research gaps.

CHAPTER 3 Intro too long and meaningless.

The introduction is 1.25 pages in alignment with other UTAS approved theses. As with other theses it introduces the research methodology chapter and provides the layout/justification for each chapter section as an overview. This approach was discussed and previously agreed to by supervisors.

147

Section 3.2 Again, intro too long and meaningless.

The introduction is less than one page in alignment with other UTAS approved theses. As with other theses it introduces the section and provides the layout/justification as an overview. Search selection criteria are necessary for determining which literature sources were reviewed and which were excluded to form the literature review and reference list. This approach was discussed and previously agreed to by supervisors.

This chapter is highly incoherent and lacking consistency. It is too long and most of the materials are just irrelevant. Note that this is not a literature review. Please type the definitions and tables, not cut and paste.

No specific examples are given as to how it is inconsistent or which materials are irrelevant. Previous candidate responses and Chapters 1.5/ 3 validate why each part of the chapter is necessary. Before a thesis methodology can be devised it is essential. Climate change is a complex topic treated in many diverse ways. The examiner has not challenged the theoretical validity of the candidate’s chosen method and the literature needed to be critically evaluated to support it over other alternatives. The chapter has been amended for Chapter 3 but word limits exist. Definitions and tables are changed to not cut and paste but this substantially increases word limits for the thesis and adds no material value to the thesis’s quality. Nor is this mentioned as unacceptable for passing a thesis.

Few lines on each of the methods such as simulation or modelling would be enough unless the candidate applying it to this study. Please remove most the materials which are not needed. This is not a literature review. A table can be created to show the advantages/disadvantages. Remove the description of mathematical methods….

This candidate respectfully disagrees as mentioned under previous comments and justified in Chapters 1,2 and 3 as to why extensive method analysis is necessary. This provides the theoretical method framework, validates the thesis contribution and represents < third of this chapter. It also addresses a previous examiner comment which asked for methods to be reviewed after core concepts, theories and themes related to climate change and MSC’s (See below comment in red). Table 3.1 already lists qualitative method characteristics. Omitting mathematical methods would invalidate the following equations and theoretical framework including deriving risk probabilities and equations. This would fail to resolve other examiner comments highlighted in red.

Chapter 2, 3, and 4 are all reporting on literature reviews, they could be substantially reduced and if possible amalgamated into a single chapter. Alternatively, the key concepts and theories related to CC, MSC and associated themes can be presented first, followed by methods, approaches and frameworks.

Where is STAGE I?

As stated in Chapters I, 5, Appendixes I-V and consistently throughout chapter 3 including section 3.4; stage I reviews to Interviews/Surveys page 121. The table of contents clearly specifies this as does the section in both the May 2018 examined version and the attached October 2018 version.

Figure 3.2 is good but not sure how this is developed, and the logic applied. How is this driving this research?

This is revised but has comprehensively been explained in the text in sections 3.3.1-3.3.3.

148

3.3.4. title too complex and makes little sense Revised

Section 3.4. Research design, are research questions part of the research design? WHAT IS STAGE I? Interviews?

As stated in Chapters I, 5 and consistently throughout chapter 3 including section 3.4; stage I reviews to Interviews/Surveys

Section 3.4.5. Use of WILL needs to be revisited…will do this and that??? Too much details in each section.

Revised3.5 Analytic framework, is this applied in this study. Too much details.

RevisedHow did you compute mean rate of climate change?

Not referred to in text. All methods of calculation/mathematics utilised appear in Chapters 3, 5-7 and Appendix IX

Figure 3.3 makes no sense

Revised in text but explained in chapter 3. Presentation is improved.

Chapter 4 aims to cover too much. I suggest drawing back the discussion to remain within the scope of this study.

See previous comments referring to the reason for Chapter 4. This chapter was previously published as a book chapter in response to Pacific MSC stakeholder demand over climate change uncertainty and localized projections. Justification for chapter 4 is clearly provided in section 1.5, section 2.7, Chapters 3, 4 and 8 in response to answering KRQA: identifying climate change risks for Pacific maritime supply chains and KRQC: adaptation strategies including legislation to overcome existing failure of policy stakeholders and gaps.

Could be more specific about CC scenarios particularly those generated by CSIRO

The examiner has previously indicated concerns with covering too much in Chapters 2-4. However more brief information is included about climate change scenarios in Chapters 1, 3, 4 and 5. References are supplied when needed. The chapter is 33 pages covering global, Pacific regional and local climate change scenarios with assumptions and implications. The candidate is willing to provide more information, given constraints in response to specific concerns as these or the quality/validity/detail etc is not questioned in detail by the examiners. This point conflicts with the previous point highlighted in red.

Is legislation relevant to this thesis?

Revised but the chapter clearly emphasizes that current legislation is relevant to the thesis as it shows policy makers are not resolving climate change risks, impact costs and adaptation solutions via legislation

149

Chapter 5 is a bit better chapter, but the details provided on data collection and analysis need to be further teased out and linked to research methodology chapter. This must be linked to research design and literature review.

Given the chapter has 59 pages; the candidate elected to link data collection and analysis to the research method in chapter 3 and sees no reason for repeating sections clearly linked to the research design and literature review, as Chapters 1-3, 5 and 8 detail.

More information is required on the participants and interview questions along with the survey.

As stated in the comments, Appendix XII provides a full list of participants. As discussed and agreed to by supervisors, Cook Islands and University Ethics committees, Chapter 5 includes demographic profile information and statistics. Interview question information is provided in the Appendixes and in Chapters 1, 3, 5-7 and 8. Given 100,000 word limits, the candidate did not feel the need to repeat superfluous information but is open to providing any specific information needed by the examiners or panel.

Table 5.6 and 5.7 - provide the source of data for this, not just author…

The examiner wishes the author to provide a couple of referencing sources for risk probabilities/statistics. However, the vast majority of data including this occurred as the candidate’s contribution to this research as data did not exist in an accessible format in many cases as frequently indicated in this thesis, prior to actually creating it. The candidate has not plagiarized anything. Examiners and panel are welcome to check but the candidate feels as the sole author of many tables and data, it should be referred to as theirs’ as previously discussed with supervisors and others at the University of Tasmania.

I am not sure how reliably these risk event probabilities are generated. More details to be provided, including the data, reliability and statistical model used to project trends.

Chapters 3, 5 and Appendixes clearly specify how these risk event probabilities are generated. Results have been verified across 17 Pacific nations to verify increasing climate change risks and this examiner has mentioned no fundamental problems with the methodology; scenario or other assumptions; conceptual framework or any other specific aspect including justifications given. The mathematics have been amended in response to the second examiner’s concerns. This may aid the above concerns. Given the exploratory nature of this work and existing research gap; the candidate has proposed the probabilities are conditional upon certain Chapters 3-6 scenario assumptions and represent minimum verifiable estimates for the future. However, the method itself is amenable to more specific future estimations as more data becomes available -one of the more significant aspects to the research. The model’s reliability has been tested and alluded to in Chapters 3, 5 and 8 including statistical tests; supervisors; internationally peer reviewed published book chapters/articles/conference papers plus thesis appendixes especially VII and IX.

Could this chapter be focused on data collected through interviews and provide narratives. Please remove all irrelevant materials.

Section checked, edited and proof read but nothing specific is cited as irrelevant. The chapter is focused on 2 parts as with chapter 6. Chapter 5 focuses on establishing climate change risks. As justified in Chapters 1-4, then 5 and 8; this requires the need for interviews, surveys, content analysis and time series empirical data of risks and probabilities; current, expected and future, to triangulate results against stakeholder climate change risk perceptions. This approach was discussed and agreed

150

to with supervisors. The second examiner found nothing irrelevant. All information is essential to providing information, answering KRQA and important results.

Page 199, too long, as an ethnographer, interpret the stories to provide some deeper insights.

Page 199 covers 2-3 paragraphs of existing environmental challenges limiting Pacific Island stakeholder capacity to respond to climate change. The candidate respectfully points out there are no stories in this section to be interpreted or ethnography. However, the candidate has interpreted these environmental pressures or challenges will be amplified by climate change risks to marine ecosystem resources; as the first stage of risk impacts to an entire supply chain.

The key findings from this chapter need to be summarised and theoretically framed with better and more informed explanation.

Revised to provide deeper insights. As with previous comment; key findings are summarized in each section but not at the concluding part of the chapter in alignment with this candidate’s received supervisory feedback.

Chapter 6 The economic profile can be added to the case study chapter along with CC projections etc.

Chapter 6 is a case study chapter in addition to Chapter 5. The candidate possesses grave reservations about adding chapter 4 projections and chapter 6 economic profile when Chapter 5 is 67 pages long already. The candidate’s supervisors warned the candidate about this which is why climate projections are separately established as South Pacific background in Chapter 4 and economic profile in Chapter 6. The economic profile is justified in chapter 6 as this focuses on KRQB on climate change impact costs which relate to the economy/MSC far more than climate change risks in Chapter 6.

I am sure how the equations derived and what data being used. Not clear. How this be done through stakeholder content analysis? I just removing this and focus on the data that you collected on the survey.

As stated in Chapters 3, 5 and 6; equations are clearly derived and data sources provided where possible. However South Pacific data is highly fragmentary with other issues that developed world countries do not possess. The candidate needs all this impact cost data from alternative sources to answer KRQB on identifying climate change impact costs for maritime supply chains. Considering how few candidates provided all precise cost estimates needed through content analysis; the tool is insufficient without access to historical or other data where possible; otherwise severely compromising the integrity and quality of results and estimates.

The estimations in 6.4.16 are flawed and should be removed or they need to be better explained in a typical econometric modelling framework. I am not sure who those variables are derived, and the model estimated? Were the reliability of the model tested? I am not confident with the results of the estimations for the future

The mathematics have been amended in response to the second examiner’s concerns. This may aid the above concerns. The candidate points out 6.4.16 is extensively addressed in section 3. Given the exploratory nature of this work and existing research gap; the candidate has proposed the estimations of the future are conditional upon certain Chapters 3-6 scenario assumptions and represent minimum verifiable estimates for the future. However, the method itself is amenable to more specific future

151

estimations as more data becomes available -one of the more significant aspects to the research. The model’s reliability has been tested and alluded to in Chapters 3, 5 and 8.

Chapter 7 This chapter is ok, but can be improved by removing repetition, shorter quotation, more clearer narratives, and a consolidated summary.

The chapter has been proof read to check there is no repetition, ensuring the above comments are addressed to the point that core quotations, narratives and concepts are not compromised

Chapter 8 Key findings can be listed more clearly instead of going through chapters. They should reflect the results from the interviews and surveys.

As in the original copy submitted to examiners and the attached October 2018 version; key findings of the surveys and interviews were included and reflected in Chapter 8

Should show how the research questions were answered?

As in the original copy submitted to examiners and the attached October 2018 version; careful examination and perusal will affirm the candidate has already clearly specified how the research questions were answered by including them in the chapter with the answers.

Implications should show how the results will help making informed decisions and choices.

Amended. As in the original copy submitted to examiners and the attached October 2018 version; careful examination and perusal will affirm the candidate has already clearly specified how the results will help in making informed decisions and choices.

Recommendations make no clear sense, they should be directly linked to what you have found in your research and should be supported by a logical explanation.

Amended. The recommendations are directly linked to the research findings and justified with a logical explanation

Where is the theoretical contribution of this study?

Amended. As in the original copy submitted to examiners and the attached October 2018 version; careful examination and perusal will affirm the candidate has already clearly specified the theoretical contribution but has added a heading and sentence to make it even more obvious.

Examiner response in red: Student response in black font, Arial Narrow

Methodological

Overall the methodology developed and applied by the candidate is sound, informative and innovative. The field work and case study reported for the Cook Islands is excellent, and the candidate should be congratulated on this. The work performed in the case study and reported in Chapter 4-7 (the bulk of the thesis) is outstanding, and this is where the candidate has demonstrated his capabilities and understanding of the issues

152

and research questions concerning climate change adaptation. This work is the basis on which the degree could be awarded. However, there is one issue that requires attention. This concerns the mathematics used to underpin the analysis of risk and vulnerability for Pacific island communities and their maritime supply chains (MSC). Chapter 3 is where the candidate introduces his mathematical models, which are then used in subsequent chapters. I cannot ascertain whether the candidate is cavalier or naïve with regard to his use of mathematics. In particular, his models – as presented – seem to violate some basic rules of probability theory. The mathematical presentations of many of the equations are incorrect, obscure, and riddled with errors. More explanation of the models and improved presentation of the model equations is needed. The following comments should make these needs clearer. They focus on the contents of Chapter 3 The starting point is the Poisson distribution, presented here (twice) as equation . The equation and its mathematical conditions should be written as Equation then reappears on page 128. The candidate claims to have devised equations in the thesis, but this is not so for equation which has been known since the early 19th century. Rather the thesis model starts with equation). Repeating equation at the point in the thesis is unnecessary; the candidate should merely refer to it as having been presented on page. Surely equations X and Y should also be included in the thesis model, suggesting that these equations were renumbered at some point? Equation provides the first of the mysteries. What exactly is P(x) as presented by this equation?

These terms have been defined and the paragraph refers to devising only equations 3.2.-3.9 given the context of climate change and maritime supply chains

Equations are riddled with typographical errors and need to be completely reworked and presented in proper mathematical form. These errors include missing parentheses and missing probability ‘P’ designations Equation brings some new issues. The equation as presented is not an equation, for it has no LHS (left hand side).

The candidate has modified the equations

153

The candidate has modified the equations

Candidate Response

Cost-benefit analysis and its potential including NPV and discount rate is not ignored in this thesis but appears in Sections 3.2.3; 3.4 and 6.1. However, Page 135 and chapter 6 have been modified to include time periods for not just 5 but 10 years, 20 years, 25 years, 50 and 100 years respectively to comply with feedback

In addition, Section 3.4.3 (page 122) needs some reworking. The observation about the time period for the PhD and the maximum word limit for the thesis is irrelevant. Delete that sentence. Sections 3.4.4-3.4.8 also need to be rewritten in the present or past tense, not the future (e.g. ‘Primary data collection will be acquired …’ should be, in the thesis ‘Primary data collection was acquired …’ and ‘All research data will be securely stored …’ should be ‘All research data are stored …’). Presently these sections read as though they have been lifted straight from a university policy document or from some preliminary instructions to HDR candidates. On page 125 the third line of Section 3.4.7 might be better written as ‘… University of Tasmania or any other Australian university requires …’ In short, Chapter 3 requires a thorough reworking.

Candidate Response

The above equations have been improved in presentation, redefined, checked for parenthesis and omitted p terms and amended. The candidate has amended sections 3.4.3-3.4.8 as well as 3.3. to comply with the examiner’s feedback.

Editorial

Editorial issues split into two types: systematic issues and typographical errors. The former are more important and detract from the scholarly value and readability of the thesis. The systematic issues occur throughout the thesis and as such a full list of occurrences is not appropriate. Rather the candidate needs to go through the thesis and find and rectify these issues. They are:

1. The use of the oral vernacular form (haven’t, doesn’t, couldn’t, can’t, etc) is not appropriate for written text and is especially poor in a scholarly work. Use the proper form (have not, does not, could not, cannot, etc)

Amended

2. The candidate has an obsession with the use of commas. While some older forms of English expression have used commas to follow multiple adjectives (e.g. the big, black, wooden boat) this is a less common contemporary form and, in the case of this thesis, the overuse of the comma breaks up some sentences and renders them ambiguous if not incomprehensible. Two examples from Chapter 3 will illustrate this. On page 114 are the two consecutive sentences “Sudden, risks include climate change-related events. Other, less investigated risks include …”. Neither of those two commas are required and indeed make the first sentence difficult to comprehend. Page 120 finishes with the sentence “A lack of secondary data, with locational/situational, specific information applying to individual Pacific MSC,’ case studies exists”. The commas here are not needed and the meaning of the sentence is quite obscured. [The stray apostrophe is also a distraction.]

154

Amended. 129 Commas were removed

3. Layout and page formatting show some deficiencies. In particular the candidate should ensure that a. figure captions, and figure legends and keys (where used) appear on the same page as the figure. This rule also applies to tables

b. section headings should always be followed by (some) text, so that there should never be a section or subsection heading as the last line of a page

Amended but in the candidate’s version of Word this was not an issue. Depending on the version of Word used by the examiners this may present a problem beyond the candidate’s control

c. figures and tables should be numbered sequentially in the order that they are cited. For example, Table 2.5 is referred to on page 55, but Table 2.4 is not referred to until page 59. On page 119 the reference to Figure 3.3 appears before that to Figure 3.2.

Amended

d. a figure or table should always appear within 1-2 pages of the original citation for that figure/table. A notorious example in the thesis is Table 2.5 (cited on page 55), which is shown until pp75-76. Similarly, Figure 3.3 is cited on page 119 but appears on page 132! Having to search through the text to find a figure or table makes readers (in this case examiners) quite grumpy. The question also arises as to whether or not the candidate meant to refer to this table or figure?

Amended

There are a number of minor typographical errors that should be removed in preparing the final version of the thesis. A list follows, but this is not exhaustive and the thesis should be properly and independently proof read in the production of the final version.

‘km/h’ not ‘kph’ Amended

Figure 1.4 should be stretched horizontally to make the pies circular (again)

Amended

Table 2.4 lists ‘short term impacts’ Some of these may be described as extreme weather events, and this should be noted, e.g. by modifying the table captionAmended

155

A section heading extending over three lines of text is excessive. The heading should be shortenedAmended

The third paragraph seems to be written in ‘shorthand’. It consequently makes no sense at present and should be rewritten.The penultimate line is missing a full stop.Amended

There is a missing parenthesis in the reference to Gujarali 2011.The following sentence would read better if it started as ‘As with simulation methods …’

Amended

What does mean?In the first sentence of the last paragraph, use ‘normal distribution’ not ‘normality distribution’.Amended

A reference is needed for ‘the Mandelbrotion’.Amended

An equation number should be provided for the NPV, and this equation should appear on a separate line.Similarly for life cycle cost (LCC?) – and what is ‘expected service life’? Should there be an equation for this?Amended

What does ‘a Tibbet to Contwoyto’ refer to? The sentence needs to be rewritten.Amended

Delete the comma from ‘Netherlands, Environmental Assessment Agency (2014)’.The sentence ‘Another disadvantage includes certain impacts …‘ seems to have something missing? It should be rewritten.Amended

156

Should ‘i.e. port strikes’ actually be ‘e.g. port strikes’, as one of many other risk types not included (earthquakes, tsunamis, fuel shortages for instance)Amended

Replace ‘expands’ by ‘covers’ in the first sentence of Section 5.2Amended

‘Top five export trade partners include’ should surely read ‘Top five export trade partners are’, for the five are listed!Amended

‘Cook’ not ‘Cooks’ in the first sentence of Section 5.4.2.Amended

All changes mentioned in this list with specific pages have been addressed in the revised October 2018 thesis draft. In addition to comply with examiner requests the entire thesis has been proof read for additional commas, grammar, style, layout, content and other formatting/referencing issues.

157

CANDIDATE SAMPLE RESPONSE TO PHD EXAMINER I COMMENTS REPORT FOR ABSTRACT CHAPTERS 1-8 FEEDBACK SUBMISSION,

Examiner comment in red: Student response in black font, Arial Narrow

Comment Number

Examiner comment Candidate response Page no

1 Overall Comment:This thesis makes an audacious and a comprehensive attempt to examine the impact of climate change on maritime supply chains. I have not seen many theses that directly link climate change to supply chains. The topic chosen for investigation is therefore valid and relevant given the context of the Pacific Island nations. This thesis provides both the basis and justification for the investigation.Having said that this thesis is too long, hard to assess and requires substantial work. The writing is disjointed and fragmented throughout the thesis. It is hard to follow the logic. The standard of writing is variable, sentences are obtuse and too wordy with no proper referencing. Major restructuring therefore is required to consolidate the literature review, methodology applied and the presentation of results and findings to create a coherent structure. It is marred with poor formatting, grammatical errors, cut & paste of diagrams/figures/table and poor referencing.

I should like to thank the examiner for having gone through my thesis so thoroughly and for the positive comments provided in the opening paragraph.

I have taken note of his comments regarding the length of the thesis, nature and standard of writing and need for restructuring. In response to both examiners’ comments the entire thesis has been proofread again for formatting, grammar, style and referencing. All sentences have been reviewed to make them more succinct including references.Paragraphs have been justified. Referencing includes citing over 100 pages and over 1,000 references. All references have been reviewed to ensure they have been cited in text correctly and referencing follows the UTAS Harvard approved style. The formatting issues that I have corrected include issues of standardisation of fonts, numbering, spacing, justification, page numbers, cut and paste tables and quotes. Diagrams and figure backgrounds have been changed from black to white. It should be noted I have had to leave a few complex figures as cut and paste as they have tended to become disrupted, and difficult to anchor when inserted into the text. The risk modelling and its results sections have been removed.

The length of the thesis proper from chapter 1 to chapter 8 has been reduced from 357 in the May 2018 submitted

Varies

158

version to 317 pages. This is a 40 page reduction in length. The entire thesis length including preface and appendices has been reduced from 646 to 595 pages (51 pages) in total.

All examiner 2 specific comments have been addressed including removing several hundred commas and semi-colons. Other grammatical errors that have been corrected include removal of contractions, tenses, abbreviations for references, spelling and typographical errors, split infinitives and widows and orphans. Sentences have been reexamined to make a more readable, cohesive and concise narrative. It has also been professionally checked in addition to supervisors. A further check has been conducted prior to this second submission, and any errors that remain and that may have escaped my notice are regretted.

Chapter 1 has been reduced by 3 pages, from 18 to 15.Abstract:This abstract needs to be clearly rewritten to illustrate what this thesis aims to achieve, what research methodology is adopted, what the candidate found and what are the potential implications of those findings. I suggest embedding RQs into the abstract.

It is agreed that the writing of this abstract could have been written more clearly. The abstract has been rewritten to address these points. The attached version’s abstract clearly specifies the aims, methodology, findings and implications, and includes RQ’s embedded in the first paragraph of the abstract.

IV

1 General Chapter 1 has been reduced by 3 pages. The format has been justified and improved. The changes for this chapter and all subsequent chapters are highlighted and indicated with comments in the track changes version of the thesis.

2 The presentation and discussion in Chapter 1 are all over the place. It would be good to clearly highlight the interaction between CC and MSCs instead of providing too much details on Climate Change and

Agree. The presentation, structure and discussion have been reviewed to emphasise the interaction between climate change and MSCs.

159

its impact. I have taken cogniscence of all received feedback by the supervisors, examiners and Review Panel and accordingly enhanced the presentation. This presentation follows the layout of past approved PhD theses including those of the University of Tasmania. The details on Climate Change have been reduced to providing the essential background introducing climate change’s impact globally to all sectors, prior to emphasizing MSCs on the fourth page.

3 There is no need to state the aim of this thesis in research background in page 25.

Agree - amended

4 Motivation reads like a rationale. I suggest the title then or the listing of motivational factors for this piece of research.

Agree - amended title of section 1.2 to rationale and identified factors.

5 Graphs can be presented better in black and white. Typically, we write the Figure at the bottom of the graphs/diagrams.

Agree and changed backgrounds to white. There appears to be no formal convention for black and white graphs/figures as mandatory when electronic not printed, in approved UTAS/other PhD theses. It was therefore considered that colour presentation more clearly illuminates differences in risk event occurrences between regions; identifies the significance of increasing risk event frequency; displays divergences in risks; impact costs; solutions etc.

There is no formal convention for Figure titles placed at bottom of graphs/diagrams. This subject has received much discussion with supervisors. Placing them at the top was in accordance with the request of my supervisors and in other examined and approved UTAS PHD theses.

6 1.3 section Page 31, remove the first paragraph and write the AIM of this thesis in simple language and 3-4 research questions or objectives that you have answered in this thesis. Note that these questions should be directly related to your work, not the work of others. Remove the embedded literature review from this section.

Agree - modified in accordance with received feedback. The questions are directly related to my own work and not that of others. The embedded literature was removed. The first paragraph was reduced to a two-line opening sentence.

7 Try to merge motivation and significance with a Rationale links to identifying research gap focusing on MSCs

160

focus on MSC and CC. and climate change. Significance of thesis refers to justifying the need for research; how and why this specific thesis will overcome this research gap. This has been clarified under the rationale section 1.2. The practise of separate sections for each follows existing standard UTAS and other theses and was discussed with supervisors.

8 Chapter 2, 3, and 4 are all reporting on literature reviews, they could be substantially reduced and if possible amalgamated into a single chapter.

Alternatively, the key concepts and theories related to CC, MSC and associated themes can be presented first, followed by methods, approaches and frameworks.

Chapters 2-4 have all been substantially reduced. Chapter 2 has been reduced from 48 to 44 pages. This has been somewhat offset by the need to insert additional definitions, a Figure and summary in response to specific examiner comments

I have given this a great deal of thought. The merging of the methodology literature review and discussion was previously raised and discussed extensively with this candidate’s supervisors. The existing format was agreed to as there were a large number of important references, themes and methods needing inclusion. Also, the establishment of the method approach was integrally related to the approaches used in other previous accepted UTAS and Australian university theses. Analysis of previous methods directly informed the development of the methods used in this thesis. It therefore proves very difficult to separate them. It was therefore perceived and agreed with the primary supervisor it was not necessary to amalgamate the three chapters 2-4.In addition, when relooking at the examiner suggested approach of removing chapter 3’s literature comments and moving them into chapter 2, it would inevitably result in the lengthening of chapter 2. This then conflicts with examiner comments about shortening the chapter.

This structure avoids having excessively long chapters and follows the consistent format suggested by the examiner. All university theses have separate literature review and methodology chapters, as do other theses.

Partially agree with examiner’s comments as the key concepts and theories related to climate change and MSCs are presented first followed by method approaches. The Chapters have now

161

been reviewed again to reemphasise the linking of key concepts to climate change, associated MSCs and reduced where possible.

9 Chapter 2: Climate change can be defined in one page, tell us 5 or day widely used definitions.

Agree, several definitions have been added and defined in approximately one page. But the most internationally common and agreed upon definition is the IPCC 2015 one previously placed first in the May 2018 exam submission. Other definitions are broadly very similar and derive from this source.

10 The concept of maritime supply chain is not clear, needs to make it a bit more explicit. Is this maritime supply chain or commodity chains? Table 2.1 is a misfit here.

This has been revised to make it more explicit. The commodity chain is clarified by an example. It is agreed that Table 2.1 is a misfit because it relates more to the results of research rather than published material. It has been removed. The new Table 2.1 was the former Table 2.2 in the May, October and December 2018 submissions. All subsequent tables have been renumbered.

11 Are we talking risk or vulnerability? They are different concepts.

Agree they are different concepts. These concepts have been clearly defined and treated as separate on page 22 and elsewhere in Chapters 2 and 3. However they are often linked with a hyphen as Risk-Vulnerability because they are connected as necessary parts of the same integrated methodology as contained within standard literature on climate change.

12 What is the basis of building the table 2.2? Is this table being compiled and collated from previous studies?Page 57, could you revisit sentences starting with “this thesis identifies…”, just summarise Long Term Impacts…and make not too many claims.

Sections in these chapter have superfluous information and discussion that are not related to the title of the sub-sections. I suggest removing the irrelevant information and consolidate each section to reflect the title.

Note Table 2.2 is now 2.1. As amended on page 28 in response to examiner comments to the following. “This table was devised by a combination of candidate innovations and existing Chapter 2 identified sources”.

The phrase “this thesis…” has been removed more than 50 times.

Agree. Page 57 comments are changed to new page 25.

Amended. Although the superfluous information was not identified it was observed that some information under short- and long-term impacts seemed inappropriately placed. This information has been removed from those sections and

162

consolidated into a new section 2.5.3 titled: Indirect Impacts in response to this comment.

13 Table 2.5 and 2.6 are good but it is important to show how they are compiled.

Agree. Pages 34-41 are amended. These are now tables 2.4 and 2.5. The new table 2.4 was devised by a combination of candidate innovations and existing Chapter 2 identified sources. This has now been indicated in the chapter.

For Table 2.6 (now 2.5): This table was devised by combining Tables 2.3/2.4, candidate ideas and existing Chapter 2 identified sources. This point has been added. The tables are no longer cut and paste

14 It would be good to talk about risk assessment framework which would include mitigation, adaptation…a diagram would be good to insert to provide a broader perspective.

Agree. Section 2.7 is amended to include this integrated risk assessment framework. The existing approach has been discussed with supervisors.

An appropriate IPCC diagram has been inserted on page 43 in response to the comment

15 Section 2.7. an integrated supply chain stakeholder solution is a bit abrupt, it needs to be clearly highlighted earlier in addition to other approaches.

Agree. Revised and highlighted in both sections 1.5 and 2.1 but alluded to and justified throughout chapters 1 and 2.

16 It would be good if the candidate identifies and succinctly state the research gaps and suggest the appropriate approach.Conclude this Chapter by presenting the summary of the key findings.

Agree a succinct summary of key research gaps identified has been included. However, supervisors suggested that repeated summaries added to the length, as the chapter already mentioned these findings. Key findings are illustrated in each section and in 2.7 through bullet point; as validating the need for a joint solution to overcome existing research gaps.

General Having said that this thesis is too long, The chapter was reduced from 59 pages in the Examiner’s version to 50 pages.

Removed “This thesis” approximately 19 times16 CHAPTER 3

Intro too long and meaningless.The introduction is now 1.15 pages. As with other UTAS theses it introduces the research methodology chapter and provides the layout/justification for each chapter section as an overview. This approach was discussed and previously agreed to by

163

supervisors.17 Section 3.2 Again, intro too long and meaningless. The introduction is now less than one page. As with other UTAS

theses it introduces the section and provides the layout/justification as an overview. Search selection criteria are necessary for determining which literature sources were reviewed and which were excluded to form the literature review and reference list. This approach was discussed and previously agreed to by supervisors.

18 This chapter is highly incoherent and lacking consistency. It is too long and most of the materials are just irrelevant. Note that this is not a literature review.Please type the definitions and tables, not cut and paste.

Revised. The chapter has been amended to remove perceived superfluous information and reduced from 59 to 50 pages. The approach of reviewing literature methods was discussed to and agreed to previously by candidate supervisors. To justify one’s existing method in chapter 3, it was perceived and agreed as necessary to review existing methods first to avoid an excessively long chapter 2 literature review, which focuses on thematic areas not methods.

Definitions and tables are changed to not cut and paste.19 Few lines on each of the methods such as simulation

or modelling would be enough unless the candidate applying it to this study. Please remove most the materials which are not needed. This is not a literature review. A table can be created to show the advantages/disadvantages.

Partially agree. Please see comment above concerning “This is not a literature review.”

Myriad methods exist given the novelty and interdisciplinary nature of integrating climate change, economics, laws, risk management and MSCs. However, one examiner comment asked for methods to be reviewed after core concepts, theories and themes related to climate change and MSCs (See below comment in red). Chapter 2 however, is already 44 pages (originally 48).

Table 3.1 already lists qualitative method characteristics for advantages and disadvantages. Omitting mathematical methods would invalidate the following equations and theoretical framework including deriving risk probabilities and equations. This would fail to resolve other examiner comments highlighted in red. I have attempted to resolve this, reducing information where possible to meet both requirements.

164

20 Where is STAGE I? Stage I refers to Interviews/Surveys as indicated on page 91. The table of contents now specifies this.

21 Figure 3.2 is good but not sure how this is developed, and the logic applied. How is this driving this research?

This is revised but has comprehensively been explained in the text in sections 3.3.1-3.3.3. A reference/note to the respective page/section has been added.

22 3.3.4. title too complex and makes little sense Agree -The title has been revised23 Section 3.4. Research design, are research questions part

of the research design?WHAT IS STAGE I? Interviews?

Stage I refers to stage I reviews to Interviews/ Surveys. Yes, because research design relates to answering specific questions, hence it is helpful to repeat them in relation to the composition of the survey. This has been clarified as mentioned for point 20.

24 Section 3.4.5. Use of WILL needs to be revisited…will do this and that???Too much details in each section.

Agree - Revised to change to simple present tense in all sections. Minor details were removed and all sections were revised.

25 How did you compute mean rate of climate change? This was not computed in the thesis or recognised under the IPCC as climate change grows at a logarithmic or variable rate not mean rate. All methods of calculation/mathematics utilised appear in Chapters 3, 5-7 and Appendix IX.

Unknown

26 Figure 3.3 makes no sense Partially agree. Due to misnumbering this refers to Figure 3.4. Revised in text but explained in chapter 3. Presentation is improved. The following boxes were merged into two boxes: one for the purpose of evaluating the asset conditions, and the other for the purpose of evaluating the climate change risk. This makes the graph consistent with the title.

General Having said that this thesis is too long,

Graphs can be presented better in black and white.

Reduced chapter 4 from 34-30 pages.

All Figure backgrounds have been changed from black to white. Certain text has been changed from cut and paste

Removed “This thesis” several times

111-140

27 Chapter 4 aims to cover too much. I suggest drawing back the discussion to remain within the scope of this study.

Changes were made to all sections to reduce chapter from 34 to 30 pages. Justification for chapter 4 is clearly provided in section 1.5, section 2.7, Chapters 3, 4 and 8 in response to answering KRQA: identifying climate change risks for Pacific maritime supply chains and KRQC: adaptation strategies

111-140

165

including legislation, to overcome existing failure of policy stakeholders and gaps.

28 Could be more specific about CC scenarios particularly those generated by CSIRO

Partially agree as already brief information is included about climate change scenarios in Chapters 1, 3, 4 and 5. References are supplied when needed. The chapter specifically covers global, Pacific regional and local climate change scenarios with assumptions and implications. The candidate is willing to provide more information, given constraints in response to specific concerns as these or the quality/validity/detail etc is not questioned in detail by the examiners.

117-134

29 Is legislation relevant to this thesis? It was considered that current legislation is relevant to the thesis as it relates to policy-making, which is indicative of decision-makers commitment to resolving climate change risks, impact costs and adaptation solutions via legislation. As mentioned in 2.5.3 legislation has indirect impact costs to MSCs and also has implications for adaptation solutions. (Chapter 7)

134-140

EXAMINER 2 COMMENTS RELATING TO THESIS, ABSTRACT AND CHAPTER ONE/PREFACE

Comment Number

Examiner comment Candidate response Page no

1 MethodologicalOverall the methodology developed and applied by the candidate is sound, informative and innovative. The field work and case study reported for the Cook Islands is excellent, and the candidate should be congratulated on this. The work performed in the case study and reported in Chapter 4-7 (the bulk of the thesis) is outstanding, and this is where the candidate has demonstrated his capabilities and understanding of the issues and research questions concerning climate change adaptation. This work is the basis on which the degree could be awarded.

The time and effort by this examiner to review this thesis is appreciated. The positive comments under this heading are gratefully noted.

Varies

2 EditorialEditorial issues split into two types: systematic

The editorial issues raised by this examiner have been seriously considered and addressed as mentioned in the

Varies

166

issues and typographical errors. The former are more important and detract from the scholarly value and readability of the thesis.The systematic issues occur throughout the thesis and as such a full list of occurrences is not appropriate. Rather the candidate needs to go through the thesis and find and rectify these issues. They are:

3. The use of the oral vernacular form (haven’t, doesn’t, couldn’t, can’t, etc) is not appropriate for written text and is especially poor in a scholarly work. Use the proper form (have not, does not, could not, cannot, etc)

response to examiner one above.

The use of these contractions have been removed and the proper form inserted.

3 1. The candidate has an obsession with the use of commas. While some older forms of English expression have used commas to follow multiple adjectives (e.g. the big, black, wooden boat) this is a less common contemporary form and, in the case of this thesis, the overuse of the comma breaks up some sentences and renders them ambiguous if not incomprehensible. Two examples from Chapter 3 will illustrate this. On page 114 are the two consecutive sentences “Sudden, risks include climate change-related events. Other, less investigated risks include …”. Neither of those two commas are required and indeed make the first sentence difficult to comprehend. Page 120 finishes with the sentence “A lack of secondary data, with locational/situational, specific information applying to individual Pacific MSC,’ case

The overuse of commas is noted and the detailed examples to illustrate this are appreciated. Approximately 217 Commas were removed. The stray and misplaced apostrophes have been removed.

Varies

167

studies exists”. The commas here are not needed and the meaning of the sentence is quite obscured. [The stray apostrophe is also a distraction.]

4 3. Layout and page formatting show some deficiencies. In particular the candidate should ensure thata. figure captions, and figure legends and keys (where used) appear on the same page as the figure. This rule also applies to tables

b. section headings should always be followed by (some) text, so that there should never be a section or subsection heading as the last line of a page

The comment is appreciated and the deficiencies noted have been addressed.

Varies

5 c. figures and tables should be numbered sequentially in the order that they are cited. For example, Table 2.5 is referred to on page 55, but Table 2.4 is not referred to until page 59. On page 119 the reference to Figure 3.3 appears before that to Figure 3.2.

I agree with the examiner comments and they have been renumbered.

Varies

6 d. a figure or table should always appear within 1-2 pages of the original citation for that figure/table. A notorious example in the thesis is Table 2.5 (cited on page 55), which is shown until pp75-76. Similarly, Figure 3.3 is cited on page 119 but appears on page 132! Having to search through the text to find a figure or table makes readers (in this case examiners) quite grumpy. The question also arises as to whether or not the candidate meant to refer to this table or figure?

There are a number of minor typographical errors

I agree with the examiner comments and they have been replaced to comply.

All changes mentioned in this list with specific pages have been addressed in the revised October 2018 thesis draft. In addition to comply with examiner requests the entire thesis has been

Varies

168

that should be removed in preparing the final version of the thesis. A list follows, but this is not exhaustive and the thesis should be properly and independently proof read in the production of the final version.

independently proof read for additional commas, grammar, style, layout, content and other formatting/referencing issues.

7 ‘km/h’ not ‘kph’ Agree-Amended8 Figure 1.4 should be stretched horizontally to

make the pies circular (again)Agree-Amended

Chapter 2: Comment 1

A section heading extending over three lines of text is excessive. The heading should be shortened

Agree, heading was shortened.

2 Table 2.4 lists ‘short term impacts’ Some of these may be described as extreme weather events, and this should be noted, e.g. by modifying the table caption

Agree-Amended. The definition of short-term impacts specifically refers to extreme weather and climate related events -but the thesis definitions refer emphatically to climate change not weather.

EXAMINER 2 COMMENTS RELATING TO CHAPTER 3

Comment 1

I cannot ascertain whether the candidate is cavalier or naïve with regard to his use of mathematics. In particular, his models – as presented – seem to violate some basic rules of probability theory. The mathematical presentations of many of the equations are incorrect, obscure, and riddled with errors. More explanation of the models and improved presentation of the model equations is needed.

I am not sure how reliably these risk event probabilities are generated. More details to be provided, including the data, reliability and statistical model used to project trends.

I am sure (as stated directly from Examiner report) how the equations derived and what data being used. I just removing this and focus on the data that you collected on the survey.

In equation there is NO explanation of variable x on the LHS and how it differs from x1 and x2. Thee second term on RHS looks like an intra/extrapolation but it makes no

The comments and analysis of examiner 2 was carefully considered. All the equations were revised taking his advice and expert opinion, which was greatly appreciated. However, following the first submission of the thesis to the Review Panel in December 2018, it was agreed that it would be preferable if the equations were completely removed.

These equations have been subsequently removed along with all reference to them and all subsections revised appropriately. The calculation results have been removed along with all references to the equations and paragraph text justifying the need for their inclusion/validity.

Varies

169

sense. Given this issue and both examiner’s concerns, equation and its calculation results should be removed.

Equation in the first paragraph of page cannot be derived from the one written on the previous lines. The mathematical manipulation and derivation is wrong. Therefore this equation and the subsequent ones derived from it, and their calculation results should be removed.

Equations There are errors or issues in the use of parentheses, subscript t, type of data for variable f, the terms “xnft” as well as in the last expression of equation. There is no reference for equation and its explanation is insufficient. Equation and its explanation is incorrect. For these reasons, equations and the subsequent equations including (that were derived from them) and their calculation results should be removed.

2 The third paragraph seems to be written in ‘shorthand’. It consequently makes no sense at present and should be rewritten.The penultimate line is missing a full stop.

Agree- The third paragraph has been amended Page 77

3 There is a missing parenthesis in the reference to Gujarali 2011.The following sentence would read better if it started as ‘As with simulation methods …’

Agree-Amended Page 77

4 What does mean?In the first sentence of the last paragraph, use ‘normal distribution’ not ‘normality distribution’.

Agree- the phrase normality distribution was a typographical error which I have amended

Page 78

5 A reference is needed for ‘the Mandelbrotion’. Agree- A reference has been added. Page 786 An equation number should be provided for the

NPV, and this equation should appear on a separate line.Similarly for life cycle cost (LCC?) – and what is ‘expected service life’? Should there be an equation for this?

Agree-all these comments have been revised Page 78-79

7 What does ‘a Tibbet to Contwoyto’ refer to? The Agree the sentence has been rewritten. Page 80

170

sentence needs to be rewritten.8 Delete the comma from ‘Netherlands,

Environmental Assessment Agency (2014)’.The sentence ‘Another disadvantage includes certain impacts ‘seems to have something missing? It should be rewritten.

Agree -the comma has been removed and the sentence has been rewritten.

Page 82

9 Should ‘i.e. port strikes’ actually be ‘e.g. port strikes’, as one of many other risk types not included (earthquakes, tsunamis, fuel shortages for instance)

Agree -this has been amended. Page 106

1: Chapter 4 None None 111-140

CANDIDATE RESPONSE TO PHD EXAMINER COMMENTS REPORT FOR CHAPTER FIVE FEEDBACK

Examiner comment in red: Student response in black font, Arial Narrow

Comment Number

Examiner comment Candidate response Page No.

General Having said that this thesis is too long,

Graphs can be presented better in black and white.

Reduced chapter 5 from 68 to 57 pages.

All Figure backgrounds have been changed from black to white. All text has been changed from cut and paste.

Removed “This thesis” several times30 Chapter 5 is a bit better chapter, but the details

provided on data collection and analysis need to be further teased out and linked to research methodology 31 chapter. This must be linked to research design and literature review.

Partially agree. Given the chapter has 57 pages, the candidate has revised sections to further clarify the linked data collection and analysis to the research method in chapter 3. These are indicated via the track changes requested by the Exam Review Panel. Chapters 1-3, 5 and 8 already allude to these factors in detail.

31 More information is required on the participants and interview questions along with the survey.

Partially agree. This additional participant information has been added in each section

E.g. Page 145 Interview questions and participant information

171

appear in Appendices. These derived from Appendix I-V, Section A Questions and participant information in Appendix V Section B and more details referenced as being in Appendix XII. Chapter 5 includes demographic profile information and statistics. Interview question information is provided in the Appendixes and in Chapters 1, 3, 5-7 and 8.

Table 5.6 and 5.7 - provide the source of data for this, not just author…

Amended to state: “using information gathered from field research, various academic and government records.”

Under the table. “Source: Author collected from myriad various secondary and primary sources.” However, the vast majority of data including this occurred as the candidate’s contribution to this research and Equation A as data did not exist in an accessible format in many cases.

32 I am not sure how reliably these risk event probabilities are generated. More details to be provided, including the data, reliability and statistical model used to project trends.

Agree and revised in accordance with supervisors and both examiner’s suggestions as suggested. Chapters 3, 5 and Appendices clearly specify how these risk event probabilities are generated. Results have been verified across 17 Pacific nations to verify increasing climate change risks. The mathematics were amended in response to the second examiner’s concerns, and further amended in light of the Committee’s feedback.

Given the exploratory nature of this work and existing research gap; the candidate has proposed the probabilities are conditional upon certain Chapters 3-6 scenario assumptions and represent minimum verifiable estimates for the future. However, the method itself is amenable to more specific future estimations as more data becomes available - one of the more significant aspects to the research. The model’s reliability has been tested and alluded to in Chapters 3, 5 and 8 along with thesis appendices especially VII and IX.

33 Could this chapter be focused on data collected through interviews and provide narratives. Please remove all irrelevant materials.

Partially Agree. The study is not an ethnography account just on narratives but these have been expanded, where applicable. It is not totally clear which materials the examiner considers to be irrelevant. However, I have gone through the

172

entire chapter and tried to identify such materials and removed them. This chapter is focused on 2 parts as with chapter 6. Chapter 5 focuses on establishing climate change risks. As justified in Chapters 1-4, then 5 and 8; this requires the need for interviews, surveys, content analysis and time series empirical data of risks and probabilities; current, expected and future, to triangulate results against stakeholder climate change risk perceptions. This approach was discussed and agreed to with supervisors

34 Page X, too long, as an ethnographer, interpret the stories to provide some deeper insights.

Ethnography is not the focus of this candidate’s thesis as a maritime economist focusing specifically on climate change aspects. Interpretation has been added to all sections. Page X is revised to be shorter and in addition, other quotes which appear too long, have been modified. These have been indicated on track changes.

Generally, perceived long quotes have been shortened and sections restructured throughout the section and chapter.

35 The key findings from this chapter need to be summarised and theoretically framed with better and more informed explanation.

Agree. Key findings have been summarised and are inserted in Section 5.7.

EXAMINER 2 COMMENTS RELATING TO CHAPTER 5

Comment Number

Examiner comment Candidate response Page no

20 Replace ‘expands’ by ‘covers’ in the first sentence of Section 5.2

Agree- This was changed in the sentence. Page 141

21 ‘Top five export trade partners include’ should surely read ‘Top five export trade partners are’, for the five are listed!

Agree-The sentence structure has been amended. Page 142

22 ‘Cook’ not ‘Cooks’ in the first sentence of Section 5.4.2.

Agree -The sentence structure has been amended. Page 160

173

CANDIDATE RESPONSE TO PHD EXAMINER COMMENTS REPORT FOR CHAPTER SIX FEEDBACK

Examiner comment in red: Student response in black font, Arial Narrow

Comment Number

Examiner comment Candidate response Page No.

General Having said that this thesis is too long,

Graphs can be presented better in black and white.

Reduced chapter 6 from 54 to 47 pages.

All Figure backgrounds have been changed from black to white. All text has been changed from cut and paste.

35 Chapter 6: The economic profile can be added to the case study chapter along with CC projections etc.

Information on the economic profile is already provided in Chapter 6 as a case study chapter in addition to Chapter 5. However, the candidate and supervisors had grave reservations about adding chapter 4 projections and chapter 6 economic profile when Chapter 5 is 57 pages long already. Hence climate projections are separately established as South Pacific background in Chapter 4 and economic profile in Chapter 6. The economic profile is justified in chapter 6 as this focuses on KRQB on climate change impact costs which relate to the economy/MSC far more than climate change risks in Chapter 6.

37 The estimations in 6.4.16 are flawed and should be removed or they need to be better explained in a typical econometric modelling framework. I am not sure who those variables are derived, and the model estimated?

Was the reliability of the model tested? I am not confident with the results of the estimations for the future (3.11).

Agree, the entire original section 6.4.16 has been removed in response to the examiner and Exam Review Panel feedback. The whole section 6.4.16 has been rewritten from the previous section following the original 6.4.16.

Given the exploratory nature of this work and existing research gap; the candidate has proposed this model is conditional upon certain Chapters 3-6 scenario assumptions. These represent minimum verifiable estimates for the future. However, the method itself is amenable to more specific estimations as more data becomes available -one of the more significant aspects to

174

the research. The model’s reliability has been tested and alluded to in Chapters 3, 5 and 8.

EXAMINER 2 COMMENTS RELATING TO CHAPTER 6

Comment Number

Examiner comment Candidate response Page no

14 Figure 6.2 is useful but “Intangible is misspelt or the ‘I” has gone missing

Agree. This misspelling has been corrected

15 “56.41% of stakeholders.” Is that precision really needed or appropriate? 56% might be enough, and would be in line with the rest of the description.

Agree. The percentages have been accordingly revised

16 What is the 33,000.5 for? If the total cost is really 330 times the 2015 GDP then this deserves some extended comment!

Agree. An extended comment has been inserted

17 “affirm needing to acknowledge...” does not quite make sense. This sentence should be rewritten.

Agree the sentence has been rewritten

CANDIDATE RESPONSE TO PHD EXAMINER COMMENTS REPORT FOR CHAPTER SEVEN FEEDBACK

Examiner comment in red: Student response in black font, Arial Narrow

175

Comment Number

Examiner comment Candidate response Page No.

General Having said that this thesis is too long,

Graphs can be presented better in black and white.

The chapter submitted to the examiner in May 2018 was 73 pages. It is now 62 pages.

All Figure backgrounds have been changed from black to white. All text has been changed from cut and paste.

245-306

Chapter 7: This chapter is ok, but can be improved by removing repetition, shorter quotation, more clearer narratives, and a consolidated summary.

Agree and revised accordingly to sections 7.1-7.7. The chapter has been proof read to check there is no repetition, ensuring the above comments are addressed to the point that core quotations, narratives and concepts are shorter but not compromised.

245-306

EXAMINER 2 COMMENTS RELATING TO CHAPTER 7

Comment Number

Examiner comment Candidate response Page no

1 None No comments relate to chapter 7 245-306

EXAMINER I COMMENTS RELATING TO CHAPTER 8

Examiner comment in red: Student response in black font, Arial Narrow

Comment Number

Examiner comment Candidate response Page No.

38 Chapter 8: Key findings can be listed more clearly instead of going through chapters. They should reflect the results from the interviews and surveys.

Agree. As in the original copy submitted to examiners; key findings of the surveys and interviews were included and reflected in Chapter 8. However, they have been amended and listed more clearly

307-317

39 Should show how the research questions were answered?

Agree. The structure of the chapter has been amended to more clearly show how the research questions were answered.

307-310

176

40 Implications should show how the results will help making informed decisions and choices.

Agree. Amended. The candidate has improved this section to clearly specify how the results will help in making informed decisions and choices.

311

41 Recommendations make no clear sense, they should be directly linked to what you have found in your research and should be supported by a logical explanation.

Agree and amended. The recommendations are directly linked to the research findings and justified with a logical explanation

314

42 Where is the theoretical contribution of this study?

Partially agree. Amended. 311-312

EXAMINER 2 COMMENTS RELATING TO CHAPTER 8

Comment Number

Examiner comment Candidate response Page no

1 None No comments relate to chapter 8 307-317

177

Therefore, to proceed through the responses to examiner comments, several core points are noted to

assist any candidates who perform the miraculous feat of accomplishing so much so far. Examiners,

Supervisors and the Exam Review Panel above all crave to feel as if they are important and their

contributions matter. One is never permitted to directly disagree -only agree or partially agree. My first

approach was misconstrued as too belligerent and antagonistic. Hence the effusive and more flattering

nature of one’s second submission, thanking all parties for their invaluable insight etc. It does not

matter one’s personal feelings at this point. The core part is to get it over with, to actually pass and

graduate. One can always bury their expurgated atrocity and cringing, mortal embarrassment version in

deserved obscurity as needed. Many comments of a pedantic nature have to be often stomached along

with the contradictory manner of supervisors, examiners and the review panel disagreeing with each

other! Then one has to self-determine or navigate a compromised hash of a thesis to more forward.

The irony being that even though your supervisors have signed off on the original version (and the 117

preceding the submission to the examiners), one cannot trust them at face value. They signed off in

December, one’s initial candidate response to the Exam Review Panel. The Exam Review Panel

wordlessly without referring to the first version, chose four completely unrelated points to address in

February, which were dutifully complied with. This first points were minor and the table below. A couple

of weeks before the original 6 month deadline to complete and address all examiner responses, to

graduate in time (mid-March), one was informed that the original submission was rude and full of

fundamental flaws. One had insufficiently addressed the examiner comments. No reasons were

provided with specific instances, to justify how this was accurate. Nor were any rebukes issued to the

very same supervisors whom one had asked for comments for each submission, had complied often

with the majority of what one felt to be valid feedback (but not all) or alternatively was ignored by 2 out

of 3 supervisors who equally failed to respond throughout the examination process. Yet one’s primary

supervisor appeared peeved as he required additional drastic alterations and changes including a

never justified, arbitrary cut of a minimum of 10% to every chapter. Yet this was never asked for by the

examiners!

178

Comment Number

1

Panel comment

There is some language in the response to examiner 1 that should be modified. There are a couple of comments that are argumentative and not demonstrating the level of respect owed to an examiner and it is not good practise. I suggest the candidate needs to review responses to Examiner

Candidate response

The responses have been checked thoroughly and revised. Further cognisance has been taken of all Examiner 1’s comments and additional changes made to the thesis where necessary; to ensure that they have been treated with the appropriate level of respect.Any perceived disrespect is deeply regretted and was not intended.

179

2 I cannot ascertain whether the candidate is cavalier or naïve with regard to his use of mathematics. In particular, his models – as presented – seem to violate some basic rules of probability theory. The mathematical presentations of many of the equations are incorrect, obscure, and riddled with errors. More explanation of the models and improved presentation of the model equations is needed.

I am not sure how reliably these risk event probabilities are generated. More details to be provided, including the data, reliability and statistical model used to project trends.

I am sure (as stated directly from Examiner report) how the equations derived and what data being used. I just removing this and focus on the data that you collected on the survey.

In equation there is NO explanation of variable x on the LHS and how it differs from x1 and x2. Thee second term on RHS looks like an intra/extrapolation but it makes no sense. Given this issue and both examiner’s concerns, equation and its calculation results should be removed. Equation cannot be derived from the one written on the previous lines. The mathematical manipulation and derivation is wrong. Therefore this equation and the subsequent ones derived from it, and their calculation results should be removed. Equation and its explanation is incorrect. For these reasons, equations and the subsequent equations that were derived from them) and their calculation results should be removed.

Equations are removed.

180

3 The estimations in 6.4.16 are flawed and should be removed or they need to be better explained in a typical econometric modelling framework. I am not sure who those variables are derived, and the model estimated? Was the reliability of the model tested? I am not confident with the results of the estimations for the future

As the results of the above, section 6.4.16: and Section 6.5: should also be removed

Sections 6.4.16 and Sections 6.5 are removed. Section 6.6 conclusion becomes section 6.5.

4 Once you’ve made these changes, please make sure all sections in the revised version are properly numbered and referred to.

Revised

One’s prime concern was the fact that the examiners had already passed the original version and

certain changes affected the others. After hearing nothing for 14 weeks, they finally arranged a Skype

interview to one’s far more remote home, to which one returned as the scholarship had not received the

decency of being extended beyond the exact day and moment of thesis examination submission (So

finance/save and budget carefully if you find your career on suspension). Then there were the Exam

Review Panel comments. These mostly were obsessed with teaching one humility. If I did not change

and agree to every single thing, (not the majority of 75%-80% of examiner 1 and 99% of examiner 2 as

per the first version), -even the ridiculous and the sublime; they would immediately fail me; wasting

nearly 4 years of my entire life! What a choice! So one had to be creative and redraft it several times,

sacrificing a random 10% or more, bearing in mind the initial absurd instructions to randomly cut it by

100,000 words (including references and appendices) for the original submission in May.

Finally, there is the haunting or sobering realisation that it is all finally over…. Whether you have

managed to succeed and get to this stage or not, you will have attempted one of the most ambitious yet

excruciating ordeals of catharsis that a human being can experience, equivalent to a natural disaster or

war zone, that those who have not aspired to such, cannot possibly imagine the full atrocities, horrors

and myriad dimensions of surviving the PHD experience. It is guaranteed to have had some impact on

one’s humanity and wellbeing, not just physical opportunity costs of having invested too many years

and moments of one’s life in the process.

181

If nothing else is produced, whether you succeed or fail, at least you can produce a towering colossus

of notebooks, USB flash drives, CD’s and other physical detritus as solid evidence that you have

produced something… Although at this point you may wish to move on, thinking that having survived so

far, you can accomplish anything… to industry, tenure, family and most of all to experience a home, a

real life and the world, you are not yet free… There are few things more preposterous and pathetic than

pompous pedantic professors. I have known candidates who on the very day they were going to

submit, have had their supervisors recall it, suggesting they change the title, the research objectives

and the conclusions… It is impossible to satisfy these types, so if it is possible to be decisive, it helps…

otherwise it can be delayed ad infinatum… One can never participate in a full discourse as equals –

they seek to censor not only your dissertation moulded in their image of what supervisors and

examiners consider to be so acceptable that you the poor author scarcely recognise it –and wish for

you to do the same –self-censorship. Accept that supervisors will expect the absurd, claim credit but

you have all the responsibilities: ‘Success bears a hundred fathers, failure is an orphan.’ Find that

which you enjoy and helps you through life, focussing on that rather than the supervisors…

So how is it possible to survive?

By remembering at all times why you are bothering… I believed the significance of improving the

survival prospects of 14 Pacific nations was actually worth something even though it didn’t seem so

obvious to the carping supervisors, the reluctant stakeholders and apathetic human community.

This extends to far more intense supervision and micro-management than desired. Patience,

persistence and endurance really help, in accepting delays and obstruction from others for whom the

PHD/research is not as foremost in their mind as it remains in yours. It helps to protect

yourself/immerse yourself against the probability of failure or even a significant delay in success as you

receive examiner or supervisory feedback. In considering both I expected scholarship not to be so

warped by ulterior motives in my naivety –but supervisors are only interested in a glossy citation and

management record not anything else –not you personally -only focussed on that which seems most

directly relevant and pertinent whether work experience, skills development –self advancement –even

conferences and publication that you might be interested in that may not have direct application to your

dissertation. They will demand the impossible and the miraculous. Be reassured if you are going mad -

its not you but them. They make no allowances for your own passions/ abilities/ effort.

Consider the ultimate objectives/ research aims/ outcomes and what you personally hope to derive it –

how relevant is your research to the world. How can it be implemented/ can it make a difference –most

supervisors merely seek it for the enhanced reputation/ the prestige, another detail on their CV –easy to

critique but seems impossible to praise. Just think how much more creative we could be if we were

182

inspired –believed in –praised –encouraged –stimulated even in our ambitions, potential… talents…

imagination… Too much of anything eradicating you really dissipates all that you were, that which you

once believed in… Such is the path of being alone –too alone… unlike a work environment where you

might at least have similar colleagues, or undergraduates focusing on socialising and getting to know

their first whiff of ecstatic liberty. Truly to descend into the Abyss of a PhD and to try and survive this

postgraduate experience is to truly grasp how universities fail to advance our humanity.

183