Agenda

Dear All:

just a few notes on how IDoESE 2007 will be organized. The students participating in the Symposium can use this blog to post their comments on the papers they are required to read.

Sandro

Here is the schedule:

9:00 - 9:30 Plenary introduction

9:30 - 10:30 2 parallel sessions
10:30 - 11:00 Coffee Break
11:00 - 13:00 2 parallel sessions

13:00 - 14:00 Lunch

14:00 - 15:30 2 parallel sessions
15:30 - 16:00 Coffee break

16:00 - 17:00 Plenary session
17:00 - 17:30 Conclusions

Here is how the time reserved to each PhD Thesis will be organized.
The author of the PhD Thesis will be required to give a concise presentation about his or her work (about 10'). Then, two other PhD students will talk about the proposal of the paper, with two different roles. One of them will have the role of highlighting possible critical aspects of the paper. The other will have the role of highlighting positive aspects of the paper.
This implies that each student will therefore have 3 items of homework, to be done before the Symposium:

1) Prepare a presentation for his/her topic
2) Prepare to be an enthusiast for one other submission in the group
3) Prepare a critique of one other submission in the group.

To help in the reviewing work, here are a few guidelines (where applicable):

Key terms – Review the correctness and consistency of terms and definition and their meaning presented in the plan. Internal consistency of the terms and typos should also be reviewed.

Coverage of the background literature – Review the gaps identified from the literature review and which gaps are particularly tackled in the research study. Review whether motivation for the proposed study is based on the literature review. Review the main contributions identified in the literature relevant to the proposed study.

Scope – Review the scope of the study in terms of its applicability to the identified gap in the literature.

Research questions – Review the proposed research questions and how they were derived.

Research design – Review the proposed research design (including methods) and its relevance to the research question being studied.

How well are the objectives and research questions addressed by the empirical work in the plan?

Do the empirical study plans and arrangements correspond to the best practices in empirical research?

How are validity threats addressed?

Novelty of contribution – Review the novelty of contributions of the study. How is the generalizeability of the results handled?

What is missing from their paper, and why?

What needs to be expanded?

What could be deleted, or minimized?

Could someone replicate the study or reproduce the results?

Are the measurements technically or statistically valid? What biases exist? Can they be counteracted? What confounding variables or features exist?