Welcome to myResearchSpace Sign in | Join | Help

Developing the art of objectiveness and self-criticism

After three or more years of working on your thesis topic, it is easy to start believing your own rhetoric. You need to convince your examiners that you have done a good job and so the temptation is to fall into the trap of over-stating the importance of your results.

This examiner's comment below highlights the need for objectivity and self-criticism. Indeed, not only are these two qualities highly valued by scholars, but when developed professionally they can be used to anticipate and de-fuse examiners' criticisms and questions, leaving them convinced that you have made a substantial, but well-calibrated contribution to the field, and that you have thought about how you, or future scholars, can continue to improve upon your results.

"The standard of the work is similar to many passing PhDs in the UK. The final document is reasonably well presented with an acceptable level of proofing errors (although these need correction). The quality of the writing, expression and articulation of ideas is generally good, although wordy at times. The strengths and weaknesses are also similar to many PhDs I have examined. It shows a good grasp of several research techniques but lacks depth of interpretation. In many cases there is a weakness in level of understanding or appreciation of the implications and limitations of research findings. Often enthusiasm and commitment to the work and area of study produces over-generalisation of results and inadequate consideration of their limitations. There is evidence of this throughout this dissertation. This needs correction at this point in order to help the student become a competent and objective scientist."
Published Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:38 AM by robyn.owens
Filed under:

Comment Notification

If you would like to receive an email when updates are made to this post, please register here

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS

Comments

# re: Developing the art of objectiveness and self-criticism

The social sciences, on the other hand, acknowledge the inherent tension which exists between the qualities of objectivity and self-criticism. If we admit that so-called ‘objective’ knowledge is knowledge that is free of human values, bias or prejudice; how do we then admit ‘personal’ criticism? Does the call for objectivity mean that we must produce a text (i.e. thesis) which will be analysed (i.e. examined) as a product which is independent of the author? How do we then provide a space for human agency, action and authorship? These are questions that have been the subject of intense – some would say, in the light of Postmodern Theory, narcissistic – debate in the social sciences for well over two decades.
There are numerous arguments advanced for social knowledge not being objective, these include:
1). Sociological judgements are subjective as they are coloured by actor’ own experiences.
2). All propositions are limited in their meaning to particular language contexts.
3). All knowledge is historically and culturally specific (conceptual structures and processes, that is, the manner in which people apprehend the world and the objects within it, are not universal).

Social scientists, perhaps unlike the scientists of the natural and physical world, would argue that the object of enquiry and the consciousness which apprehends it should not be treated as two separable entities, but as a single phenomenon. In this way we obviate the tension between a call for objectivity, on the one hand, and self-criticism on the other.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006 4:02 PM by Michael.Azariadis

# re: Developing the art of objectiveness and self-criticism

While I don't wish to argue with the above comment, the nature of the original quote was intended to highlight the need for good argumentation. Examiners in the humanities and social sciences also insist on argumentation that does not "over-interpret". Below are some more examiners' comment that illustrate this:

"This thesis is too broad in scope and so necessarily painted with too broad a brush. There are consequently many sweeping generalisations and waffle that betray the author's lack of control of his subject. A scope more narrow in focus would have given him the opportunity to explore thoroughly the nature of the sources upon which he relies, to acquire a sound knowledge of his subject, and perhaps come up with an original contribution to scholarship"

"In sum, the overall argument is not fully convincing because it suffers from overstatement of intermediate conclusions, a naive use of sources, and a degree of incoherence, while the choice of material is not properly honed down to the essentials and the writing style not yet sufficiently lucid, academically sophisticated."
Wednesday, September 06, 2006 11:42 AM by robyn.owens

# re: Developing the art of objectiveness and self-criticism

I think that if we unpack the original quote we will discover a number of issues. First and foremost is the argument that we should effectively communicate to the reader of the thesis the scope, application and/or limitations of the research. Making overly ambitious claims as to the significance or impact of the research (i.e. ‘over interpreting’) will not compensate for poor scholarship. This is not necessarily what we would call self-criticism; the argument simply implies that we reflect on, and in turn realistically assess, the impact of our research.
Second, the presence of superficial, sweeping generalisations in one’s thesis is a sign that the researcher has probably not subjected his or her data to rigorous interpretation – substituting instead testimonials of enthusiasm and commitment to the work (hence the call for greater objectivity?). In such cases the author might use the easy first-person mode of explanation as a substitute for, rather than an augmentation of, what should be significant aspects of their research endeavour.
Finally, there is nothing wrong with adopting heuristic concepts to facilitate a discussion, but it becomes dangerous when the writer allows those concepts to take on a life of their own (as if they actually exist as measurable, discernable entities in the field). Candidates in the social sciences, for instance, who often feel obligated to adopt a rigid ‘theoretical framework’ that directs the analysis of their data, may focus too heavily on the theory per se, rather than allowing the data to speak more freely for itself.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006 2:13 PM by Michael.Azariadis

Leave a Comment

(required) 
required 
(required) 

  
Enter Code Here: Required