Presentations
Either in a DEEP Review meeting or in an EVALUATION meeting, your MILESTONE Meeting will consist in a speech and a question and answers session. In the first case, a long speech and presentation is expected, in average from 15' to 30', with the help of images and slides. In the second case, only a short talk is required, of about 5', without slides and other iconographic support (except when you are applying for the Final Exam Admission too).
The Q&A session is expected to deal with your specific research topic, in the first case, while in the second we are more widely interested in your whole PhD Career.
Applicants for the End of the Year are required to give a long presentation about both your career and your work, as in a DEEP Review. It is your final meeting with the board!
In both cases, with your presentation, you must persuade a group of experts members that you are doing an interesting work, that you have grown and you are growing as an excellent young researcher and you and your work are promising.
It is clear that you have to prepare your presentation very carefully.
What we like more and expect from you?
Clear ideas
FIRST, we like clear ideas. In particular, your research question must be clear and its motivations well expressed.
Innovation
SECOND, you know, among clear ideas we like most the new ones.
To state that your is a innovative project or research product, is not enough. The best is if your project has already been VALIDATED presenting papers to conferences and journals (so it is very important to list the results of your DISSEMINATION activity, if any) but, in any case, we expect you to show us the POSITION of your question in the framework of the STATE OF THE ART of your topic.
In other terms, you have to demonstrate us that there is a KNOWLEDGE GAP (at global or at least local level) that you are going to FILL UP with your research work.
Feasibility
THIRD, we like feasible projects. Either you are at the end of your PhD Program or at the beginning (or in the middle, of course) you must convince us that your research/editorial project (1st/2nd yrs) or the completion of your draft is feasible in the time you have (always too short) and with the skills you have, are going to update or have updated in your PhD career.
TIP01 - WHAT TO TELL US
In sequence, and in a very as short as effective way, you are expected to:
- give us a clear view of your RESEARCH QUESTION and position it in the framework of the STATE OF THE ART of your topic
- explain your research method, i.e HOW (tools? methodology? program?) you are going to ANSWER TO YOUR RESEARCH QUESTION
- WHAT you have already done (the older the bigger part of your work is expected) and how much your project and first results have been already DISCUSSED and REVIEWED (i.e. VALIDATED) by the scientific community
- a short remind of your previous interactions with the Board and other local experts may be useful.
TIP02 - FROM THE BEGINNING OR NOT?
It is difficult to say wether it is better to start from the beginning of your (PhD) life or to talk only about your last year work. It is related to how much each of the components already knows you. If someone (it is very probable) in the commission don't know you and never listened to you presenting your work, well, they need an introduction to your work ... proportionate your speech to their need.
Filename formats
Every document representing the activity of the PhD Candidate as student and early stage researcher of Politecnico di Milano must be made available to the Board Members, at least for the annual evaluation, using the following naming rule:
MILESTONE DOCUMENTS:
SURNAME NN title of the document (i.e.: ROSSI 03 Position Report or ROSSI 03 notes)
OTHER DOCUMENTS (papers, reports, course products):
SURNAME YYYY title of the document (i.e.: ROSSI 2015 The Devil in the Romantic Literature)
where:
NN = progressive number of the milestone
YYYY = year of the document
REFERENCES
Other ref
- Carleton University Library video about ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY (once you have selected that video you’ll find a list of others …)
- University of Maryland Writing Centre, Writing the Literature Review: Step-by-Step Tutorial for Graduate Students (another video) and also in their site: Learn how to write a review of literature more in general see their Writer’s Handbook
- Eco, U., Come si fa una tesi di laurea, Bompiani (Milano) 1977 (a pdf here) [tr. Eng. How to write a thesis, MIT Press, 2015
- A couple of slideshare presentations about: 1, 2
other references still to be managed ...
- M.Sanders, A. Tingloos, H. Verhulst, Advanced Writing in English: A Guide for Dutch Authors, Garant (Antwerpen), 2005 (Google Books)
- Venkatesan, S., Common errors in scientific paper submissions: A reviewer's reports, (2014) J. Soc. Sci., 41, pp. 279-293.
- Byrne, D., Common reasons for rejecting manuscripts at medical journals: A survey of editors and peer reviewers (2000) Sci. Ed., 23, pp. 39-44. Cited 17 times.
- Ezeala, C.C., Nweke, I.N., Ezeala, M.O., Common errors in manuscripts submitted to medical science journals (2013) Ann. Med. Health Sci. Res., 3, pp. 376-379. Cited 9 times.
- N.W.Pollock, "Scientific Writing" (2017) Wilderness & Environmental Medicine, Volume 28, Issue 4, Pages 283–284, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wem.2017.09.007
- Cetin, P.S., Eymur, G., "Developing Students' Scientific Writing and Presentation Skills through Argument Driven Inquiry: An Exploratory Study", Journal of Chemical Education, Volume 94, Issue 7, 11 July 2017, Pages 837-84
- D'Angiulli, A., Blanchette, I., Gosselin, J., "Not in manuals: Best current writing practices, particularly for academics writing in a nonnative language", Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, Volume 49, Issue 2, April 2017, Pages 89-96
- Day, R.A. (1998) How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper
- Glasman-Deal, H., Science research writing for non-native speakers of English (2009), Science Research Writing for Non-Native Speakers of English, pp. 1-257. Cited 5 times.