Professional Life

A letter to my blog

by

Dear Blog

It has been some time since we last spoke. To let you know, I have taken up motorcycling. It is mostly an attractive pastime – except I know that on Saturday we spent four hours by the side of the road trying to fix a motorbike (the 2.5 year old one, not the 30 year old one – being mine). A picture of my motorcycle is shown below. It is a 1980 Honda CX500 and it’s been very reliable overall, and lots of fun to pull it altogether. Since the photo below was taken I have taken off the Ventura Gearsack at the back, and replaced the indicators with standard ones. I’ll find a new photo to send you soon.

Last week I was in Wellington – here’s a bad photo of me and Wellington’s parliament house from that trip:

I was over there to speak to Audit New Zealand as part of my phd research. If you’re not careful, I’ll tell you all about my phd… oh wait, I already did that.

Finally, today it was my pleasure to speak to an audit delegation from China with my Supervisor, Professor Peter Green. I’m sure you’re glad I have no photos of that experience – I will say though it was interesting presenting a quite technical presentation to a non-English speaking audience and waiting for the interpreter to translate. I could tell those of the delegation that could speak English – they laughed at my jokes before the interpreter had translated them.

Oh, and I got to go to the Ashes last week, for the opening day of the test. Here’s a video of Peter Siddle getting his hat trick (caution: strong language – not mine!):

That’s something for the bucket list – seeing a hat trick live in the Ashes at the Gabba.

Yours:

Micheal Axelsen

PS: I have a mammoth blog post I’ll copy over to here that I wrote for CPA Australia. My favourite visual metaphor: “There are dangers to think about though when it comes to telecommuting. Maybe not the same dangers as skydiving into an apiary wearing only beachwear and honey-scented deodorant, but there are challenges to think about such as team cohesion, security, and that all-elusive ‘work-life balance’.”

RHD Colloquium: What examiners and journal editors looking for in a PhD or journal paper?

by

These notes are taken from a presentation by Professor Robert Faff, the editor of Accounting & Finance Journal.

Focussing on the PhD, what examiners are looking for is what editors are looking for.  And so, what are examiners looking for?  Examiners are looking for publishable theses, acceptable approaches and research.  The PhD will be much more wordy and have appendices that don’t see the light of day in publication, but if the phd looks like it will end up as publishable work.  As a phd candidate, paint the examiners into a corner to show that the work is publishable – and of course if the work has been published then it is easily shown to be publishable and that makes it easier for the examiner to pass the phd.

There are several things that editors are looking for:

  • Contribution, contribution, contribution – to theory and practice.  This is probably the primary thing, that is a paper’s ‘contribution’ is the most important thing.  Now this is easy to say but so hard to put into practice and just nail this.

  • Fit with the scope of the journal – does the paper fit the scope of the journal and the type of paper that the journal publishes?

  • A paper that is provided with an analytical basis rather than descriptive will be preferred (or at least it will be for a journal like Accounting and Finance).

  • Citability -this is a side effect of where we are in the world of research, but if the paper increase the journal’s citation metrics, if it will show that the paper fits with the journal, then you’re in.

  • Polish/professional presentation – be sure to submit a final finished paper, a style that shows that the author has cared about the way in which you’ve crafted the paper.  If the paper doesn’t present well, then the reviewer’s question is all about whether the research is also lackadaisial (the duck theory – if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it’s a duck)

  • Internal consistency – is the PhD or paper internally consistent

  • Evidence of workshopping/feedback on the results that have been received

Overall a quality of the paper that is at a sufficient level, noting that contribution is important.  As an editor he noted that there are more and more desk rejects from editors these days.  Papers do need to have an analytical basis rather than being just descriptive – you need a theory to underpin what you are looking at.

Motivation for the paper and the research is really important.  As an author you need to answer ‘what’s new’ and ‘so what’.  In this context, he noted an earlier review comment:

“What incremental contribution does the current paper make to this area of iterature? For example, the fact that the paper investigates Country ‘X’ data with no good reason, leaves me feeling unsatisfied about the real contribution of this paper.  What is it about Country X’s market that will provide useful insights on the research question that we don’t already know from other existing studies?”

Finally, don’t make overstated claims in your paper that are not supported by your paper.

Note:  taken at RHD Colloquium.

Trying to rush a phd…

by

It might work, but I don’t know that it’s entirely safe for your health.  Or for your blogging. 

There’s so much I need to blog about, but I haven’t the time right now.  Guess I’d better re-engage with the real world though, and soon…  Looking forward to mucho more blogging in the near future.

Cue sound of crickets…

More on the phd progress

by

Well, the phd is progressing, albeit slowly.  I stopped the daily word count as I am awaiting feedback from my supervisors on what I already had; as I am still awaiting said feedback, and deadlines are looming, I have recommenced work on the confirmation document.  I should also point out that I also had to prepare eight lectures for the subject I am lecturing at UQ in project management, and write an 800 word article for CPA Australia on the pros of online social networking.  Which, for the sake of amusement, I wrote the first draft on my 45-year old typewriter.

In that context then, since September 4th, most of the work being done today, the word count has increased from 10,486 words to 11,251, an increase of 765 words.  Which is not too bad consisting I re-wrote the integrated theory section and am now addressing the methodology (I can see Moore & Benbasat 1991 is going to be the death of me yet).

Oh and I found this videoclip disturbingly familiar.

Unboxing the Remington Monarch

by

So as I said earlier, I decided to go buy a typewriter.  Just for the tactile feedback and the increased concentration it forces you to have.  I go a little ADHD when I write on a computer, and although that’s OK at some levels I think I’d like the discipline that comes with knowing you can’t cut-and-paste.  And besides, it was only $87.  And I had had a couple of beers.

So, I went and bought a 45-year old typewriter on eBay.  Turns out there’s quite the thriving market in such things, although even the best examples are not fetching a huge amount.  However, I couldn’t go past this portable typewriter – it was in excellent condition and exactly what I was looking for.  I’ve now received it, and it is in beyond excellent condition.  Yes, I need to pick up my typing (it’s amazing how slack computers let you become), but the typewriter itself is as it was when it came off the production line 45 years ago.  And I do mean that without the slightest hint of ‘for it’s age’.

And since I wonder sincerely whether my Netbook (now 1 year old) will still be operating in any shape in 44 years time (remember, that’s 2053 for crying out loud!), I thought it would be nice to give the Monarch the unboxing treatment, as it is my ‘brand-new’ gadget.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you… “unboxing the 1964 Remington Monarch.

Firstly, the eBayer who sold it to me knows their stuff had it very well packed:


I plan to introduce my children to the wonders of bubble wrap later. 

And you can see the size of it (it’s not diminutive, but it’s not impossibly heavy, as I remember my first typewriter was):


The carry case is the item that has had the most wear and tear over the years, and even it is in good condition:

With plenty of foam packaging, it was well-protected:


The Remington Monarch, with its travel protector and everything all there as well:

Everything inside the case is here, including some brushes for maintenance and the original (!) user’s guide:


The keys are in excellent condition, and after a little fiddling it was operational.  Not bad for a 45-year old machine:


And just for the record, here’s an example of its typing: 

Not bad – fortunately I do remember what it’s like to type on a typewriter.  It’s not always fun, and I will probably abandon it in favour of the computer again.  But for the moment it’s my gadget-of-the-week, and I think it does well in the longevity stakes. 

Blogged with the Flock Browser