curriculum vitae. I always have problem pronouncing that.

Yes PhD is an intense programme. Those who are interested may also google MyMaster and MyPhd for possible scholarship scheme offered by Malaysian government.

Hmm, I'm just wondering. Is it true that some people who are doing their thesis only take references that supports their research and not those that may be able to disprove their research?

That was what my lecturer told us during a lecture.

Dunno if I belong here. M.Eng in EEIT, majoring Communication, although now working in the Automation sector.

Completed my undergrad studies in an university of applied science (UAS) in Germany right in the middle of an economy recession. Since the same university also offers Master of Engineering (M.Eng) through coursework (UAS in Germany is more geared towards practical, Universities are more theoretical), I took that chance.

I have 0 publications, I did my master thesis at Bosch HQ, where I programmed a Two-Port NWA using their HWs (I don't design the hardware).

Right now, I am thinking about going into the academic world and do my Ph.D and teach, but I like the job I am in. So maybe, if I get the chance, I like to do Industrial Ph.D.

PS: To those looking to do a doctorate in Germany, I would suggest doing Industrial Ph.D (doing it at the company, attached to a local university). Fraunhofer Institute is the most widespread research institute throughout Germany.

You can also do it the traditional way and be a RO at a university while doing research on a topic. I am not sure if you have to teach at this stage.

yes there always comes a dilemma whether to even mention the contradicting studies. An ethical researcher must report what he has found. The one you highlighted normally happens when one is doing a background literature review.

Another temptation will be during data analysis. Instead of letting the finding to emerge from data itself, the researcher reports the finding selectively.

Hi there, i think you need to starting writing papers and getting them published if you are considering the academic world.

Yeah, I thought so too. But isn't there lecturer whose focus is solely on teaching and not researching? (Other than applying new knowledge, that is)

Yeah, I thought so too. But isn't there lecturer whose focus is solely on teaching and not researching? (Other than applying new knowledge, that is)

Hmm, I'm just wondering. Is it true that some people who are doing their thesis only take references that supports their research and not those that may be able to disprove their research?

That was what my lecturer told us during a lecture.

Is this the way they do things in Malaysia???

No... you should instead try to explain the observed differences between your results and others - why your results don't agree with others. Maybe they used different methodologies? What, then, are the merits of your methodologies and how your results can fit into the big picture (ie. the collective knowledge of your research topic so far).

Yeah, I thought so too. But isn't there lecturer whose focus is solely on teaching and not researching? (Other than applying new knowledge, that is)

Lecturer in college.

Depending on some fields, doing the PhD itself is considered a "working experience".

For example, a psychologist doing a PhD research, that itself is a working experience for the psychologist. Or those in the pure science field, doing their PhD research is already an experience by itself.

I know that many tend to think that PhD is all about theory which is not true at all. PhD involves intense research, including both primary (field) research (this is where you have to go out and meet people or the object of your research) and secondary (library) research.

Well, most of the time people who do research will tend to find facts that support their theory/ objectives... everybody just loves positive results, don't they? 
A proper research should take into account all the positive/negative points of a particular topic/technology etc. prior to initiation of a project, which is why the planning and designing of a project is very important..

As for those biased thesis/papers focusing only on the positive side of the topic/technology etc., most of the time they won't get passed the reviewers (who are a whole lot more experienced in the field), especially for international papers 

Well, most of the time people who do research will tend to find facts that support their theory/ objectives... everybody just loves positive results, don't they? 
A proper research should take into account all the positive/negative points of a particular topic/technology etc. prior to initiation of a project, which is why the planning and designing of a project is very important..

As for those biased thesis/papers focusing only on the positive side of the topic/technology etc., most of the time they won't get passed the reviewers (who are a whole lot more experienced in the field), especially for international papers 

Being able to challenge and explain why others' results not agreeing with yours give so much more credibility to your research, providing that your data is solid enough. This is what science is about, after all.

A literature review that supports the hypotheses can be a double-edged sword - it can strengthen our hypotheses, and at the same time decreasing the novelty of research paper. Since so much research already shown positive results, there's little value to conduct studies on similar issue.

True that
Its not easy though haha~
I've seen some older reviewers who are rather "closed-minded" and insisted that their methods are "correct" and unwilling to accept other ppl's work 

---

Added on April 4, 2012, 10:28 am

Yeap, which is why we don't conduct studies on similar issues in the 1st place?

you may conduct similar topic, even with large amount of literature review in such area. As long as your justification is logical, arguing that

why your study is different, or why theirs are different from your objective
and why your study will fill in the gap of knowledge

In social science, it boils down to the ability of a researcher to justify. Of course, with sound and critical literature review and valid and reliable research methods.

background review- state what researcher did, and their result.
critical review- criticise their work (not person, be careful), comment on their result, find their flaw, highlight the loopholes. The best way to aim is their sampling technique.

Good to see a discussion going on =)