I realise after submitting my dissertation lask week that I posed my hypothesis in the wrong manner.

I posed them as

I believe that X will not be a predictor of Y

I subsequently went on with results which returned a p value of 0.01 and subsequently said we reject the null throughout my discussion.

It may be simply viewed as a typo. Am I likely to suffer greatly as a result of this mistake. I proceed with my methods, data analysis and discussion as if the hypotheses are proposed in the correct manner and given the overall premise of the dissertation and explanation of the result, it’s quite clear what I am trying to achieve I believe.

Am I likely to simply be failed as a result of this error?

Any help greatly appreciated as I’m very as this has been submitted and I am extremely worried

I realise after submitting my dissertation lask week that I posed my hypothesis in the wrong manner.

I posed them as I believe that X will Not be a predictor of Y

I subsequently went on with results which returned a p value of 0.01 and subsequently said we reject the null and discussed throughout my discussion.

It may be simply viewed as a typo. Am I likely to suffer greatly as a result of this mistake. I proceed with my methods, data analysis and discussion as if the hypotheses are proposed in the correct manner and given the overall premise of the dissertation and explanation of the result, it’s quite clear what I am trying to achieve I believe.

Am I likely to simply be failed as a result of this error?

Any help greatly appreciated as I’m very as this has been submitted and I am extremely worried

I have written a thesis about applying some AI techniques to a simulation that my professor introduced. To make this happen, I had to implement a very large amount of software, because the simulation works in another language, follows different principles etc.

After 6 months of hard work, I did not reach my goal. I was not able to actually implement the AI technique I wished to apply to the problem. I created a lot of reusable components that future developers (and in fact other students as I was told) will want to use. But the actual question and also the title of the thesis (which both had to be fixed ahead of time and cannot be changed once it has been started) don’t match the main body of my work.

Can a thesis still be considered good even if the question was not answered because it was not “reached”? If not, why? If yes, why? I can imagine this going either way but I’d like to hear opinions and experiences.

Basically I would require another 1-2 months and maybe someone to work on the problem as a team to get new ideas. I believe I still worked in a scientific manor (I prioritized reusability and usefullness over just reaching the question but without it being easily reusable) and no one ever said science is only good if it never misses a deadline. But I can also imagine an argument that simply states an unanswered research question is a bad work.

My original intention was to apply this AI technique to the common example research problems (like Atari games or locomotion) but my professor insisted I apply it to his field of work (energy market simulation). I had to agree if I wanted him to take my thesis and I didn’t know how complex the mapping of his problem to the commonly used tools would be. The argument “a good researcher is also capable of creating a reasonable problem scope” therefore is a little unfair as he sort of forced me to extend it.

Alternative B I write a preface / authors comment at the beginning, stating that the title/research question won’t be matched but due to university regulations may not be changed retrospectively.

Alternative C: A fellow researcher recommended me to just change the question and content but ignore the title. I hand in my thesis under the forced title but publish it under a more suitable title. That seems a little “fake” as I don’t want to lie about my original goal and me missing the final goal.


Edit: Most suggestions go along the lines of “depends on your professor or institution”. While I fear this is probably the only right answer that helps me personally, it doesn’t seem right that it depends on the professors attitude or personal opinion. From an abstract perspective, is it OK to rate a scientific work as a bad work if it fails to reach a previously defined target when new information came to light along the way? Probably not. But is it common practice to change the research question at the end to better match / suit the line of argumentation? It seems to me the question should reflect what the researcher asked him/herself when he/she started the inquiry. If the results are not what was expected, that doesn’t mean it’s bad results.

I graduated from my undergraduate degree about a year ago and took a job in industry. While completing that degree, I did research with a professor related to machine learning. However, after finishing that project, I don’t think ML is where I’d want to do my research if I decide to reenter the academic world.

The advice I’ve received regarding applications to grad school is to be reading papers of a professor I want to work with, at least with enough understanding to suggest a new idea/direction of my own. However, I don’t really know exactly what I’d like to research, but I do have some general topics I’m interested in (categories on the level of “robotics” or “cyber-physical systems”) — figuring out what areas are still active research and what is ancient history is a bit harder than when I could just turn to my advisor and ask “what/who is at the cutting edge in this field?”

Aside from just “jump in the deep end and keep reading until it makes sense,” are there methods or techniques that might help me build context or evaluate the areas I’m interested in?

I am at an early stage of my research in Mathematics. Recently I have found some papers related to my broad interest that I think I will be able to work on.

However I am clueless how to find the research problem or in which direction I should proceed . Is it okay to mail the author asking for research problem or at least asking for the direction in which I can proceed. More generally how should I approach to some experts via email asking for such stuffs.

As a very new researcher who is exploring the best way to generate ideas, some guidance on this question would be very helpful. I have found that this is NOT easy. Ideas seem to pop out of my Professor every day and I wonder how he does it. This question is broad;

  • How do you tend to come up with initial/seed ideas? What is your search method (if you have one)?

  • What proportion of your ideas for past papers come from; (i) colleagues, (ii) intentionally browsing the literature for ideas, (iii) on the spot inspiration, (iv) conferences, (v) other?

  • How do you prioritize research ideas?

  • Is there any special, generalizable method that you’ve discovered to sift out those ideas that are likely to be unrealistic early on in the process of idea generation?

Based on small amounts of anecdotal evidence I have reason to believe that there is vast heterogeneity among professors regarding the above questions. For example, economist Steven Levitt says he works on 22 papers at once. A professor I know will have maybe 25% of this at any one time.

Related but not duplicate: Is there any software or tools for managing developing research ideas?

I am in the Humanities, and I have a rough idea about the general field I want to work in. I have identified several professors who also work in this field. However, I am not sure how I can now find a topic for my dissertation. I am reading and reading, but as of now, I do not have a great idea.

I was thinking of getting in touch with the professors who might be potential advisors, but I am not sure whether that’s a good idea considering I do not know my topic at all. I do not want to come across as naive – esp. since they are all at prestigious institutions.

If you think it is a good idea to get in touch, then I am still clueless about how to go about this, and what to write. I want to be honest but would like to avoid looking like a fool.

PS: I am in the Humanities, I think it’s important for this question.

I’m planning to apply for an internship. The professor represents the school who asked me to submit some necessary documents. He wanted me write a detailed paper about my interested topic project and then he will choose the host supervisor for me. Before that i checked the list professor of this school and i hv noticed a professor which his main project is about “antimicrobial” and i want to work with, but I worried that this year would he accept student? Ok, get back to the paper about the topic: i just know what my favorite area is microbiology-“antimicrobial” but i not yet find out details the projects what i will do. And i don’t know how to write this type of paper, did he want me to write detail the proposal or something??? So what I should do? Beside that please give me some idea to write…
P/s: From a country not fluently english, sorry for my bad english, i tried my best. :(((