Saturday 31 August 2013

Mass Demonstration or Violent Crackdown—Lose-Lose for All

By - August 14, 2013

By Kimly Ngoun
This opinion is apolitical. I write out of concern for the Cambodian people and the country.
The news of a possible opposition CNRP-led mass demonstration and the CPP’s response to deploy armed forces and ar­mored personnel carriers (APCs) in and around Phnom Penh looks like both political camps are heading toward confrontation. 

Even more worrisome are the contradictory statements from within the CNRP and the ruling party about their respective intentions. If a mass demonstration takes place and the government reacts with force, both political parties and the country as a whole will lose.

If there is a mass protest, the big question for the CNRP is how to keep it peaceful? How can it guarantee control over every protesters’ movement, gestures and words? Any provocative move or slogan from a few demonstrators may invite a response from the armed forces with the potential to inflame chaos and violence. If such a scenario were to occur, the CNRP’s leaders would be held, if not legally, morally responsible for casualties and loss of lives.

The CNRP will surely disappoint many of its supporters who voted for “change,” but change in a sense for a more peaceful, prosperous, just and civilized nation, not a change to violence, tragedy and backwardness.

If the CPP uses force to suppress demonstrators, it faces three major risks. Firstly, the party’s leaders may be liable to prosecution by either local or international courts. Secondly, if the violent crackdown fails to scare people away and reduce the number of demonstrators but instead inspires more people to take to the streets, this could spillover to other provinces throughout the country.
Some of the CPP’s officials and members of the military and the police (especially those mid-level and low-ranking officers) will have to ask themselves the question—should I stay or should I go? Any defection by members of the ruling party and the military will greatly damage the government’s legitimacy; affect the psychology of those who stay and possibly provide an excuse for foreign countries to intervene militarily.

If there are tens or hundreds of thousands of people joining the demonstration, it would not be surprising for the soldiers and police to find their friends and relatives among the protesters.
Thirdly, violent action will tarnish the ruling party’s image as the guardian of peace and political stability.

History has informed us that negotiation and settling of disputes by peaceful means is the door to lasting peace and social harmony. Violent means cause revenge and tragedy.

Cambodian voters regardless of political tendencies value peace, social harmony and the country’s prosperity. And they have already fulfilled their obligation as a good citizen by voting.
Now it is the turn of the leaders of both parties to demonstrate that they truly care about: the people and the country. The world is watching Cambodia. Let us prove that we are a civilized race and a responsible world citizen by resolving the standoff peacefully.

Kimly Ngoun is a postgraduate student at the Australian National University, Canberra.
© 2013, The Cambodia Daily. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced in print, electronically, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without written permission.

An Arab-Style ‘Cambodian Spring’ Could be Disastrous

By - August 19, 2013

By Samir Pheng
Following the recent election results, a new concept is starting to bloom: the Cambodian Spring. Although filled with optimism, the idea of transposing the Arab Spring to Cambodia should be taken with a pinch of salt

In December 2010, “flowers” blossomed in the harsh Mediter­ranean sun of Tunisia then Egypt followed by Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Syria and many Arab countries soon after. Arabs followed the mesmerizing songs of change and democracy trusting they would soon lead to a better life. As curious as Pandora opening a forbidden box bestowed by Zeus, the people expected democracy to become a panacea for all their troubles. In the heat of the moment Mohamed Bouazizi’s immolation kickstarted the revolution and everyone took to the street.

French political scientist Mi­chel Dobry speaks of desectorialization in Egypt meaning that workers of every sector converged their frustrations into a massive protest movement. Like a B-rated Hollywood movie, the bad guy (the long standing dictators) lost to the good guys played by Democracy. Hap­py endings and let’s grab a beer anyone? As much as I wished this story to be true, reality shows a much grimmer and more violent face.

Tunisia has failed to recover from former President Ben Ali’s fall and the political situation has been unstable since. Unemployment rates have risen as the fragile state has been unable to establish a solid economic structure. As a result, foreign investors are reluctant to set foot in a country with a weak legal and political framework. And Tunisia is probably the one country from the Arab uprisings with glimmers of hope.

Egypt initially placed its optimism in the figure of President Mohamed Morsi but he has failed to negotiate a peace agreement with the military. To his own detriment, one might say after the latter seized and imprisoned him. The inability to create a stable political climate has many economical consequences. Vice Minister of Finance Hary Kadri Dimian is still not able to broker a loan agreement with the International Mon­etary Fund. Wheat reserve is at its lowest point since importation has slowed considerably meaning Egypt could face another food riot. Evaporating investments, scared tourists: A once attractive country with its gold sands and mighty pyramids has become the scene of gruesome showdowns.

Libya and Syria? What can be said? One has become a haven for radical Islamists looking to restore Shariah law while the other sees President Bashar al-Assad sharpening his meat cleavers every day. He might fall one day but chances are the butchering will not stop there. Overzealous partisans of democracy like to put in the limelight the inevitable democratic transitions whenever they see a glimpse of change. But what follows is not always rainbows and butterflies.

The way we instill change can either mean: Establishing legitimate democratic institutions recognized not only by the West but also the people and its leaders. Or, destroying existing structures to establish newer, untested ones.

Every government has its flaws but it is through constant institutional confrontations, negotiations and eventual compromise that change should be brought about. The nature of change whether it is through peace or violence also dictates the nature of the outcome.

A Cambodian Spring—Arab style—could produce irreversible consequences. Our country should not make another dreadful copy of a Western song, especially one that sold so badly in Arab countries.

Samir Pheng is a graduate student at Sciences Po Bordeaux.

© 2013, The Cambodia Daily. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced in print, electronically, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without written permission.

Friday 30 August 2013

Top 40 Potential Viva Questions

By Rebecca
Source: http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/ResearchEssentials/?p=156

I submitted my thesis way back in March but, somewhere between CREET and the Research School, the documentation was lost or abandoned for a couple of months. Add to that a spell in hospital when they finally got round to fixing a date – and I’m left with a viva in late August, when my thesis is fast becoming a distant memory and I’m on the mend from major surgery.

Of course, successfully completing a viva affects all sorts of things: employment prospects, roles I can take on at the university, status, pay – and I could have done without lying in intensive care worrying about the event itself. Someone, somewhere at the university has messed things up big time – not that they are apologising for it, or even owning up.

But, apart from awarding the unknown culprit(s) a #massivefail hashtag, I’m thinking positive and working on possible viva questions. I’ve been setn, or read, several lists of these – so here they are, my selection of the Top 40 Potential Viva Questions.

1. Can you start by summarising your thesis?
2. Now, can you summarise it in one sentence?
3. What is the idea that binds your thesis together?
4. What motivated and inspired you to carry out this research?
5. What are the main issues and debates in this subject area?
6. Which of these does your research address?
7. Why is the problem you have tackled worth tackling?
8. Who has had the strongest influence in the development of your subject area in theory and practice?
9. Which are the three most important papers that relate to your thesis?
10. What published work is closest to yours? How is your work different?
11. What do you know about the history of [insert something relevant]?
12. How does your work relate to [insert something relevant]?
13. What are the most recent major developments in your area?
14. How did your research questions emerge?
15. What were the crucial research decisions you made?
16. Why did you use this research methodology? What did you gain from it?
17. What were the alternatives to this methodology?
18. What would you have gained by using another approach?
19. How did you deal with the ethical implications of your work?
20. How has your view of your research topic changed?
21. How have you evaluated your work?
22. How do you know that your findings are correct?
23. What are the strongest/weakest parts of your work?
24. What would have improved your work?
25. To what extent do your contributions generalise?
26. Who will be most interested in your work?
27. What is the relevance of your work to other researchers?
28. What is the relevance of your work to practitioners?
29. Which aspects of your work do you intend to publish – and where?
30. Summarise your key findings.
31. Which of these findings are the most interesting to you? Why?
32. How do your findings relate to literature in your field?
33. What are the contributions to knowledge of your thesis?
34. How long-term are these contributions?
35. What are the main achievements of your research?
36. What have you learned from the process of doing your PhD?
37. What advice would you give to a research student entering this area?
38. You propose future research. How would you start this?
39. What would be the difficulties?
40. And, finally… What have you done that merits a PhD?

Rebecca
Addendum: Rebecca successfully defended her thesis on 21st August. I’ve posted up this pic I took on the day, but I expect when she’s back from her hols she’ll move it to another post. Gill

Rebecca’s successful viva

Thursday 29 August 2013

10 truths a PhD supervisor will never tell you

There are some important dos and don’ts to bear in mind when choosing someone to oversee your doctoral thesis, advises Tara Brabazon
Katie Edwards feature illustration (11 July 2013)
Source: Katie Edwards

My father used to tell a joke, over and over again. It was a classic outback Australian, Slim Dusty joke that – like the best dad jokes – I can’t remember. But I do recall the punchline. “Who called the cook a bastard?” To which the answer was, “Who called the bastard a cook?”
This riposte often comes to mind during discussions about doctoral supervision and candidature management. Discussions go on (and on and on) about quality, rigour, ethics and preparedness. Postgraduates are monitored, measured and ridiculed for their lack of readiness or their slow progress towards completion. But inconsistencies and problems with supervisors and supervision are marginalised. In response, I think of my father’s one-liner: Who called the supervisor a bastard? Who called the bastard a supervisor?

To my mind, I never received any satisfactory, effective or useful supervision for my doctorate, research master’s or two coursework master’s that contained sizeable dissertation components. I found the supervisors remote and odd. A couple of them tried to block the submission of the theses to my institution. Indeed, on three separate occasions in my career, academics informed me that if I submitted this thesis, it would fail. The results that followed these warnings were a master of arts passed with distinction, a master of education with first-class honours and a dean’s award, and a PhD passed without correction. I was left with the impression that these supervisors had no idea what they were doing. The worst supervisors share three unforgivable characteristics:
  1. They do not read your writing
  2. They never attend supervisory meetings
  3. They are selfish, career-obsessed bastards
I am now an experienced supervisor and examiner, but I still remember my own disappointments. For the doctoral students who follow, I want to activate and align these personal events with the candidatures I have managed since that time. Particularly, I wish to share with the next generation of academics some lessons that I have learned about supervisors.

As a prospective PhD student, you are precious. Institutions want you – they gain funding, credibility and profile through your presence. Do not let them treat you like an inconvenient, incompetent fool. Do your research. Ask questions. Use these 10 truths to assist your decision.

Katie Edwards feature illustration (11 July 2013)
Source: Katie Edwards

1. The key predictor of a supervisor’s ability to guide a postgraduate to completion is a good record of having done so


Ensure that at least one member of your supervisory team is a very experienced supervisor. Anyone can be appointed to supervise. Very few have the ability, persistence, vision, respect and doggedness to move a diversity of students through the examination process. Ensure that the department and university you are considering assign supervisors on the basis of intellectual ability rather than available workload. Supervising students to completion is incredibly difficult. The final few months require complete commitment from both supervisor and postgraduate. Make sure that you are being guided by a supervisor who understands the nature of effective supervision and has proved it through successful completions.

2. You choose the supervisor. Do not let the institution overrule your choice


As a postgraduate who is about to dedicate three or four years to an institution, you have the right to select a supervisor with whom you feel comfortable. Yet increasingly, as the postgraduate bureaucracy in universities increases, administrators and managers “match” a prospective candidate with a supervisor. Do not let this happen. Do research on the available staff. Talk directly with individual academics. Ascertain their willingness to supervise you, and then inform the graduate centre or faculty graduate administrators of their commitment.

3. Stars are attractive but may be distant. Pick a well-regarded supervisor who does not spend too much time away


It may seem a tough, unusual or impossible task to find a supervisor who has a strong profile but rarely goes away on research leave or disappears to attend conferences. Postgraduates need to be supervised by people with an international reputation whose name carries weight when they write references. But they must not be jet-setting professors, frequently leaving the campus and missing supervisory meetings to advance their own career. They must be established and well known, but available to supervise you rather than continually declining your requests for meetings because they are travelling to Oslo, Luanda or Hong Kong.

4. Bureaucratic immunity is vital. Look for a supervisor who will protect you from ‘the system’


There is an excessive amount of university doctoral administration. I understand and welcome the value in checking the ethical expenditure of public money; a programme of study submitted in the first year and an annual progress report through the candidature will accomplish this task. But now we have to deliver milestone reports, public confirmations of candidature sessions, biannual progress reports, annual oral presentations of research and – in some universities – complete a form that must be signed off at the conclusion of every supervisory meeting.

Every moment a student is filling in a form is one less moment they are reading a book or article, or writing a key page in their doctorate. Time is finite. Bureaucracy is infinite. A good supervisor will protect you from the excesses of supervisory administration.

The irony of many graduate centres is that they initiate incredibly high demands on students and supervisors yet are incredibly lax during crucial periods of the candidature when a rapid administrative response is required. One of my postgraduates had to wait 16 months for a decision on her doctorate. Two examiners had returned timely reports and passed with minor corrections. The third academic, however, did not examine the thesis, did not submit any paperwork and did not respond to any communications. I sent email after email – made phone call after phone call – to the graduate centre trying to facilitate a resolution to this examination. Finally, after a rather intensive period of nagging, a decision was reached to accept the two reports and no longer wait for the third. The question remains – why did the graduate centre take 16 months to make this decision? If I had not phoned and emailed administrators, would they have forgotten about this student? A good supervisor must be an advocate for the postgraduate through the increasingly bureaucratised doctoral candidature.

5. Byline bandits abound. Study a potential supervisor’s work


Does your prospective supervisor write with PhD students? Good. Do they write almost exclusively with their PhD students? Not so good – in fact, alarm bells should start ringing. Supervision is a partnership. If your prospective supervisor appears to be adding his or her name to students’ publications and writing very little independently, be concerned. Some supervisors claim co-authorship of every publication written during the candidature. Do not think that this is right, assumed, proper or the default setting. The authorship of papers should be discussed. My rule is clear: if I write it, it is mine. If you write it, it is yours. If we write it together, we share the authorship. It is important that every postgraduate finishes the candidature with as many publications as possible. Ask supervisors how they will enhance and facilitate your research and publishing career. Remember, you are a PhD student. Your supervisor should assist you to become an independent scholar, not make you into their unpaid research assistant.

Katie Edwards feature illustration (11 July 2013)
Source: Katie Edwards

6. Be wary of co-supervisors


Most institutions insist on at least two supervisors for every student. This system was introduced not for scholarly reasons but to allay administrative fears. There is a concern that a supervisor might leave the institution, stranding the student, or that the supervisor and student might have a disagreement, again leaving the student without support.

These arguments are like grounding all aircraft because there are occasional crashes. Too often I see an academic “added” to the team to beef up his or her workload. I have been in a university meeting where research-active professors were “added” to a supervisory panel not because they were excellent supervisors (far from it) but rather because they needed to boost their profile for the research assessment exercise.

Certainly there are many occasions where a co‑supervisor is incredibly valuable, but this must be determined by their research contribution to the topic rather than by institutional convenience. I once supervised a fine thesis about Russian television. I had the expertise in television studies; a colleague held expertise in Russian studies and the Russian language. It was a great team. We met weekly as a group, with specialist meetings held with either of us as required to complete the doctorate. The candidate submitted in the minimum time.

At times, an inexperienced co-supervisor is added to a team to gain “experience”. That is, perhaps, understandable. But damage can be done to students through bad advice. I know of a disturbing case in which an inexperienced co-supervisor chose a relatively junior friend to examine a doctorate. Before the senior co-supervisor had been informed, this prospective external examiner had been approached and had agreed, and the paperwork had been submitted. Two years later, the candidate is still progressing with corrections. Each time he submits revisions that supposedly verify the concerns expressed during the oral examination, he is presented with another list because the inexperienced supervisor agreed to “corrections to the satisfaction of the examiner”. This problem was caused by an overconfident but inexperienced co-supervisor being added to the team and then going on to appoint an overconfident but inexperienced examiner.

Sometimes – in fact frequently – less is more. A strong relationship with a well-qualified, experienced and committed supervisor will ensure that the postgraduate will produce a strong thesis with minimum delay.

7. A supervisor who is active in the area of your doctorate can help to turbocharge your work


Occasionally students select a “name” rather than a “name in the field”. The appropriateness of a supervisor’s field of research is critical because it can save you considerable time. Supervisors who are reading, thinking and writing in the field can locate a gap in your scholarly literature and – at speed – provide you with five names to lift that section. A generalist will not be able to provide this service. As the length of candidatures – or more precisely the financial support for candidatures – shrinks and three years becomes the goal, your supervisor can save you time through sharing not only their experience but also their expertise.

8. A candidature that involves teaching can help to get a career off the ground


In Australia, teaching with your supervisor is often the default pattern, and it is a good one. In the UK, tutoring is less likely to emerge because of budgetary restraints. But a postgraduate who does not teach through the candidature is unprepared to assume a full-time teaching post. Many doctoral candidates are already academics and are returning to study. Others work in a diversity of professions and have no intention of taking a job in a university. Therefore, this “truth” is not relevant. But for those seeking a career in academia who intend to use the doctorate as a springboard, teaching experience is crucial. A postgraduate may see themselves as a serious researcher. But it is teaching that will get them their first post (and probably their second and third). The ultimate supervisor is also an outstanding teacher who will train their postgraduates in writing curricula, managing assessment and creating innovative learning moments in a classroom. None of these skills is required for or developed by a doctorate. You can be supervised well without these teaching experiences. However, if you have a choice, select the supervisor who can “add value” to your candidature.

One of my proudest moments emerged in a tutors’ meeting for my large first-year course at Murdoch University: creative industries. I apologised to my tutors for the hard work and low pay that was a characteristic of sessional university employment. Mike Kent – who is now Dr Mike Kent and a tenured lecturer in internet studies at Curtin University – stated that the pay was an extra. He was being trained to teach. That was the value from the process. I still think tutors should be paid more, but I valued – and value – Mike’s insight.

9. Weekly supervisory meetings are the best pattern


There are two realities of candidature management. First, the longer the candidature, the less likely you are to finish. Second, a postgraduate who suspends from a candidature is less likely to submit a doctorate.

The key attribute of students who finish is that they are passionately connected to their thesis and remain engaged with their research and their supervisor. I have always deployed weekly meetings as the best pattern for supervision to nurture this connection.

There are reasons for this. Some postgraduates lack time-management skills and would prefer to be partying, facebooking or tweeting, rather than reading, thinking and writing. If students know that written work is expected each week, and they have to sit in an office with a supervisor who is evaluating their work, that stress creates productive writing and research. So if a meeting is held on a Thursday, then on Tuesday a student panics and does some work. Yet if meetings are fortnightly, this stress-based productivity is halved. It is better to provide a tight accountability structure for students. Weekly meetings accomplish this task.

10. Invest your trust only in decent and reliable people who will repay it, not betray it


This truth may seem self-evident. But supervisors – like all academics – are people first. If the prospective supervisor needs a personality replacement, lacks the life skills to manage a trip to the supermarket or requires electronic tagging so that he (or she) does not sleep with the spouses of colleagues, then make another choice. Supervisors should be functional humans. They can be – and should be – quirky, imaginative and original. That non-standard thinking will assist your project. But if there is a whiff of social or sexual impropriety, or if there are challenges with personal hygiene, back away in a hurry. At times during your candidature you will have to rely on this person. You will be sobbing in their office. You will need to lean on them. You must have the belief that they can help you through a crisis and not manipulate you during a moment of vulnerability.

I knew a supervisor whose idea of supervision was a once-a-semester meeting in a bar where he would order three bottles of red wine and start drinking. The meeting ended when the wine finished. Another supervisor selected his postgraduates on the likelihood that the students would sleep with him. Yet another was so completely fixated by her version of feminism that all the doctorates completed under her supervision ended up looking incredibly similar. Any deviation from a particular political perspective would result in screaming matches in her office. This was not only unpleasant but destructive to the students’ careers.

The key truth and guiding principle is evident


Do not select a supervisor who needs you more than you need him or her. Gather information. Arm yourself with these 10 truths. Ask questions. Make a choice with insight, rather than respond – with gratitude – to the offer of a place or supervision.

Sunday 25 August 2013

ASIA: South East Asian countries begin evacuating students from Egypt

Opinion: Confucius Institute Enhances Chinese Language Education, Cultural Exchange in NW Cambodia

  Please read from the Phnom Penh Post Please read from the Cambodianess  Confucius institutes have been playing a vital role in promoting C...