PhD Courses in Denmark

Program

Day 1, Monday the 2nd of June:

Lecturers: Line Engbo Gissel (lgissel@ruc.dk), Ole Helby Petersen (olehp@ruc.dk) and Eva Sørensen (eva@ruc.dk)

Readings: see above

Preparation and submissions: see above

Format: We have planned short lectures punctured by questions and answers, combined with sessions where teachers and students evaluate their own and others’ drafts. We will have short breaks as and when you need them. If you have any questions, please contact Ole Helby Petersen (olehp@ruc.dk) and Line Engbo Gissel (lgissel@ruc.dk).

9.00 – 10.15 Introduction to the Course + Introduction of Participants

10.15 – 10.30 Coffee Break

10.30 – 11.00 Part 1. Selecting a Journal

Preparing for Part 1: Prepare a journal analysis based on the Intro to Part V., Ch. 14, Ch. 15, and Ch. 16. The participants are instructed in how to carry out a systematic journal analysis. The discussion of how to do a journal analysis is followed by group-based discussions about the participants’ own journal analysis and choice of journal for their own paper.

10.30 – 11.00 Lecture by Ole: ‘Selecting a journal’.

11.00 – 12.00 Group-based discussions supervised

12.00 – 13.00 Lunch

13.00 – 14.30 Part 2. Writing an Abstract Preparing for Part 2: Draft an abstract based on Ch. 17.
Using a highly successful recipe for getting published – the territory, niche, and occupation approach (Reid, 2018) – we help participants write abstracts that place their study in the international literature and fit the style of the selected journal. Thereafter participants will discuss their own and each other’s abstracts. They will evaluate whether the abstracts work as intended and identify ways to improve them.

13.00 – 13.30 Lecture by Line: ‘Writing an abstract’.

13.30 – 14.30 Group exercise

14.30 - 16.00 Part 3. Writing an Introduction Preparing for Part 3: Draft an introduction based on Ch. 12 in the readings. Part 3 first introduces standard formats for writing an introduction and then engages the participants in applying one of these formats to their draft article. Participants will discuss their own and each other’s introductions. They will assess whether and how this part of their articles works or do not work.

16.00 – 17.00 Q&A with the Lecturers of the Day

17.00 – 19.00 Reception for participants and lecturers

Day 2, Tuesday the 3rd of June:

Lecturers: Associate professor Kim Sass Mikkelsen and associate professor Matias Thuen Jørgensen

Readings: see above

Preparation and submissions: There are no tasks that need preparation beyond reading the articles above. We will dive further into the readings and do hands-on exercises in class.

09.00 – 09.15 Intro

09.15 – 10:15 Part 1: When and how to choose the right theory We discuss the importance of therory, the difference between qualitative and quantitative approaches in terms of when and how to choose the right theory and ask you to strip your submission of its empirical context to discover its theoretical core.

10.15 – 10.30 Coffee break

10.30 – 12.00 Part 2: Theorizing We discuss theorizing, how it is done and how it furthers understanding. We ask you to find the gist of your argument and outline the plot of your story.

10.30 – 11.00 What is theory?

11.00 – 11.15 Exercise: The gist of your argument

11.15 – 11.45 Advice for theorizing

11.45 – 12.00 Exercise: Outline your plot

12.00 – 13.00 Lunch

13.00 – 14.00 Part 3: Data to theory and back We discuss frontend and backend theorizing, and fit, and ask you to identify issues in the connection between your data and theory.

13.00 – 13.25 Theory to data

13.25 – 13.50 Data to theory

13:50 – 14:00 Exercise: What you can’t study

14.00 – 15.00 Part 4: Communicating the use of theory We discuss the difficulties of communicating your use of theory, how to find the balance between saying too much and too little and present specific writing tips to showcase your use of theory. We ask you to improve the flow in your argumentation and to sharpen your writing to showcase your use of theory.

14:00 – 14.25 Argument techniques

14.25 – 14.50 Making and argument

14.50 – 15.00 Exercise: Improve your flow

15:00 – 16:00 Reflexive dialogue

16:00 – 17:00 Q&A with lecturers

Day 3, Wednesday the 4th of June:

Lecturers: Hanne Marlene Dahl (hmdahl@ruc.dk), and Eva Sørensen (eva@ruc.dk)

Readings: see above

Preparation and submissions: There are no tasks that need preparation beyond reading the chapters above. We will, however, ask you to think about the experiences you have with submitting articles or the concerns you have, disregarding if you have not tried it yet. We will also invite you to think in more detail about the content of your conclusion.

Format: We have four main sessions each consisting of a short lecture, various exercises, and general discussions. If you have any questions, please contact Hanne Marlene Dahl (hmdahl@ruc.dk), and Eva Sørensen (eva@ruc.dk).

9.00 – 10.00 Writing a conclusion

We tend to underestimate the importance of a good and sharp conclusion. We identify the minimum requirements to a conclusion and discuss different types of conclusions. We will also consider the relationship between a discussion section (as demanded in some journals) and a conclusion.

10.00 – 10.15 Break

10.15 – 11. 00 Preparing the paper for submission

The quality of the submitted article is not only a matter of content but also of form. We consider how to make sure that the article is in the best possible state before submission.

11.00 -11.15 Break

11.15 - 12.15 Digesting editor and reviewer comments

What are the typical issues reviewers and editors raise? And what can be done to change the manuscript to improve the paper? We discuss what to do in the case of a ‘reject’ (including a desk rejection) and ‘major revision’ based upon concrete examples of reviewer comments to submitted articles (hand-outs), we consider how to interpret and use them in the process of improving an article (respectively single authored and co-authored).

12.15 – 13.00 Lunch

13.00 – 14.00 Responding to editor og reviewer comments

We scrutinize different strategies and formats for responding to editor and reviewer comments in the ‘Response to Reviewer’ letter in the case of a Minor Revision or Revise-Resubmit verdict.

14.00-14.30 Walk and Talk: Take aways from the course

14.30 – 15.00 Insights, evaluation and goodbyes