18 ** La correlación es significativa al nivel 0,05 (bilateral).

The Final Defense consists of a public oral presentation of the PhD dissertation. The Final Defense must be attended by at least two members (ideally all) of the

Dissertation Committee among which the chair, at least one additional faculty member (who may be external to the school), and, when deemed necessary, by the PhD Program Director or a representative. This is the minimum audience required to attend. Other faculty, graduate and undergraduate students will be encouraged to attend the defense as well. It is the student’s responsibility to ensure that the minimum attendance requirements are met.

The Final Defense consists of a public seminar of 45 minutes, followed by a public question period. The time and place of the Defense will be advertised. After the presentation and questions and answers session, all non-faculty will leave (or the faculty may adjourn to another room), and the presentation will be judged. The faculty may call the student back in for more questions. If the Defense is considered acceptable, the Defense Committee will sign the Final Defense form. For an

unacceptable Defense, the Defense Committee may require a range of corrective measures from minor revisions of the dissertation to major revisions and another oral presentation.

After the Final Defense is accepted, and final revisions to the dissertation have been made, the Defense Committee signs the dissertation form. The student must then submit three bound copies of the dissertation to Grenoble Ecole de Management.

APPENDIX A: ANNUAL ACTIVITY REPORT

Please provide the following elements by September 1st each year.

 Updated resume

 An annual report of your activities, including:

o Research activities

 Papers, book chapter, articles (including status: accepted, submitted, completed)

 Active research projects (estimated completion, target journal, co-authors)

 Research project with faculty for which you are working as research assistant but are not a co-author

o Coursework (courses taken during the past year and grades)

o Teaching activities

 Courses taught during past year (evaluation of these courses)

 Teaching assistant work (detail course, instructor, number of hours, your role)

o Other activities

 Editorial work (reviewing)

 Presentation at conferences (ACR, AMA…)

 Presentation at other Universities

 Service activities at Grenoble Ecole de Management (e.g. help with PhD recruiting)

 Honors receives

 Non-research projects worked on for pay (e.g. consulting)

 An overall assessment of you progress during the year and goals for the coming year

o What are your research interests at this stage?

o Present your accomplishments and shortcomings in the past year (in your coursework, research assistantship, teaching assistantship, research projects…). What did you learn? What could you have done better?

o Present your plans and expectations for the coming year (research projects)

APPENDIX B: REQUIREMENTS OF THE FIRST YEAR PAPER

Each student is required to complete a first-year paper that is due on June 25th of the first year. The purpose of the paper is for each student to get first-hand experience in the research process by:

• identifying an interesting and important problem

• reviewing and synthesizing previous research in the area

• conducting original primary research on the topic which could take the form of (but is not restricted to):

 an experiment to test some hypotheses

 derivation of an analytic model which generates testable propositions

 development of a model and testing of it on an existing dataset

• writing a +/-30 page paper summarizing the research in a journal format.

Students should begin working on this project no later than the beginning of their second semester in the program and should begin working with a faculty member whose role is to provide guidance and counsel along the way. The paper can use as its starting point work previously completed for another class, but must demonstrate substantial incremental work and improvement. Collaboration with the faculty is allowed with the following stipulation: The student should have done all the writing. The student should provide a statement listing faculty help on the paper.

Additional Details:

If the paper is not received by the deadline, all funding will be suspended until (a) the paper is turned in, (b) the paper has been evaluated by the designated reviewers, and (c) the doctoral committee meets and makes a determination as to whether the student’s funding should be reinstated. The expectation is that all papers will be turned in on time; if, however, a student anticipates that meeting the deadline is impossible, he/she should inform the doctoral program advisor well in advance of the deadline.

Format: The final paper should be double-spaced and formatted according to the guidelines of the journal to which you might plan to submit it. You can find information about the style guidelines for each journal on its website.

Review Process: The paper will be evaluated by two reviewers in a manner consistent with normal academic journals. The student is welcome to suggest appropriate reviewers. Each student will receive feedback on his/her paper by the end of July. Once the feedback has been received, students are required to revise their paper according to that feedback and to write a response to the reviewers. Revisions of the paper and response to the reviewers will be due by the end of September.

Oral Presentation: Each student will make a 30-45 minute presentation of his/her paper to the faculty of the department he belongs to and the other doctoral students. The presentations will take place during one of the regularly scheduled department research meetings after students have revised their paper.

APPENDIX C: DETAILS ABOUT DISSERTATION

SUBMISSION AND DEFENSE PROCEDURE

This appendix provides details to Section 7.2 of the Rules and Regulations of the PhD program.

Step 1: Paper submission to the Doctoral School.

Before submitting the dissertation to the Dissertation Committee, the required level of two of the three papers should be established. The applicant should submit the concerned papers to the PhD Program Director with the necessary information to evaluate the level of the papers. If a paper has been accepted for publication (or received an invitation to revise and resubmit) at a Rank 1 or 2 journal (CNRS ranking at time of paper submission to journal), the letter from the journal should be provided. If this is not the case, the applicant should provide the papers, as well as the name of the journal to which the paper would be submitted, so that the level can be established; the paper will then be sent to two anonymous external experts; additionally, a letter from the applicant’s supervisor justifying his/her assessment of the level of the paper should be joined to the paper. Note that in this case, a delay of two months should be planned for processing by external reviewers.

If the papers are judged to have the required level, the PhD candidate can proceed to Step 2 and the Oral Defense can be organized. If the information is ambiguous (conflicting

evaluations), a Review Committee shall be called upon to decide (its decision is final). If the papers are judged to not have the required level, the candidate cannot proceed to the Oral Defense.

Step 2: Submission of written dissertation to the Defense Committee

Once the appropriate level of two of the three papers has been established, the PhD student advisor(s) should submit a letter to the PhD Program Director indicating the following

elements: agree that the student is ready to submit his/her work; testify that the PhD candidate has taken the lead contribution in at least two of the three papers (those for which the PhD candidate is first author) and has had a significant contribution in the remaining paper (the specific contributions of the candidate to each paper should be detailed); and finally testify that the three papers represent independent scientific contributions.

Once this letter has been provided, the dissertation can be submitted to the Defense

Committee. As described in the rules and regulations of the PhD program, the dissertation should comprise three separate papers, and a (maximum 20-page long) introduction to the papers. This introduction chapter should explain the subject and the research question, present the state-of-the-art or every part of the literature that would not be included in the articles but necessary to the comprehension of the whole thesis, link the articles together and present the global coherence of the document. This should be submitted formally to the PhD Program Director.

The Defense Committee should receive the dissertation at least four weeks before the formal Oral Defense.

Step 3: Oral Defense

The (public) Oral Defense shall consist of two phases. First, the PhD candidate shall present his/her dissertation, first quickly explaining how the three papers fit together, then presenting each paper in turn. The focus should be on each paper’s contributions to the literature, the approach taken, as well as the main results. The specific contribution of the candidate to each of the paper should be clear in this presentation. This presentation shall take 45 minutes, and the candidate shall not be interrupted during his/her presentation.

In the second phase, the candidate will first answer questions from the Defense Committee (each member of the committee is expected to ask some questions, except for the candidate’s advisor). The list of questions will be reported on the evaluation form. This phase shall last at least 45 minutes. At the end of this Phase, if time remains, the floor may be opened for

questions from the rest of the audience.

Following the oral presentation and questions, the Defense Committee will deliberate in private to assess the dissertation and decide on a formal recommendation. The following criteria shall be evaluated particularly critically: extent to which the dissertation consists of three separate papers, each paper having a unique contribution; extent to which the papers are of the appropriate level (and especially that the third paper, the one not evaluated by external reviewers, is of appropriate quality); extent to which the candidate demonstrated his/her personal contributions to each of the project. The Defense Committee’s evaluation on these criteria shall be reported in a form that will be signed by all members. This form shall also include an evaluation of the candidate on assurance of learning milestones of the PhD program.

- pass without changes

- pass conditional on minor changes to the document (these changes shall be specified precisely, as shall the deadline for submitting them, and the identity of the person(s) charged with verifying that the appropriate changes were made)

- major revisions (these would be required if for instance one of the papers had to be rewritten; here again, the changes required shall be specified precisely, as shall the deadline for submitting them). In such a case, the revised document should be submitted to the entire Oral Defense committee for formal approval. A new Oral Defense may be requested, this shall be specified in the evaluation form.

- fail. In that case, the Defense Committee shall specify whether a new submission of the dissertation may be accepted, and under which conditions (new papers, deadlines…). Note that a second “fail” would imply automatic removal from the program.

APPENDIX D: EXAMPLE OF RESEARCH COURSE SCHEDULE

FOR PHD STUDENTS

Year 1

 Positioning your work in academia

Epistemology and research design 18 hrs semester 1

 Theory/content

Introduction to Theories of Management 36 hrs semester 1 (12 hours each MKT, POS, MTS)

MKG: Advanced seminar in Marketing 18 hrs semester 2

MTS/POS: Advanced seminar in Organization theories and Strategy 18 hrs semester 2

 Methods

Collecting and preparing survey data 24hrs semester 1

Regression analysis 24 hrs semester 2

Experimental design 24 hrs semester 2

Introduction to qualitative methods 12 hrs semester 1

Tools of qualitative research 24 hrs semester 2 Year 2

 Common courses

Publishing and reviewing successfully 24 hrs semester 1

Social network theory and methods 18 hrs semester 1

 Courses only for students of relevant specialization

Advanced seminar in xx (specialization) # 2 18 hrs semester 2 (every other year)

 Courses for quantitative students

Econometrics 24 hrs semester 2

Measurement models and structural equation models 24 hrs semester 2

Multivariate statistics 24 hrs semester 1

 Courses for qualitative students

Dealing with representation, interaction, and process 24 hrs semester 1

Dealing with textual data in qualitative research 24 hrs semester 2



APPENDIX E: MONTHLY TIME SHEET

Monthly Time Sheet – PhD Student

Academic Period 2014-2015

14 Nadège Friess – Office F902

Month

Student’s Name Department

Mentor’s Name Type of work

Project Name Number of Hours

Dates Name of Referent Professor or Department Signature of Referent Professor or Department Main Research (co-author) 50% of the time Please indicate number of hours General assistantship: 50% of the time

Please indicate number of hours

Total hours worked in the month: Total hours worked since October:

Note: The total must reach 780 hours by September 30, 2015 (about one half as main research tasks and one half as general support – 120 hours for pedagogy, 20 hours doctoral school, 250 hours research support)