th
4
Introduction to the
Biennial
LSE Ph.D Symposium
Kevin Featherstone
Director, Hellenic Observatory
LSE
What’s going to happen…
 Plenary lectures: reviewing key subject
areas, stimulating debate. Q&A.
 Panel Meetings: your presentations &
feedback in specialist groups.
 Lunch: you’re free to choose where…
 Tonight: reception & book launch, 7.15pm in
SDR: 5th Floor, Old Building.
 Check with information desk volunteers…
Organisation:
 Special thanks to:
Ms. Eleni Xiarchogiannopoulou,
Symposium Convenor, HO.
Dr. Spyros Economides,
Deputy Director, HO.
And colleagues, volunteers.
What you can expect:
 Interesting lectures, opportunity to meet
fellow PhD students in your area, staff.
 Afterwards: go to Hellenic Observatory
webpage for more information, mailings.
 Panels: presentation of (part of) your
research & challenging questions from
group. PLEASE: keep to time with your
presentations! Ask questions of each
other…help each other.
Writing a PhD….
 Long, lonely process…leading to a limited
income.
 Purpose of Symposium: to help you
connect; in presenting, you need to
streamline your argument; offer you some
constructive feedback on your research
design; maintain contacts.
 But be realistic…there are limits.
What is your research question?
 [Why…? How…?] Say it in ONE sentence. Make it clear.
What are you trying to explain? Your PhD question cannot
be about the future, but the past.
 Why is it relevant? Part of a broader question in my
academic field – answer to: So what? Contribution?
 How are you explaining it? Connect question to an
hypothesis to give a clear causal answer and to facilitate
generalisation. Place hypothesis in a conceptual frame,
theory. Who are my academic opponents?
 Can my hypothesis be proved wrong? Say what evidence
would show it was wrong. If it can’t be shown to be wrong,
its not much use.
What is the ‘puzzle’ here?
 e.g. explaining an unexpected event or
outcome – something that contradicts our
previous knowledge of the case.
 Why shouldn’t we have expected this
(historical path; comparative theory)? So,
why did it happen (hypothesis & theory)?
 What’s the surprise? What’s new?
Selection of case studies: Greece
and Another?
‘Puzzle’:
 2 most similar cases, but different
outcomes. Why?
 2 different cases, but similar outcome.
Why?
 Comparison helps you to focus on the key
conditions explaining the outcome, helps
develop theory.
Greece as a single case study
 Comparison within Greece between sectors:
choice of cases as above (most similar /
dissimilar).
 Single country study can support international
comparison if study uses comparative concepts,
theory. Refine theory from deviant cases:
 Greece as a ‘least likely’ case: theory suggests
outcome is least likely (puzzle = it has, so why?).
 Greece as ‘most likely’ case: theory suggests
outcome most likely (puzzle = it hasn’t,why not?)
 For both: what theory revision is needed?
Further reading…
 P. Dunleavy, Authoring a PhD (Palgrave,
2003).
 R. Hancke, Intelligent Research Design
(2009). See his LSE homepage.
 T. Landman, Issues and Methods in
Comparative Politics (Routledge, 2003).
 P. Burnham et al Research Methods in
Politics (Palgrave, 2008).