PubMed · 2296536
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
A R Swanson. 1990. Issues in dissertation proposal development.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2296536/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
In 1842, F. C. Faye obtained the degree of doctor of medicine. He was the fourth person to do so in Norway. His dissertation was on the seminal vesicles. These were the focus of much attention at that time, when so-called seminal flux was considered both a serious symptom and the cause of many ills, both mental and physical. The treatise, which was in Latin, and the academic proceedings involved serve to illustrate the medical world of his time. They also provide a background for a brief review of today's conception of the seminal vesicles, which is still incomplete and not entirely satisfactory. Newer methods of imaging, such as transrectal ultrasonography, may shed new light on the pathology of these organs.
The International Union of Immunological Societies, recognizing the need for internationally acceptable standards for the PhD degree in immunology, commissioned the IUIS Education Committee to prepare recommendations on the subject. This document, the result of a two-year study of PhD programs in many countries, presents these recommendations.
Researchers have experienced difficulties in having papers which are based on qualitative research accepted for publication because the papers have been written in the first person. Arguments are presented to show why the use of the neutral, anonymous third person is deceptive when applied to quantitative research because it obliterates the social elements of the research process. With regard to research in the qualitative, critical and feminist paradigms, it is further argued that the use of the first person is required in keeping with the epistemologies of the research and in the pursuit of reflexivity. Links are made between these arguments and the process of reviewing for academic journals. Conclusions are drawn in favour of the use of the first person, where this is appropriate to the mode of research reported and where an author is giving a personal judgement arrived at on the basis of reasonable evidence. In keeping with this position, this paper is written in the first person.