才子の良辰

Version 0.1, created after meeting with Prof. McGill on May 8th. Better be done before mid of June. The list is not in formal reference format. Books

1. Against the Gods
2. The Black Swan
3. The Failure of Risk Management
4. Risk Intelligence

Papers

1. Kaplan and Garrick, "On the Quantitative Definition of Risk."  Risk Analysis, Vol. 1, No. 1.
2. Haimes, Y. Y. "Total Risk Management"
3. Giovanni, "What is Security"
4. Giovanni, "Is Security Utilitarian"
5. Giovanni, "Risk and Security, Are They Compatible Concepts?"
6. Giovanni, "The Management of Security, How Robust Is the Justification Process"
7. Qualitative Risk Assessment, the book chapter
8. How useful is quantitative risk assessment
9. Kaplan, S., and Garrick, B. J. (1981). “On the Quantitative Definition of Risk.” Risk
   Analysis, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 11-27.
10. The decision guidance paper
11. Pate-Cornell, E., and Guikema, S. (2002). “Probabilistic Modeling of Terrorist Threats: A
    Systems Analysis Approach to Setting Priorities Among Countermeasures.”
    Military Operations Research, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 5-23.
12. Frank Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit
13. Giovanni, Defining Security
14. The politics of security
15. McGill, W. L., and Ayyub, B. M. (2007b). “The Meaning of Vulnerability in the Context
    of Critical Infrastructure Protection.” in Jackson, E. ed. Critical Infrastructure
    Protection: Elements of Risk. George Mason University Critical Infrastructure
    Protection Program.
16. Executive Guide: Information Security Management: Learning From Leading Organizations. (GAO/AIMD-98-68, May 1998)
17. Information Security Risk Assessment: Practices of Leading Organizations. GAO/AIMD-00-33
18. CERT report
19. Windoes of vulnerability, a case study analysis.
20. Guidelines  for automatic data processing physical security and risk management
21. Guideline for the analysis of local area network security
22. NIST, risk management guide draft
23. AS/NZS 4360:1999 Risk Management
24. Information Security is Information RIsk Management
25. Wash-1400

26.  

Thanks to Dr. Mary Beth Rosson and Dr.John Yen  for giving us the opportunity to ask questions about the Ph.D. candidacy exam. The notes from the meeting are attached.

Length

• Better use 1.5 or doube space for commitee members to write comments.
• 20 pages are the minimum. 10k ~ 20k words are ideal. But it all depends on the topic.
• 30 ~ 50 references.

Criteria

• In depth, interdisciplinary, evidence of integration.
• Synthesis, a good way is to present own creative elements. The simplest approach is to use tables. For design research, could show design ideas.
• Research implication.

“Reuse” of Sources

• Try to rephrase instead of simply put quotes.
• Could use ‘Turnitin’ to check whether there is a risk of plagiraism.

Role of the Advisor and Committee Members

• For candidacy exam, commitee members do not involve much during preparation of the exam. However, better to talk them before about the contents otherwise they might suprise you by asking tough questions.
• Advisor could give suggestions on the organization of the paper and evaluate the value of literature.

Miscellaneous Suggestions

• Understand the issue first before deciding the organization.
• Title, abstract, reference, table of content are read first by reviewers.
• Motivation of the paper is important.
• Pay attention to the recency of the reference. Stress why ‘old’ reference still matters.
• Visual expression is good  (e.g. figures).
• Good structure is to address own point first and cite literature to support it.
• Could address the scope first in order to avoid tough questions during presentation that cannot be answered.

Reminder

• The exam will be held during 08/13/2009 – 08/21/2009.
• The presentation might be 20 minutes. Will be decided later.