If you HAD to complete a PhD, what would it be on?

[Joseph41]

I'm well aware that a PhD isn't for everybody. It's such a big commitment.

But if you HAD to spend like four years writing a single thesis, what topic would you choose? What's something you wouldn't get sick of (or, at least, would get sick of less)?

For me, I'd continue along a similar line to my Honours thesis. In that, I looked at the linguistic manifestation of gendered media portrayal in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era. I really enjoyed the mix of linguistics/gender/media/politics. I've considered pretty heavily a similar sort of topic for a PhD, but I'd probably replace politics with sport. Perhaps looking at the gendered media portrayal of male and female sport or some shit.

How about youen?

[Aaron]

Computer Science / Education mixture.

I would have LOVED to research current attitudes and implementations of a computational thinking / CS program in schools (or lack of).

Unfortunately I hate the idea of research

[Joseph41]

Computer Science / Education mixture.

I would have LOVED to research current attitudes and implementations of a computational thinking / CS program in schools (or lack of).

Unfortunately I hate the idea of research

This would be an interesting study to re-visit over time; you could really map out the changing attitudes etc.

Nice!

[Calebark]

I'm just a peasant high school student, and my interests within science change with the wind, but right now I'm really interested in biotechnology, so probably something in that Beyond that, I have no idea -- I don't know enough to be specific to be honest

[heids]

Predictably, I'd go for oxytocin research (there's so much potential with learning more about how this neurotransmitter works!), or else down the more social experiment/interview based line, focusing on human behaviour around trust, belonging or altruism.

[Joseph41]

Predictably, I'd go for oxytocin research (there's so much potential with learning more about how this neurotransmitter works!), or else down the more social experiment/interview based line, focusing on human behaviour around trust, belonging or altruism.

With the oxytocin research, what do you mean exactly? Like, the chemical side of it (can you tell I've done heaps of science?), or its effect on people? Or both? Or are they inherently linked?

[Quantum44]

I'm well aware that a PhD isn't for everybody. It's such a big commitment.

But if you HAD to spend like four years writing a single thesis, what topic would you choose? What's something you wouldn't get sick of (or, at least, would get sick of less)?

For me, I'd continue along a similar line to my Honours thesis. In that, I looked at the linguistic manifestation of gendered media portrayal in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era. I really enjoyed the mix of linguistics/gender/media/politics. I've considered pretty heavily a similar sort of topic for a PhD, but I'd probably replace politics with sport. Perhaps looking at the gendered media portrayal of male and female sport or some shit.

How about youen?

I'm not quite sure what a PhD entails (other than having to be exceptionally knowledgeable in a certain academic topic), but if I had complete one, it would be in the area of molecular genetics. I found that the most fascinating aspect of biology last year and it would be amazing to investigate it in a great deal of depth. I'm also curious if a PhD has to be on a topic no one has explored before?

[keltingmeith]

This is definitely not something I'm actively considering or anything. Not like I already have half of my application basically done, and just need to actually finish honours and get marks to put it all in.

Nope.

Just check my thesis in like 10 weeks loooool


EDIT: Because thing I missed:

(other than having to be exceptionally knowledgeable in a certain academic topic)

I honestly kinda disagree with this a bit, because it kind of implies PhD students know it beforehand? The exceptional knowledgeness that you often see in PhD students isn't the reason why they're in the PhD - in fact, it's the exact opposite, and the reason they seem to know so much about this one thing is because they're doing the PhD. Nearly all of them will learn these random factoids on the job, and while it seems like they're super intelligible, it's just a product that in most jobs you have a steep learning curve that ends in you knowing the ins and outs and then you're trained. For a PhD, the learning curve is nowhere near as steep - but it never stops, and so after a while it just seems like you know a bunch of random crap.

Also, re: does it have to be in a never before researched field - yes and no. What you do a study on has to be novel - it has to be something that nobody has done before. But, that doesn't mean the field has to brand new. For example, let's say you read a paper that did a study on a particular protein in flies to see if it made them much more resistant to disease. You might do the exact same study, but on a different protein - that's novel, and you can do a PhD on that. Or, let's say someone did their PhD on the effect of contraceptives in the 1950s. You might then do yours on the effect of abortion in the 1950s - super similar, but still different and you can do a PhD in this slightly different thing.

[heids]

With the oxytocin research, what do you mean exactly? Like, the chemical side of it (can you tell I've done heaps of science?), or its effect on people? Or both? Or are they inherently linked?

I'm most interested in its uses: what leads to oxytocin-rich or oxytocin-poor communities, and thus potential strategies for how to boost individual/community oxytocin levels and remove barriers.  Also fascinating is its potential to help treat mental illness, personality disorders and/or autism.

[K888]

Hmmm, interesting thread.

If I had to do a PhD, I think I would research something to do with outcomes of arthroscopic surgery vs conservative management in managing femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) - research is currently being done into this (and rates of arthroscopic hip surgery have greatly increased in recent years), but there's no conclusive evidence yet to say that either surgical management or conservative management is the gold standard (As an aside: Interestingly enough, the government actually revised the MBS (Medicare Benefit Schedule) items for hip arthroscopy to limit the items to treatment of non-FAI conditions).
Perhaps otherwise something to do with the incidence and outcomes of the condition (FAI) in general.

Along the lines of this, I wouldn't mind looking into developing more specific assessment tools for assessment of hip injuries - currently, we have a fair few highly sensitive tools, but nothing that lets you make a definitive decision about what a person is actually experiencing. Compare this to say, knees, where we have pretty highly specific tests for things such as knee ligament integrity, etc.

I'm sure as my degree continues I'll find other things I'm interested in though haha. Don't see myself doing a PhD at the moment in my career, but maybe that will change once I've been practicing for a few years

[vox nihili]

What you just said K888 is super relevant to what I'd like to research.


What I'm most interested in and have been for a few years are the systematic biases present in research literature and how they lead to poor decision making in medicine. Good medicine is based on the evidence, but with much of the evidence being so poor, we can't be sure that we're making the best decisions for our patients. I'd like to contribute to understanding the problem better with the view to using that research to lobby for change, if it of course it confirms the problem.

I say K888's bit is relevant because arthroscopies are done at fearfully high rates for indications for which there is no evidence of their effectiveness and, in many cases, significant evidence that it simply doesn't work.

[EEEEEEP]

I'm well aware that a PhD isn't for everybody. It's such a big commitment.

But if you HAD to spend like four years writing a single thesis, what topic would you choose? What's something you wouldn't get sick of (or, at least, would get sick of less)?

For me, I'd continue along a similar line to my Honours thesis. In that, I looked at the linguistic manifestation of gendered media portrayal in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era. I really enjoyed the mix of linguistics/gender/media/politics. I've considered pretty heavily a similar sort of topic for a PhD, but I'd probably replace politics with sport. Perhaps looking at the gendered media portrayal of male and female sport or some shit.

How about youen?

How about the change in what is considered acceptable language over time?

[brenden]

18 units of philosophy and I couldn't think of a single thesis topic that I could bear writing about haha.

[Calebark]

18 units of philosophy and I couldn't think of a single thesis topic that I could bear writing about haha.

Brenden's thesis is about how 18 units of philosophy doesn't prepare you to find a single bearable topic to write about

[RuiAce]

It would have to involve maths.