I am a PhD student close to finishing my 1st year, highly motivated, passionate, hard working and with one accepted article in a really good journal (related to PhD project) plus conference proceedings.

I would like to grow as a scientist and also develop my ideas and therefore having a good research portfolio (i.e. papers) is essential for an early career scientist as me.

I am trying to share my research ideas with my PhD advisors but it seems that they won’t listen or are not interested.

Why are the not involving/listening to me in their ongoing research?

My field is applied physical sciences.

I am a PhD student close to finish my 1st year, highly motivated, passionate, hard working and with one accepted article in a really good journal (related to PhD project) plus conference proceedings.

I would like to grow as a scientist and also develop my ideas and therefore having a good research portfolio (i.e. papers) is essential for an early career scientist as me.

I am trying to share my research ideas with my PhD advisors but it seems that they won’t listen or are not interested.

Why they are not involving/listening me in their ongoing research?

My field is applied physical sciences.

Thanks

I’m in the process of conducting a qualitative research project based on IT-support.

My research question is: Do students find value in the IT-support provided by a university?

My intention with the research is to perform qualitative interviews with students studying at university to find out about their perceived value of the IT-support provided there.

Before making the questions that should be asked to the students in the interview manuscript I will interview two first line IT-support personnel working at my university. This to get a general understanding of the support structure, but also to be able to write the most optimal questions for the question manuscript used when interviewing the students.

My concern here and what I’d like to get help with is:

Are there any universal definition of “value” that I can use to incorporate into the questions asked to the IT-support personnel. As the questions for the students will be based on the interviews with the IT-support personnel I need to make sure that the questions I ask the IT-support personnel can be traced back to how I define value.

If anything is unclear of what I’m trying to do, let me know and I will try to further explain.

Any help on how I should proceed are greatly appreciated or if you see any other solution to how I could proceed.

Thanks!

I’m studying employees empathic behavior during service interaction with customers and its impact on satisfaction and loyalty. Customer affective commitment plays an important role towards satisfaction and loyalty outcomes. However, I have a query that either affective commitment comes first and then satisfaction or satisfaction comes first then it creates affective commitment towards a service brand?

Your responses regarding this will be valuable for my work. Thank you.

We are writing a research paper and for our experiments using a model/architecture that was created by other researchers for a specific task. We are using the same model in a modified way for a different task, but the model at its core is the same.

Is it okay for us to directly lift the image/drawing/diagram of the model/architecture and post it in ours? We would give due credits of course. We thought about drawing it on our own again and posting it but we did not want it to seem as if we are hiding the fact that we are using someone else’s model and trying to pass it off as ours.

The paper in question is available in the open domain, so I doubt there will be any copyright issues.

So I have heard that professors doing applied work in math research have like no chance to win the big prizes in their fields, and that only the theorists win the big math prizes.

Is this true?

You might be asking “big, compared to what?”

So let’s consider, for example, the Abel prize and the Fields Medal, … or some prize of similar prestige and similar monetary award.

Are interdisciplinary STEM PhDs qualified to land up in academia as professors?

Or are they viewed more as “in-betweeners” and better suited for industry work? E.g. someone who has a broad (but not deep) math background and only relevant (but neither deep nor broad) domain knowledge in, say, biology or physics, to write their papers. In other words, such a PhD candidate will not be trained as a mathematician in the traditional sense and likewise as a biologist or physicist, etc.

Then what typically happens after their PhD? Do they not have deep enough knowledge to join academia as professors in any department?

~ Cheers ~

I am writing a paper with a group of people, and we would like to cite preliminary results from another work, which one of the coauthors is involved along with yet other people. The preliminary results have not been published or even written up. Should we cite this as “Personal communication” and put the names of all members of the other group (which overlaps with the current group), or are there better ways to do it?