To: Jens Kaasbøll
From: Petter Øgland
Controlling the PhD process
Updated: 24.04.06
1. Introduction
Regardless of how well the PhD process may be going, there is always room for improvement. In
the diagram below, I’ve used a standard regulation chart (Tyssø, 1985, p. 15; Juran, 1995, pp 1-17,
197-215) for discussing the PhD process as an engineering process.
w(t)
Research
question
r(t)
Evaluate
(”Are we
producing
interesting
new knowledge?”)
y(t)
v(t), noise
Theory (”How
to get a PhD”)
e(t)
u(t)
PhD process
(scientific
papers)
Customer /
Reader
x(t)
Feedback
(biweekly supervision)
Research questions and customers/readers are defined in the PhD proposal (Øgland & Kaasbøll,
2006) in terms of questions related to how to construct a stable infrastructure of quality control in a
bureaucratic organization, formulated in a manner that would make the question and possible
answers interesting to readers of various identified journals.
In order to proceed on the PhD project, I follow the theory of “how to get a PhD” as written by
various researchers (Collis & Hussey, 2004; Bloom, Karp & Cohen, 1998; Bolker, 1998) and ongoing
advise from Kaasbøll, Bratthall and the IS research community in general.
The PhD process started in September 2005 when Kaasbøll accepted the responsibility of being
primary supervisor. Bratthall had already accepted the part as secondary supervisor, but prior to
Kaasbøll it was difficult to define a relevant area of academic research that would fit with the
practical process of doing organizational quality improvement. The official PhD process started
January 2006 when the PhD proposal was submitted, although it has not yet been accepted by UiO.
According to the submittet PhD plan, the project period should be completed by January 2009.
In order to make sure the PhD process is under control and improving, I want to use Action
Research (AR) for challenging the current PhD process at regular intervals for identifying weak
spots and then systematically formulate questions and hypotheses for improving each such issue.
While there are practical challenges related to doing a PhD, I want to manage the PhD process by
trying to improve the PhD process and thus use AR as a paradigm for personal management.
As the practical problem (engineering problem) related to the PhD process is, as illustrated on the
figure, “how to get a PhD”, there may be many scientific problems related to why various parts in the
diagram are working as expected or not working as expected. Such questions will be discussed in
the methods chapter below.
The general aim of my PhD is to understand academic supervision as management (social research as
a management), and see to which extent this model can be used outside the PhD supervision of
academia as a model for industrial management in general and quality management in particular.
In order to better understand supervision as management, I will observe how my PhD process is
being managed by this approach and want to reflect over this in conversation with my supervisors.
2. Strategy by literature review
The purpose of this chapter is to formulate insights about how to get a PhD, focusing on what I feel
to be the most challenging parts as the process goes forth.
2.1 Supervision
The most important issue for successful PhD projects, according to Phillips and Pugh (2000) is to
select good supervisors and make sure that the supervision process works well. As the supervision is
perhaps the main management loop for helping control the PhD process, more should be written on
this as possibilities for improvement arises.
In the IS Phd Manual (IfI, 2005) there is a chapter on supervision, describing the roles of the
supervisor, student and secondary supervisor. Among the seven points describing the role of the
supervisor, it says that the supervisor should “be available to see the student at regular intervals for
at least one hour per fortnight on average”.
2.2 Writing academic papers
Most of the book I have on getting a PhD have something to say on writing the thesis, but little to
say on writing academic papers (Phillips & Pugh, 2000; Collis & Hussey, 2003; Bloom, Karp &
Cohen, 1998; Bolker, 1998).
However, during the 10th Phd Days Information Systems Workshop at UiO, much advise was given.
Especially during the panel discussions the following types of statements were made:



“writing is a way of thinking”
“I considered the kind of people I wanted to discuss with, and then found the relevant
journals”
“people should start writing from day one and then continue to read and write”
At the workshop a journal editor was also present and told the writers to think of writing from the
point of view of what would make an article interesting for an editor. The emphasis was mostly on
quality of content, but sloppy presentations should be avoided.
2.3 Action Research as research methodology
Collis and Hussey (2003, pp. 60, 66-68) see action research as a research paradigm closer to the
phenomenological approach to the social sciences than the positivst approach, and argue for this
stance by referring to Lewin and the Plan, Act, Observe, Reflect cycle as a way of doing action
(improvement, change) and research (contribute to science).
In quality management (Shewhart, 1938, pp. 43-46; Deming, 1986, pp. 88-89) improvement and
change management are conducted in similar PDCA-cycles (Plan, Do, Check, Act) of statistical
experiments. I have found some informal papers on the Internet discussing the relationship between
PDCA-cycles and action research cycles, but so far I have not found any serious studies on how the
two cycles relate and what needs to be done with PDCA-cycles in order to make quality
improvement as process contribute scientific insights to be published in journals or conference
papers.
During the 10th PhD Days Information Systems Workshop, Ola Henfridsson commented on some of
his views on action research, during a panel session, especially focusing on how the action research
approach often benefits from critical theory or the theory of pragmatism. Both Shewhart and
Deming refer to the pragmatism of C.I. Lewis as the philosophical basis for statistical quality
improvement.
3. Methods
As I plan to control the PhD process by using “research as management”, I plan to explore the “how
to get a PhD” literature and verbal advise by focusing on what seems to be the greatest problems or
weakest link at a given moment. Each “research question” will then be considered answered by
adding to the literature review chapter and making sure the relevant aspect of the PhD process is
sufficiently controlled or improved.
In order to select relevant research questions, I will keep track of a pool of questions that I will rank
on an ongoing basis.



Am I asking the right research questions?
Am I sufficiently integrated in the IS research community?
Am I getting supervision feedback on a regular basis? (ok)
As can be seen from the list of questions, the final question is formulated as ok. What is actually
meant by this will be commented on in the results chapter and the discussion chapter.
4. Results
As I’ve just submitted the PhD proposal and keep waiting for the response, the first stage of
planning is completed, u(t), and I’ve started writing my first paper x(t). Jens is supervising me on a
biweekly basis y(t) and I’m sending status reports to Lars on a monthly basis y(t).
50
40
30
20
10
0
2
1,5
1
0,5
Days meeting
UCL = 41
06
.0
9.
17 05
.1
2.
20 05
.1
2.
16 05
.0
1.
30 05
.0
1.
13 06
.0
2.
24 06
.0
2.
10 06
.0
3.
24 06
.0
3.
18 06
.0
4.
06
06
.0
9.
17 05
.1
2.
20 05
.1
2.
16 05
.0
1.
30 05
.0
1.
13 06
.0
2.
24 06
.0
2.
10 06
.0
3.
24 06
.0
3.
18 06
.0
4.
06
0
AVG = 14
LCL = 0
Cost (hrs)
UCL = 1,9
AVG = 0,9
LCL = 0
The control limits for the diagrams were made due to data available after the meeting 13.02.06. So
far there are no indications of the process being unstable or out of control.
24.03.06
10.03.06
30.01.06
30.01.06
Suggestions from Jens
Update methods chapter and discussion.
Make connections between theory and
empirical data.
Read popular pscyhology on behaviouristic
methods of learning. Contact GEIR
KIERKEBØEN.
Contact Lars Bratthall to discuss the
results from COBOL-studies and who I
should contact for further aid. Magne
Jørgensen?
Actions by Petter
I’ve read the article in A-magasinet,
but not contacted Kierkebøen yet.
Not yet.
*) I need to prepare to the IRIS paper
writing conference on Friday 11.02.06.
In order to enrol in the IS community,
I need to focus on ANT,
Infrastructures or issues that the other
PhD students are focusing on.
Consequently, I must delay contacting
AMSJØ.
As can be seen from the table, the supervisor pushed the PhD student for making contact with Geir
Amsjø several time, while the student was reluctant because he was not certain how this approach
would be helpful in contributing to the right sort of research questions and theory.
As a first approach, the student tried framing the empirical data in ANT, and when the supervisor
suggested this would be better for a later paper, the student move from the COBOL studies and onto
the meta-level of investigating the researchers doing the COBOL-studies. In this way he would be
investigating the process of doing research (as could be seen as management research) rather than
doing sociological or psychological research related to the behaviour of the COBOL programmers.
The supervisor, however, suggested the student got a better understanding of the actual research
before he started doing meta-research. The student accepted this, still thinking that the metaapproach would be better, but that the meta-approach could perhaps rather be pursued through a
parallel paper or indeed this paper describing the PhD process.
5. Discussion
5.1 Overview of the significant findings of the study
Communication during regular supervision meetings works well. The SPC diagrams shows that
supervision is given in terms of “one hour per fortnight on average”.
The challenge, as I see it, has more to do with how to structure the IRIS paper in order to make it fit
with the research agenda of the IS community. I want to focus on the COBOL measurements, but I
do not feel convinced that we are producing valuable insights by the questions we ask. Perhaps we
will be able to produce “new knowledge”, but will it be useful for the intended readers and the
ongoing Action Research at SKD? Will the answer we find to the questions we ask make the
COBOL-standard project more successful? Does it help solving any problems we may have with the
project as of now?
5.1.1 Action research and research questions
I need for reformulate the research questions of the IRIS paper to better fit with the “Action
Research” of what I’m doing, i.e. make sure that I’m producing insights that correspond with power
to change.
In the case of standardizing COBOL-software at SKD, there is an engineering question in terms of
how to install continuous improvement. The scientific questions, however, relate to why the
installed systems works, why it doesn’t work or similar why-questions related to observations found
when studying observations from the standardization system.
5.1.2 Making theoretical contributions in the IRIS paper
Jens sees the current IRIS paper to consist of two parts. One part is the validity of the empirical
research I’m doing at SKD, i.e. whether the use of measurements and benchmarking actually
produces change as I state that it does. The other part has to do with how the improvement system
contrasts the management system (bureaucracy). On this second part, my experience is similar to
what Woinshet and others have done related to using network theory (Callon’s four phases of
translation in ANT) in growing sustainable networks for building IS.
Jens suggests that we go from the inside out, starting with the empirical data and then (in a later
paper) discuss the system. Once again he recommends reading the Geir Amsjø’s course literature
about CMM etc (process and product improvement) before contacting Amsjø and then perhaps
discussing the issues with the SIMULA people.
Trying to understand the way Jens is thinking and combing this with what I’m trying to achieve in
terms of becoming an authority in TQM, one possible way of planning for theoretical contributions
could be in the way pragmatical thinking (James, Peirce, Lewis, Dewy, Deming, Juran, …) could
blend with current HISP theories such as ANT. However, I need to be sure that I know my readers.
How does this approach theory fit in what other IS research at UiO, and what kind of feedback would
I be able to get from the kind of people that seem to attend IRIS and similar conferences?
The way Jens focuses on pragmatical solutions is good for the type of research I want to do and the
kind of people I want to meet, but I also need to make sure that I don’t isolate from the rest of the IS
community at UiO. My greatest problem at the moment is that I have not yet found people who see
my research as useful for their own research. I need to be more pragmatic.
However, when I tried to analyse the process of doing action research rather than actually doing the
research myself, I was asked to focus on the actual research. Why? Perhaps Jens was simply
surprised, or perhaps he was perplex because the paper now was saying too many things. As I could
see it, there were two ways to go; either focus on the action research problem, or to focus on the
COBOL standardization problem. For Jens it seems natural to focus on the COBOL standardization.
For me it seems natural to focus on action research, because that would be a way of controlling and
improving the research process.
5.2 Consideration of the findings in light of existing research studies
The problem at the moment is that there is a slight disagreement between PhD student and
supervisor. In the literature section, we have not made any comments on how such disagreements
should be handled, and, besides, it is not a deep disagreement, only a question of priority. Perhaps
the best way is to ignore and write two papers at the same time, using the action research paper as a
way of controlling the quality of the other paper.
5.3 Implications for the study of current theory
What sort of theory am I contributing to here? The theory of how to get a PhD. So far, I don’t
think there are any implications besides the fact that research can be used as a control.
5.4 Findings that fail to support or only partially support the hypothesis
No comments.
5.5 Limitations of the study that may affect the validity or generalization of the results
No comments.
5.6 Recommendations for further research
No comments.
6. Conclusion
6.1 Purpose of the research
The purpose of the research described in this paper has been to study what happens when a PhD
process fails and why it fails. Based on such insights, it should be possible to construct better
designs for doing a PhD.
6.2 The main points from the results and how they match the research questions
An experiment has been set up. The main results from the experiment, so far, has been that
supervisions functions on a stable basis, in compliance with expectations, but that the PhD student
has problems in understanding the focus of his research. The current plan looks somewhat like this:
1) Write an IRIS paper summarising the COBOL studies
2) Write a paper on TQM as framework for doing Action Research, using the COBOL studies
as an example
3) Write a paper on ANT for designing robust TQM infrastructures
There is also a challenge in trying to understand the needs of the organization (SKD) in terms of
using management (quality management) for identifying practical problems to be researched in a
way that will make contributions to TQM theory.
As far as I can see, there is no related research on quality improvement in the IS community, but as
action research can be seen as management, theoretical contributions on how to do action research
may probably be formulated as adding contributions to the theory of TQM.
6.3 Guidance on the implications of the research
What seems the most reasonable approach at the moment is to try to rewrite the paper as if it had
been written for Ole and the HISP people. Otherwise I will probably get no feedback from students
and no feedback from Ole.
I also need to introduce some method of measuring progress on the IRIS article, as there will only be
room for supervision 10/3 and 27/3 before deadline for submission (3/4).
6.4 Weaknesses and limitations of the research
No comments.
6.5 Suggestions on further research and how this study might help
No comments.
References
Bloom, D.F., Karp, J.D. & Cohen, N. (1998). The Ph.D. Process – A Student’s Guide to Graduate School
in the Sciences, Oxford University Press, New York.
Bolker, J. (1998). Writing Your Dissertation in Fifteen Minutes a Day. Owl Books, New York.
Collis, J. & Hussey, R. (2003). Business Research. Second Edition. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Deming, E.W. (1986). Out of the Crisis. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusettes.
IfI (2005). PhD Manual. Draft version 23.12.05. Information Systems Group, Department of
Informatics, University of Oslo.
Juran, J.M. (1995). Managerial Breakthrough. Revised Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Phillips, E. & Pugh, D. (2000). How to get a Phd. Second Edition. Open University Press, London.
Shewhart, W.A. (1938). Statistical Method for the Viewpoint of Quality Control. Dover Publications,
New York.
Tyssø, A. (1985). Automatiseringsteknikk – Modellering, analyse og syntese av regulseringssystemer. NKIforlaget, Rud.
Øgland, P. & Kaasbøll, J. (2006). The role of the quality manager in large public sector organizations.
PhD project proposal. University of Oslo.