6 September 2012

How not to write a PhD thesis

Share on twitterShare on facebookMore Sharing Services295 http://www.timeshighered cation.co. k/stor!.asp"stor!code#$1020% &evisado e' 6/9/12 2% (an ar! 2010 )n this g ide* +ara ,raba-on gives her top ten tips for doctora' fai' re M! teaching break between .hristmas and the niversit!/s snow! reopening in (an ar! fo''owed in the footsteps of 0o'di'ocks and the three bears. ) e1amined three 2h3s: one was too big4 one was too sma''4 one was 5 st right. 2 t another wa!* one was as c'ose to a fai' as ) have ever e1amined4 one passed b t re6 ired rewriting to strengthen the arg ment4 and the 'ast reminded me wh! it is s ch a p'eas re to be an academic. .onc rrent'!* ) have been shepherding three of m! 2h3 st dents thro gh the fina' two months to s bmission. +hese conc' ding weeks are an emotiona' cocktai' of e1ha stion* fr stration* fright and e1hi'aration. S pervisors correct errors we tho ght had been removed a !ear ago. +he paragraph that seemed good eno gh in the first draft now seems to drag down a chapter. M! postgrad ates cannot nderstand wh! ) am so pick!. +he! want to s bmit and move on with the rest of their 'ives. +here is a reason wh! s pervisors are pedantic. )f we are not* the postgrad ates wi'' 'ive with the conse6 ences of 7ma5or corrections8 for months. +he other a'ternative* besides being awarded the conso'ation pri-e of an M2hi'* is managing the regret of three wasted !ears if a doctorate fai's. 9ver! correction* each t!pographica' error* a'' inacc racies* ambig ities or erroneo s references that we find and remove in these cr cia' fina' weeks ma! swing an e1aminer from ma5or to minor corrections* or from a f '' re:e1amination to a rethink of one chapter. ,eing a 2h3 s pervisor is stressf '. )t is a privi'ege b t it is frightening. ;e know < and individ a' postgrad ates do not < that strange comments are offered in response to even the best theses. =es* an e1aminer graded a magnificent doctorate from one of m! postgrad ates as 7minor corrections8 for one t!pographica' error in footnote 10$ in the fifth chapter of an otherwise c'ean'! drafted 100*000 words. )t was s bmitted ten !ears ago and ) sti'' remember it with regret. >nother e1aminer en5o!ed a thesis on 7c 't8 b t wondered wh! there were no references to Madonna* grading it as re6 iring ma5or corrections so that Madonna references co 'd be inserted thro gho t the script.

91aminers have entered t rf wars abo t the discip'inar! parameters separating histor! and c 't ra' st dies. ?ften the! 'ook for their favo rite theorists < genera''! 2ierre ,o rdie or 0i''es 3e'e -e these da!s < and are saddened to find citations to Miche' @o ca 't and @A'i1 0 attari. +hen there are the 7'et/s ta'k abo t something important < 'et/s ta'k abo t me8 e1aminers. +heir first task is to 'ook for themse'ves in the bib'iograph!* and the! are not too interested in the research if there is no reference to their ear'! sorties with Bo is >'th sser in 9conom! and Societ! from the 19C0s. ) nderstand the angst* worr! and stress of s pervisors* b t ) have e1perienced the other side of the doctora' divide. 91amining 2h3s is both a p'eas re and a c rse. )t is a 5o! to n rt re* s pport and he'p the academ!/s ne1t generation* b t it is a dreadf ' moment when an e1aminer rea'ises that a script is so be'ow internationa' standards of scho'arship that there are three options: straight fai'* award an M2hi' or hope that the st dent shows eno gh spark in the viva voce so that it ma! be possib'e to skid thro gh to ma5or corrections and a f '' re:e1amination in 1% months. ;hen confronted b! these choices* ) am fi''ed with sadness for st dents and s pervisors* b t this is matched b! anger and even embarrassment. ;hat were the s pervisors thinking" ;ho or what convinced the st dent that this script was acceptab'e" +herefore* to offer insights to postgrad ates who ma! be in the fina' stages of s bmission* c rsing their s pervisors who want another draft and f rther references* here are m! ten tips for fai'ing a 2h3. )f !o want fai' re* this is !o r road map to getting there. 1. Submit an incomplete, poorly formatted bibliography 3octora' st dents need to be to'd that most e1aminers start marking from the back of the script. ( st as cooks are 5 dged b! their ingredients and imp'ements* we 5 dge doctora' st dents b! the ca'ibre of their so rces. +he moment e1aminers see incomp'ete references or find that ke! theorists in the topic are absent* the! worr!. +his concern intensifies when in:te1t citations with no match in the bib'iograph! are 'ocated. )f e1aminers find ten errors* then st dents are re6 ired to perform minor corrections. )f there are 20 anoma'ies* the doctorate wi'' need ma5or corrections. >n! referencing iss es over that n mber and e1aminers 6 estion the st dents/ academic abi'ities. )f the most basic academic protoco's are not in p'ace* the credibi'it! of a script wavers. > bib'iograph! is not 5 st a bib'iograph!: it is a canar! in the doctora' mine. 2. Use phrases such as some academics or all the literature without mitigating statements or references 0enera'isations inf riate me in first:!ear papers* b t the! are nderstandab'e. > 19:!ear:o'd st dent who states that 7a'' women think that Datie 2rice is a great ro'e mode'8 is making a

ridic 'o s point* b t when the primar! reading fodder is Eeat maga-ine* the 'ink between (ordan/s p'astic s rger! and empowered women seems ca sa'. )n a 2h3* genera'isations send me off for a 'ong wa'k to ,each! Eead. +he best doctorates are sma''. +he! are tight'! constit ted and 5 stif! st dents/ choice of one comm nit! of scho'ars over others whi'e demonstrating that the! have read eno gh to make the decision on academic rather than time:management gro nds. )nvariab'! there is a 'ink between a thin bib'iograph! and a high n mber of genera'isations. )f a st dent has not read wide'!* then the scho'ars the! have referenced become far more important and representative than the! act a''! are. ) make m! postgrad ates pa! for s ch statements. )f the! offer a genera'isation s ch as 7scho'ars of the on'ine environment arg e that democrac! fo''ows participation8* ) demand that the! find at 'east F0 separate references to verif! their c'aim. +he! soon stop making genera'isations. >mong m! doctora' st dents* these demands have been nicknamed 7Dent footnotes8 after one of m! great Gpost:H postgrad ates* Mike Dent Gnow 3r DentH. Ee re'ished compi'ing these enormo s footnotes* confirming the evidentia' base for his arg ments. >s he wo 'd be the first to admit* it was s'ight'! obsessive behavio r* b t it certain'! confirmed the sca'e of his reading. )n m! c rrent s pervisor! processes* st dents are p nished for genera'isations b! being forced to assemb'e a 7Dent footnote8. !. "rite an abstract without a sentence starting my original contribution to #nowledge is$ +he wa! to re'a1 an e1aminer is to feat re a sentence in the first paragraph of a 2h3 abstract that begins: 7M! origina' contrib tion to know'edge isI8 )f st dents cannot compress their arg ment and research findings into a sing'e statement* then it can signif! f'abbiness in their method* theor! or str ct re. )t is an awf ' moment for e1aminers when the! < desperate'! < tr! to find an origina' contrib tion to know'edge thro gh a shape'ess methods chapter or 'oose 'iterat re review. )f e1aminers cannot pinpoint the origina' contrib tion* the! have no choice b t to award the script an M2hi'. +he ke! is to make it eas! for e1aminers. )n the second sentence of the abstract* ens re that an origina' contrib tion is nai'ed to the page. +hen we can re'a1 and 'ook for the scaffo'ding and verification of this statement. ) once s pervised a st dent investigating a ver! sma'' area of 76 eer8 theor!. )t is a specia'ist fie'd* we'' worked over b! o tstanding researchers. ) remained concerned thro gho t the candidat re that there was too m ch restatement of other academics/ work. +he scho'arship is of high 6 a'it! and does not 'eave m ch space for new interpretations. @ina''!* we 'ocated a c'ear section in one chapter that was origina'. Ee signa''ed it in the abstract. Ee high'ighted it in the introd ction. Ee stressed the importance of this insight in the chapter itse'f and restated it in the conc' sion. Jeed'ess to sa!* ever! e1aminer noted the origina'

contrib tion to know'edge that had been high'ighted for them* based on a caref ' and methodica' nderstanding of the fie'd. Ee passed witho t corrections. %. &ill the bibliography with references to blogs, online 'ournalism and te(tboo#s +his is a new prob'em ) have seen in doctorates over the past si1 months. +hro gho t the no ghties* on'ine so rces were sed in 2h3s. Eowever* the first c!c'e of 2h3 candidates who have st died in the web 2.0 environment are s bmitting their doctorates this !ear. +he impact on the theses ) have e1amined recent'! is c'ear to see. St dents do not differentiate between refereed and non:refereed or primar! and secondar! so rces. +he 0oog'e 9ffect < the creation of a c 't re of e6 iva'ence between b'ogs and academic artic'es < is in f '' force. ;hen 6 estioned in an ora' e1amination* the candidates do not disp'a! that the! have the capacit! to differentiate between the ca'ibre and 6 a'it! of references. +his bib'iographica' f'attening and red ction in 6 a'it! so rces ne1pected'! affects candidates/ writing st!'es. ) am not drawing a ca sa' 'ink here: ma5or research wo 'd need to be ndertaken to probe this re'ationship. , t beca se the st dents are not reading diffic 't scho'arship* the! are naware of the specificities of academic writing. +he doctorates are pitched too 'ow* fi''ed with informa'ities* conversationa' 'ang age* genera'isations* opinion and nref'e1ive 'eaps between their persona' 75o rne!s8 G!es* it is 'ike an episode of +he K @actorH and research protoco's. ) asked one of these postgrad ates in their ora' e1amination to offer a defence of their informa' writing st!'e* hoping that the st dent wo 'd p '' o t a passab'e 5 stification thro gh the 7>ca: @an8* disintermediation* participator! c 't re or organic inte''ect a' arg ments. )nstead* the st dent rep'ied: 7) am pro d of how the thesis is written. )t is important to write how we speak.8 >ct a''!* no. > 2h3 m st be written to ens re that it can be e1amined within the reg 'ations of a specific niversit! and in keeping with internationa' standards of doctora' ed cation. > doctorate ma! be described in man! wa!s* b t it has no connection with ever!da! modes of comm nication. ). Use discourse, ideology, signifier, signified, interpellation, postmodernism, structuralism, post*structuralism or deconstruction without reading the complete wor#s of &oucault, +lthusser, Saussure, ,audrillard or Derrida Eow to pset an e1aminer in nder 60 seconds: throw basic semiotic phrases into a sentence as if the! are p nct ation. ?ften this prob'em emerges in theses where 7semiotics8 is cited as a/the method. ;hen a st dent ses words s ch as 7disco rse8 and 7ideo'og!8 as if the! were ne tra' no ns* it is often a signa' for the start of a pantomime of naivet! thro gho t the script. )nstead of an 7ana'!sis8* postgrad ates describe their work as 7deconstr ction8. )t is not deconstr ction. +he! describe their approach as 7str ct ra'ist8. )t is not str ct ra'ist. Simp'! beca se the! st d! str ct res does not mean it is str ct ra'ist. .onverse'!* simp'! beca se the! do not st d! str ct res does not mean it is poststr ct ra'ist.

+he n mber of st dents who f'ing names aro nd as if the! are fashion 'abe's G73ior8* 73errida8* 70ivench!8* 70ramsci8H is becoming a prob'em. ) a'so fee' sorr! for the st dents who are attempting a deep engagement with these theorists. ) am working with a postgrad ate at the moment who has spent three months mapping Miche' @o ca 't/s >rchaeo'og! of Dnow'edge over media:po'ic! theories of se'f:reg 'ation. )t has been fr strating and to gh* creating < at this stage < on'! si1 pages of work from her efforts. 9ver! week* ) see the perspiration on the page and the strain in the footnotes. )f a st dent is not prepared to ndertake this sca'e of effort* the! m st edit the thesis and remove a'' these words. +he! 'eave themse'ves v 'nerab'e to an e1aminer who knows their ideo'ogica' state apparat ses from their repressive state apparat ses. -. +ssume something you are doing is new because you ha.e not read enough to #now that an academic wrote a boo# on it 2/ years ago >gain* this is another new prob'em ) have seen in the past co p'e of !ears. Ba-! st dents* who ma! be more kind'! described as 7ine1perienced researchers8* state that the! have invented the whee' beca se the! have not 'ooked nder their car to see the ro''ing ob5ects nder it. >fter minima' reading* it is eas! to find origina' contrib tions to know'edge in ever! idea that emerges from the 5arring effect of a bitter espresso. More fre6 ent'!* m! prob'em as a s pervisor has been the incredib'! hardworking st dents who read so m ch that the! cannot contro' a'' the scho'ar'! ba''s the! have thrown into the air. ) s pervise an inspirationa' scho'ar who is tr!ing to map L!gm nt ,a man/s 7'i6 id8 research over neoconservative theor!. +his is diffic 't research* partic 'ar'! since she is a'so tr!ing to p nct ate this st d! with Stan >ronowit-/s investigations of post:work and Eenr! 0iro 1/s research into working:c'ass ed cation. @or s ch st dents* s pervisors have to pr ne the st dents/ arg ments to ens re that a'' the branches are necessar! and rooted in their origina' contrib tions to know'edge. +he over:readers present their own cha''enges. @or o r nder:readers* the wor'd is fi''ed with their own bri''iance beca se the! do not rea'ise that ever! sing'e sentence the! write has been e1p'ored* e1tended* tested and app'ied b! other scho'ars in the past. )ntrig ing'!* these are a'wa!s the confident st dents* arriving at the viva voce brimming with pride in their achievements. +he! are the hardest ones to assess Gand he'pH thro gh an ora' e1am beca se the! do not know eno gh to know how 'itt'e the! know. Ee'pf ' handba'' 6 estions abo t the most significant theorists in their research area are point'ess* beca se the! have invented a'' the materia' in this fie'd. +he on'! wa! to create an often:debi'itating moment of se'f:awareness is b! direct'! 6 estioning the script: 7?n p5C* !o state that the academic 'iterat re has not addressed this arg ment. =et in 19C$* 2hi'ippa 2hi'istine p b'ished a book and a series of artic'es on that topic. ;h! did !o decide not to cite that materia'"8 )nvariab'!* the answer to this 6 estion < often after m ch st ttering and stammering < is that the candidate had not read the ana'!sis. ) 'eave the 6 estion hanging at that point. ;e co 'd get into

wh! the! have not read it* or the conse6 ences of 'eaving o t ke! theorists. , t one moment of g'impsing into the ab!ss of fai' re is eno gh to s mmon do bt that their 7origina'it!8 is origina'. 0. 1ea.e spelling mista#es in the script Spe''ing errors among m! own 2h3 st dents 'eave me seething. ) correct spe''ing errors. +he! appear in the ne1t draft. ) correct spe''ing errors. +he! appear in the ne1t draft. +he night before the! bind their theses* ) stare at the cei'ing* s mmoning the doctora' gods and pra!ing that the! have removed the spe''ing errors. Most e1aminers wi'' accept a few spe''ing or t!pographica' mistakes* b t in a word:processing age* this to'erance is receding. ) know p'ent! of e1aminers who gain great p'eas re in constr cting a tab'e and 'isting a'' the t!pographica' and spe''ing errors in a script. ?ccasiona''! ) do it and then ) know ) need to get o t more. Spe''ing mistakes horrif! st dents. +he! render s pervisors in need of o1!gen. 2ostgrad ates ma! not fai' doctorates beca se of them* b t s ch errors end an! chance of passing 6 ick'! and witho t corrections. +hese simp'e mistakes a'so create do bt in the e1aminer/s mind. )f s perficia' errors e1ist* it ma! be necessar! to dri'' more deep'! into the interpretation* methods or str ct re chosen to present the findings. 2. 3a#e the topic of the thesis too large +he best 2h3s are sma''. +he! investigate a circ mscribed area* rather than over:egging the origina'it! or e1pertise. +he most satisf!ing theses < and the! are rare < emerge when st dents find sma'' gaps in sat rated research areas and offer innovative interpretations or new app'ications of o'd ideas. +he nightmare 2h3 for e1aminers is the candidate who tries to compress a 'ife/s work into 100*000 words. +he! take on the histor! of Mar1ism* or more common'! these da!s* feminism. +he! attempt to disti' 100 !ears of histor!* theor!* dissent and debate into a 'iterat re review and end p app'!ing these comp'e1 ideas to ,e!oncA/s video for Sing'e Badies. +he best theses not on'! state their origina' contrib tion to know'edge b t a'so confirm in the introd ction what the! do not address. ) know that man! s pervisors disagree with me on this point. Jeverthe'ess* the best wa! to protect candidates and ens re that e1aminers nderstand the bo ndaries and 'imits of the research is to state what is not being disc ssed. St dents ma! be asked wh! the! made those determinations* and there m st be scho'ar'! and strategic answers to s ch 6 estions. +he easiest wa! to trim and hem the ragged edges of a doctorate is historica''! or geographica''!. +he st dent can base the work on ,e'gi m* ,ra-i' or the ,ahamas* or a partic 'ar decade* governmenta' term or after a significant event s ch as 11 September 2001. >nother wa! to contain a pro5ect is theoretica''!* to state there is a foc s on Eenr! 0iro 1/s mode' of pop 'ar c 't re and ed cation rather than Eenr! (enkins/ config rations of new media and 'iterac!. S ch a decision can be 5 stified thro gh the avai'abi'it! of so rces* or the desire to monitor one

scho'ar/s pathwa! thro gh ana'og e and digita' media. 91aminers wi'' fee' more comfortab'e if the! know that st dents have made considered choices abo t their area of research and nderstand the 'imits of their findings. 4. "rite a short, rushed, basic e(egesis >n nfair < b t occasiona''! acc rate < c'ichA of practice:'ed doctorates is that st dents take three and a ha'f !ears to make a fi'm* insta''ation or so ndscape and spend three and a ha'f weeks writing the e1egesis. 3octora' candidates seem naware that e1aminers often read e1egeses first and engage with the artefacts after assessing if candidates have read eno gh in the fie'd. )ndeed* one of m! st dents recommended an order of reading and watching for her e1aminers* moving between fo r chapters and fi'ms. +he e1aminer responded in her report < brist'ing < that she wo 'd not be to'd how to eva' ate a thesis: she a'wa!s read the f '' e1egesis and then decided whether or not to bother seeing the fi'ms. M! st dent < thankf ''! < passed with ease* b t this e1aminer to'd a tr th that few acknow'edge. Most postgrad ates ) ta'k with ass me that the e1aminers r sh with enth siasm to the packaged 3M3 or .3* or that the! wi'' not read a word of the doctorate nti' the! have seen the e1hibition. +his is the same ass mption that inhibits these st dents in viva voces. +he! think that the! wi'' be ab'e to ta'k abo t 7art8 and 7process8 for two ho rs. ) have never seen that happen. )nstead* the emphasis is p'aced on the e1egesis and how it artic 'ates the artefact. 2ostgrad ates entering a doctora' programme to make a fi'm or create a sonic insta''ation s b5ect themse'ves to a time:cons ming and diffic 't process. )f the st dent neg'ects the e1egesis nti' the end of the candidat re and constr cts a r shed doc ment abo t 7how8 rather than 7wh!8 it was made* there wi'' be prob'ems. +he best st dents find a wa! to create 7bonsai8 e1egeses. +he! prepare perfect'! formed engagements with theor!* method and scho'arship* b t in miniat re. +he! note word 'imits* demonstrate the precise dia'og e between the e1egesis and artefact* and show thro gh a caref ''! edited script that the! ho'd know'edge e6 iva'ent to the 7traditiona'8 doctora' 'eve'. 1/. Submit a PhD with a short introduction or conclusion > 6 ick wa! to move from a good doctora' thesis to one re6 iring ma5or corrections is to write a short introd ction and/or conc' sion. )t is fr strating for e1aminers. ;e are poised to tick the minor corrections bo1* and then we t rn to a one: or two:page conc' sion. >fter reading tho sands of words* st dents m st be ab'e to present effective* convincing conc' sions* restating the origina' contrib tion to know'edge* the significance of the research* the prob'ems and f'aws and f rther areas of scho'arship. Short conc' sions are created b! tired doctora' st dents. +he! r n o t of words.

Short introd ctions signif! the start of deeper prob'ems: candidates are naware of the research area or the theoretica' framework. )n the case of introd ctions and conc' sions in doctora' theses* si-e does matter. Eope washes over the start of a 2h3 candidat re* b t desperation and fear often mark its conc' sion. +here are Gat 'eastH ten simp'e indicators that prompt e1aminers to recommend re: e1amination* ma5or corrections or < with some disma! < fai' re. )f postgrad ates ti'ise these g ide'ines* the! wi'' be ab'e to make choices and rea'ise the conse6 ences of their decisions. +he 'essons of scho'arship begin with inte''ect a' generosit! to the scho'ars who precede s. )ronica''! < a'tho gh perhaps not < candidat res a'so conc' de there. &eferences : +ara ,raba-on is professor of media st dies* Nniversit! of ,righton.