survey after research methods on computer science seminarsdemey/tutorial_researchmethods/answ… ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Sur
vey
afte
r Res
earc
h M
etho
ds o
n Com
pute
r Sci
ence
Sem
inar
1/5
0.
Resp
on
se r
ate
20 o
ut o
f 23
ans
wer
ed
1.
Ho
w lo
ng
are
yo
u a
lread
y w
ork
ing
on
yo
ur
Ph
.D.
?
Mos
t w
ere
begi
nner
s o
bvio
us c
orre
lation
bet
wee
n tim
e an
d ap
prec
iation
2.
Wh
at'
s yo
ur
ove
rall a
pp
reci
ati
on
of
the s
em
inar
con
ten
ts ?
3.
Wh
at'
s yo
ur
ove
rall a
pp
reci
ati
on
of
the t
each
er
?
Sem
inar
is w
ell r
ecei
ved
Teac
hing
sty
le h
ighl
y ap
prec
iate
dN
obod
y se
lect
ed E
xcel
len;
how
ever
Exc
elle
nt w
as d
efin
ed a
s "i
n th
e to
p 5
of t
hing
s th
at w
ill in
fluen
ce t
he w
ay I
con
duct
res
earc
h"
!"#$
%$
#$
&"#$
!$
'$'$
'$&$($!$)$#$*$%$+$
,-./-$
&,-$01./$(2
3$01./$!/3$01./$)-4$01./$#
-4$01./$5$#$01./,$
'$
&6$
&$'$
'$'$($)$*$+$&'$
&($
&)$
&*$
&+$
('$
7891::12-$
;<<
3$=.>/$
?<</$
@<//>A:1$
+$
&($
'$'$
'$'$($)$*$+$&'$
&($
&)$
7891::12-$
;<<
3$=.>/$
?<</$
@<//>A:1$
Sur
vey
afte
r Res
earc
h M
etho
ds o
n Com
pute
r Sci
ence
Sem
inar
2/5
4.
Wh
ich
featu
res
did
yo
u a
pp
reci
ate
?
All
feat
ures
wer
e ap
prec
iate
d by
som
e pa
rtic
ipan
ts;
man
y ap
prec
iate
d al
lmos
t al
l fea
ture
sTo
p 3:
Rev
iew
pro
cess
; Th
reat
s to
Val
idity;
Com
pariso
n of
res
earc
h m
etho
dsBot
tom
3:
orig
ins
of c
ompu
ter
scie
nce
+ o
n-lin
e di
scus
sion
+ (
rese
arch
phi
loso
phy
& a
rt m
etap
hor
& s
pect
rum
of ca
ses)
6$
&($
&($
&+$
&($
&)$
&*$
&6$
&%$
&%$
&6$
&%$
&*$
&#$
&#$
&!$
&&$
&%$
'$($)$*$+$&'$
&($
&)$
&*$
&+$
('$
Sur
vey
afte
r Res
earc
h M
etho
ds o
n Com
pute
r Sci
ence
Sem
inar
3/5
5.
Wh
ich
featu
res
did
yo
u a
pp
reci
ate
th
e m
ost
?
Firs
t ch
oice
= 3
poi
nts;
2nd
cho
ice
= 2
poi
nts;
rd
choi
ce =
1 p
oint
s
Writing
adv
ice
was
app
reci
ated
mos
t; e
spec
ially
abs
trac
t w
riting
but
als
o fis
h m
odel
PC-m
eeting
app
aran
tly
trig
gere
d a
lot
of id
eas
==
> w
riting
adv
ice
from
rev
iew
per
spec
tive
app
aran
tly
was
key
'$&$
)$
&&$
!$*$
'$
6$
($#$
&&$
(+$
&)$
*$)$
'$!$
&!$
'$#$&'$
&#$
('$
(#$
!'$
Sur
vey
afte
r Res
earc
h M
etho
ds o
n Com
pute
r Sci
ence
Sem
inar
4/5
6.
Wh
ich
to
pic
s w
here
ove
rkill ?
Ver
y fe
w fea
ture
s w
ere
cons
ider
ed o
verk
ill;
mai
nly
the
rese
arch
phi
loso
phy
and
the
pape
rs t
hat
need
ed t
o be
rev
iew
edD
isse
nsus
--
"art
met
opho
r" a
nd "
spec
trum
" of
cas
es a
pper
as b
oth
in t
opic
s m
ost
and
leas
t ap
prec
iate
d
#$!$
!$&$
)$
'$'$
'$&$
'$'$
'$&$
&$&$
)$($
&$'$($)$*$+$&'$
&($
&)$
&*$
&+$
('$
Sur
vey
afte
r Res
earc
h M
etho
ds o
n Com
pute
r Sci
ence
Sem
inar
5/5
7.
Ho
w d
o y
ou
feel ab
ou
t th
e v
irtu
al P
C-m
eeti
ng
at
the e
nd
.
PC-m
eeting
was
ove
rall
wel
l-re
ceiv
ed;
mai
n pr
oble
m w
as t
hat
the
pape
rs w
ere
outs
ide
of t
heir e
xper
tise
.G
ener
ated
litt
le d
iscu
ssio
n w
hich
wha
t m
ost
peop
le fin
d di
sapp
oint
ing.
Sug
gest
ing
to h
ave
stud
ents
rev
iew
eac
hoth
ers
abst
ract
s !!
!
!$
&*$
#$)$
($'$
($'$($)$*$+$&'$
&($
&)$
&*$
&+$
941//0$<2$-41$
B>1$
>2,>C4DE:$
>2.BB/<B
/>.-1$
B.B1
/,$
-<<$FE94$G</H$
3>,.BB
<>2I
2C$
G.,-1$<J$I
F1$
<-41
/$
Survey after Research Methods on Computer Science Seminar(answers to open questions)
===============================================7. How do you feel about the virtual PC-meeting at the end? - other: a bit disappointing; I expected more discussion. - other: (please specify) I have never experiences participating a PC meeting before. Therefore this is a good experience to me.
===============================================8. Open comments about the things you liked.
It was interesting to know how reviewing and acceptance or rejecting works in practice.
All in all, the course was useful, especially experiencing the reviewprocess. However, since the papers to review for the PC meeting were a bitout of expertise area for some people, the participation was not verystrong. Perhaps, it might be good to have a group of people choose andsubmit papers within their interest under a wider range of topics and withinthe conditions the instructor provides. Although it might be more difficultto organize, it might produce stronger champions and make them review morerelated work.
I really liked the second and last part; practical and focused on results.
I liked the discussion of research methods and threats to validity, and that we explicitly had to think about them when reviewing the papers. I think it will be helpful for my own work.
I especially liked the art pictures. They nicely visualize the concepts behind the different research methods and make the problems clearer. Examples are always a good way to give a better insight.
- I will always remember the point about the championship of a paper and whether it gets accepted or not!- the lecturers questions during the pc-meeting (as well as meta comments) ->
short, but relevant- warm-up questions/talks of lectures- selection of papers was easy to read - even for a non-expert- review regarding threads to validity and unit of analysis- enthusiasm of lecturer- acceptance rate overview- generally I preferred the second course afternoon (from the topic selection)
I've liked that there were also papers which are controversial. One we could even rejected, there came up a lot of interesting points.
- Nice atmosphere in the class - It would be helpful if you could provide a few papers that are formally (not content-wise) really good examples. Maybe one for each kind of research method. - a really good and helpful class! All the best for future classes!
Given the time I think the topics were well covered. It was interesting and helpful. I appreciated more the second presentation since was offering concrete information about writing papers and reviewing.I liked the idea simulating a conference and seeing the steps of the PC meeting. It was a useful experience.
Overall I learn lot. Specially, structuring and writing research publications. Also the reviewing process which I have never experiences. If you had included more on technical writing it would have been much completed.
I have different feelings about the PC meeting. It was very long and hard to follow discussions about papers I never read before. Exactly that was an excellent experience. I can imagine, how long such PC meetings can be. A really nice experience that I would not miss. Even if the preparation was a lot of effort. But it was worth. I also recommend to keep 2 papers per person and a meeting of 2hours or more. I think the time of the pc meeting is well invested. It's not realy efficient but gets the right impression. Overall I liked the whole course very much. It was not that theoretical like other research methods seminars. What I missed was were other research methods like Ground Theory, lab experiments, etc. that are more related to life science research.
Aside from useful insight into the research process, and how to write better papers, I found the interaction with the others most useful. I think all the sessions should be organized in the "U" shape to encourage active discussions in order to enhance learning
The only pity party is that I had to wait 4 year for this lecture ;-) Thanks a lot
===============================================9. Open comments about the things you disliked.
In the first lecture I would like to have more hints on how to do research and how to tackle common problems.
Maybe a little bit too much work (paper reviews). But it was my first PhD seminar, so I don't know about the "standard" amount of work for PhD seminars.
I expected to learn more about paper and abstract writing, i.e. to gain more experience, nevertheless was the time frame too narrow to do more.
- I had the impression that the lecturer tried to cover too many topics -> took also more time to explain than planned. when a teacher/speaker takes more time then assigned to the lecture, I loose interest and also concentration. i.e., this last minutes often don't reach me anymore, even though I don't want this.- I prefer breaks (or at least a vote for a break) after one hour. as a phd student, I'm not used to listen to someone that long anymore. ;-)- length of papers: we generally submit papers from 8 to 12 pages, so I felt these papers were very long- The comparison of research methods was too extended, in particular the focus on case study did not match my needs/preferences
It's more a neutral point: It should be more explained what's to do. What to write in the not-normal-review part. Like unit of analysis, research method and so on.I think in phase of the online-discussion there was not so much of discussion. That should be more moderated or explained in the 2nd session what there is to do.
- the statistics part of the pair programming paper was an overkill, but this is not your fault ;-)
Maybe we could have discussed more and the students could express more often their opinions regarding the topics above.
Too little interaction, most of it was at the end during the PC meeting. Papers should be chosen to fit the students domain. A clearer taxonomy of research methods - applicable research problems/questions/outcomes.
===============================================10. suggestion for an alternative reviewing procedure (I have it from another course and I liked it very much): every student has to submit an abstract, and then the other students are assigned to read and review it