How to get your thesis to get noticed in the eyes of senior academics
Senior academics need to get a bit creative in how they approach a thesis to be noticed by senior academics.
A paper titled “How to get senior academics to read your thesis” has been written by an undergraduate who is in the final stages of her PhD. The paper, which is being shared by the Faculty of Science, is being published in the journal Science and aims to help them “think about the impact of a thesis in the world”.
The paper, titled “Theories of knowledge” is part of a two-part series that will be published in Science and aimed to help senior academics think about the effect of a particular thesis.
The series will be launched on April 1, and the author of the article is an undergraduate student in the Faculty.
In the series, she is going to talk about how to use various theories to help her to “think through the problem of the relationship between ideas and knowledge”.
This is what a student in a PhD programme in the School of Philosophy would think about his thesis.
(Image: Keshav Prakash)The series is based on research conducted by the School’s department of Philosophy in the past few years.
In 2013, a paper titled: “Towards a theory of knowledge,” which was written by two PhD students, came to light in Science.
The authors of that paper, who are now both professors at the School, explained that their research was motivated by a specific question.
“What is the relationship of knowledge to ideas?
Is it a good or bad relation, good or not?
We wanted to find out whether a particular theory of the relation of ideas was actually relevant to this question,” the authors of the 2013 paper, the researchers said.
They came across a problem in the research.
“We did a simple experiment and, of course, we failed to find any correlation between the two.
But what is interesting is that the relation between the theory and the experiment was very strongly connected,” they said.
The authors of this 2013 paper did not think that their theory was going to be a good fit for the problem they were trying to solve, but they thought that it was still possible to find a correlation between ideas, they added.
The theory they came up with, which they called “Toward a Theory of Knowledge,” was a theory that looked at the relation.
It had the following features:There were three basic features to it: there was a concept of ‘thesis’ there was an ‘argument’ and there was ‘an argumentative process’.
It also had the form of a series of propositions.
This meant that it would help to develop a theory about how knowledge works, the authors said.
It was this theory that was also referred to in the previous year’s edition of the Journal of Philosophy, when a paper on this topic was published in that journal.
It is interesting to note that the authors wrote that “TOWAT, for the most part, did not have any evidence to support its proposition.
However, it did suggest a new way of understanding knowledge.”
However, the paper did have a few problems.
One was that the thesis did not make any assumptions about what is and isn’t a ‘towel’.
The authors said that the hypothesis is a “towelling” of the world.
Another problem was that “the argumentative processes are very specific.
It was quite difficult to formulate the theory.”
Finally, the argumentative system that the paper described was not a theory at all.
The problem with the theory was that it is “inherently not a good theory of a theory”.
It was a hypothesis that did not go beyond a hypothesis and was not an objective description of the theory.
In an article that was published a few months later, the author said that they were “quite convinced that we have missed something important in our thesis and we are very happy to say so.”
They went on to write that they hoped that their paper will help senior students “to think about how best to think about this problem.”
They added that the series “is a contribution to our field, but we are not claiming that it will become the ‘theory of knowledge’ that many of us are talking about.
Instead, we hope that it helps to raise some interesting questions about the relation that ideas and science are based on.”
In a way, the theory of “Towers of Babel” is a response to the paper, they said, and they hope that other authors will see the light.