theEzone : Argument

The reflective examiner

robyn.owens — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:48:00 GMT

I love it when an examiner talks about "the PhD" in general, rather than simply the particulars of the one under consideration. When this happens, we get an insight into what examiners are looking for. Usually, such reflection occurs when the examiner is trying to explain to the candidate how a thesis might be improved - this is the formative part of the report.

Here's a summary of the sorts of comments that often arise:

Normally in academic writing, especially at the PhD level, it is crucial to begin with a statement of a research problem. A research problem is at the core of an academic study. It is the main idea of the research and represents the philosophical view of the PhD candidate. Without this philosophical view, the thesis only deals with technical aspects and this does not suffice for a PhD.

A research problem is created by intensive, extensive, comprehensive, and critical reading of the literature. Any gap in the literature, caused by methodological problems or incorrect interpretations of data, can become a general statement that can subsequently be enhanced by the researcher's opinion on the issue. Thus, there must be old knowledge and new knowledge in the thesis.

A literature review is not a re-echoing of the literature; it must be a critical review of it. First and foremost, a literature review is the researcher's own opinions and comments about previous writings and studies in the area. These opinions are built from the reading. They may be directed towards methodological shortcomings or weaknesses in previously published work. These opinions of the candidate should be categorized, labelled as sub-topics, and discussed. Additionally, some part of the literature review will be a gathering together of known data, statistics, opinions and definitions that will be used to justify or support the argument put forward by the candidate.

Justifying your thesis

robyn.owens — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 04:27:00 GMT

I know it is hard enough actually stating what your thesis is, but once you have articulated it, you then have to be able to convince the world that it is important enough to be worthy of 3 years' consideration, and that what you have found is a substantial contribution to the world's knowledge.

One of the most serious concerns relates to the need for a sound justification that the research topic is substantive enough to satisfy the requirement that the thesis makes a substantial and original contribution to scholarship.

One way of making this justification is to demonstrate, through your literature review, that other people have identified the gap in knowledge that you are intending to fill, that they care about knowing the answer, and that the question is contemporary and relevant. In this way, citation becomes a powerful ally in your construction of a sound argument.

The Thesis

robyn.owens — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 03:13:00 GMT

I have recently been examining a PhD thesis of a student from another university (in another country). Overall, it was, in my opinion, an adequate dissertation: the candidate had clearly done a lot of work, there were some original contributions (although they were difficult to find in the presentation), and the written style was passable. While this might not sound very positive, my overall recommendation was "Pass, subject to the questions in my report being addressed at the oral examination, and the revisions in my report being undertaken in the thesis." This recommendation was one of the choices I had, and common to all examination procedures I have ever seen, it required ticking a box.

What I found most difficult in this examination process was identifying what the candidate's actual thesis was; that is, the argument that was being developed over 150 or so pages so as to convince me that this new approach to XXX either had promise as a practical system, or that it gave some insight into existing biological systems. The Graduate Research School webpages give the following advice about the thesis (adapted from Anderson, J. and Poole, M. (1994) Thesis and assignment writing John Wiley and Sons, Brisbane):

"A thesis is not the same as a topic to be investigated. While a topic may be the structure of a particular crystal or the novels of Miles Franklin, a thesis is a statement that says, for instance, something about crystals or an author’s novels. The distinction is important since in many ways the statement of a thesis determines the approach and stance writers take towards their topics or research questions.

A thesis is an idea or theory that is expressed as a statement, a contention for which evidence is gathered and discussed logically. The statement nearly always begins with the word that.

…that the move towards republicanism in Australia began at the end of the last century.

…that use of sapphire as a test mass material in a gravitational wave detector will significantly reduce thermal noise.

…that failure of apparent pregnancies in sheep in the Merredin area is due to high temperatures at the time of mating.

A thesis is a sustained argument. The thesis statement usually appears in the first chapter where the background to the study is described. It will often determine the framework for the literature review and the data collection and it is revisited in the last chapter. It permeates the whole study."

Since I have challenged the candidate I am examining to state his thesis, I now offer the same challenge here: can you state your thesis, in one phrase, starting with the word "that"?

What should I call myself?

robyn.owens — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 02:09:00 GMT

A pressing issue that often arises at the time of write-up is what to call yourself. Should you use "I", "we" "one" or try to hide behind a passive voice? Here are some examples:

"I showed in an earlier paper [Bloggs, 2005] that ..."
"We showed in an earlier paper [Bloggs, 2005] that ..."
"The author showed in an earlier paper [Bloggs, 2005] that ..."
"It was shown in an earlier paper [Bloggs, 2005] that ..."

Sentence 4 should always be avoided because it is in the passive voice. Sentence 3 sounds stuffy and stilted. So is it "I" or "we"?

Some authorities on technical writing advise against using "we" to refer to a single author but are happy for it to be used when there ar two or more authors. Thus the "we" that means "we the authors of a joint paper" is never objectionable. However a thesis is a solely authored work; if it is based on joint publications you need to be very careful about using "we".

"I" creates a franker, personal contact with the reader; in some technical areas it is less commonly used than "we" but "we" creates confusion for the reader. "We" can mean variously "me and other people who worked with me" or "me, the writer, and you, the reader" or simply "me" in academic voice. Marie-Claire van Leunen argues that the "we" that means "I" should only be used "by monarchs, popes and in front columns of The New Yorker".

The "we" that means "you and I, reader" is tricky depending on how it is used. As long as the reader is clearly following your argument then it is fine. Thus "we see", "we observe" and "we notice" are dangerous; this "we" is just another way of saying "obviously" and it may not be obvious at all to the reader. Be careful!

The "we" that means "everyone" is unobjectionable when what you state is common knowledge. "We do not know" is always safe, but "we know" may be very dangerous.

When "we"s and "I"s abound, it sometimes calls for clever writing. Consider the following (again from van Leunen):

We have assumed that the set has cardinality at most n.
I have assumed that the set has cardinality at most n.
The proof only works if the set has cardinality of at most n.

Examiners will object to sentence 1 because you are not claiming ownership of the ideas. Some examiners may find sentence 2 too familiar, as if you are claiming an authority you have not yet demonstrated or earned (see Ethos). Sentence 3 makes it is clear how your argument works (see Logos).

Lord May, the president of the Royal Society from 2000-2005, had strong views on the subject. "I would put my own view so strongly as to say that, these days, the use of the passive voice in a research paper is the hallmark of second-rate work," he says. "In the long run, more authority is conferred by the direct approach than by the pedantic pretence that some impersonal force is performing the research."

So, myResearchSpacers: what are you using, "I" or "we", and why?

Don't torture your examiners

robyn.owens — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:49:00 GMT

It's worth taking a moment to imagine the conditions under which your examiners are likely to read your thesis. If my experience is anything to go by, it won't be in their office. Recently, most of my assessment reading has happened at home or in my car at skateboarding carparks (my son's a skater). These comments are from one examiner who clearly felt tortured by the presentation. The subject matter is poorly presented figures and tables.

Figures and Tables form an integral part of many theses. The key point to remember is that they are not ornaments, added to the body of text to decorate the thesis or make it look more scholarly. Figures and Tables must form stand-alone comprehensible objects; their role is like that of a paragraph: they capture a single idea and that idea must be fully explained within the figure or table or its caption. In addition, the purpose and ideas captured by a figure or table must be fully explained in the text or body of the document, with reference to the figure or table in question. In other words, you can't assume that somehow, by reading the text and gazing at the figure the examiner will somehow get it. Here's one examiner who found this a source of contention:

"A major issue that I have with the thesis is the poor quality of the Figures and Tables which in many cases are too small, of poor print quality or both. This is a major problem with the thesis as they are necessary to explain many concepts. At the present time they make the thesis near impossible to follow in places. For several figures and appendices I needed a magnifying glass to see the figure/table detail. As presented, the majority of the figures and tables act as a deterrent/distraction to understanding the body of the thesis.

Many times I gave up trying to relate the information in the figure to what is being discussed in the text because it was too small/difficult to understand or was lacking sufficient detail in the caption. The text is also confusing/ambiguous in many places. These issues have to be addressed before the thesis is able to be passed.

Coupled with this there are many ambiguities combined with lack of necessary detail in the text itself. These ambiguities and lack of detail combined with the impossible to read figures/tables leave the reader with many questions. In many places the thesis looked like it was a final draft."

That concluding chapter

robyn.owens — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:43:00 GMT

I remember reading somewhere that the Conclusion shouldn't mark the point where you have run out of energy. A recent examiner's report made the same sort of comment:

"My second major criticism is that chapter 8, 'Conclusions', is far too brief (3.25 pages) and restricted to summing up what has gone before to do full justice to all the hard work which the author has manifestly put into this thesis. In particular, he missed the opportunity to elaborate upon the broader implications of his project for future comparative research ... by returning to some of the central questions and approaches introduced in chapter 1."

The first and last chapters both operate at a higher level of abstraction than all those chapters in between; they are partners that together wrap the whole thesis into a cohesive whole and so in many ways they should reflect each other.

Argumentation continued ...

robyn.owens — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 03:07:00 GMT

Argumentation is the art of persuading your audience that your ideas are valid, or at least more valid than someone else's. The Greek philosopher Aristotle considered this subject at length and he classified the three different aspects that go into making up a good argument. These aspects are Ethos, Pathos, and Logos; all of them are necessary.

Ethos (Credibility), or ethical appeal, is the art of convincing someone of your ideas based on your character and authority. We tend to believe people whom we respect. Thus, the more senior one is, and the more experience and success they have had in a field, the more likely we are to accept their word on any new aspect within that field. Now that Barry Marshall has won the Nobel Prize, his views on gastric problems, even new ones unrelated to ulcers, are taken very seriously. However, when he was a junior researcher competing against the establishment he had great difficulty even getting his papers published.

Ethos is also used in other situations when we need convincing or are about to take a decision. Brand labels affect our purchasing choices, even when there is very little difference in the product. Indeed, ethos can be used inappropriately when advertisers take a respected authority in one field and get them to endorse a product in another (for example, a world-class cricketer endorsing an air-conditioning system).

One of the central problems of argumentation for a young scholar is to project an impression to the reader that you are someone worth listening to, in other words projecting yourself as author into an authority on the subject of the paper, as well as someone who is likable and worthy of respect.

Here are some examiners’ quotes around the idea of Ethos.

Ethos well-established:

“I sometimes found it difficult to persuade myself that (this) is a doctoral thesis. Most theses are narrowly focussed and accessible only to specialists. This essay is broadly informed and readable by anyone interested in learning about X. Most theses are written in a flat-footed, “academic” style, laden with technical terms, often gratuitous. This is in sparkling, clear, engaging prose, with technical terms always clearly explained and well motivated. Most theses are impersonal documents that obscure the personality of their authors. This is a charming, deeply personal intellectual quest. One source of the difference between this thesis and most others is that they are the products of apprentices or journeymen aspiring to be masters, whereas this is the work of a master striving to improve his craft.”

Here is another:

“It was a pleasure to read the PhD thesis of Mr X. It is one of the most creative theses I have ever read. Not only is the research outstanding; its presentation is that of a genuine scholar.”

Ethos not well-established:

“This thesis is technically sound, and develops and maintains an argument. However, I have concerns about its quality. Admittedly, it is now difficult to say anything new about .... Certainly, there are always more details that come to light, and it is always possible to correct minutiae that previous researchers have got wrong. But does this add anything to our understanding … In the case of this thesis, the evidence has not been stretched in anyway … the conclusions lack weight.”

Pathos (Emotional) is the art of persuading your audience by appealing to their emotions. We can look at texts ranging from classic essays through to newspaper columns or contemporary advertisements to see how pathos or emotional appeals are used to persuade. How many products are sold with the idea that they will improve your love life? Ice-creams, skin creams, cars, clothing and jewellery all fall into this category. Politicians used pathos to convince voters about their policies. They usually appeal to emotions surrounding fear (fear of tax rises, fear of failing law and order, fear of lack of access to health care etc) or emotions surrounding national pride (they associate themselves with major international sporting or cultural events). Language choice affects the audience's emotional response, and emotional appeal can effectively be used to enhance an argument.

Here are some examiners’ quotes relating to pathos.

Pathos well-established:

“At an overall level what really impressed me was that on reading this thesis the reader vividly experiences not only what it is to be one of these children but also their teachers who have the daily challenge of working with them. The vignettes and storylines are powerfully and skilfully done. If nothing else these vignettes and descriptions should make us pause and consider how lucky most of us are in our daily untroubled lives. The skilful development of grounded theory adds the important scholarly dimension to the descriptive narrative.”

Pathos not well-established:

“In my opinion, this document readily meets the requirements of a doctoral dissertation in that it makes an original contribution to knowledge. The style and format is not typical, but it is relatively easy to extract the solid science from the occasionally shrill invective. … I will propose different wording to soften the tone or suggest that some passages be eliminated as irrelevant to the overall message of the work.”

Logos (Logical) is the art of persuading the reader by the use of reasoning. This was Aristotle's favourite technique and the one covered in a previous blog on argumentation.

What is argumentation?

robyn.owens — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 06:42:00 GMT

Examiners often comment on the quality of the argument made in support, or as refutation, of the thesis. Here's an example:

"The thesis is frustrating for a number of reasons that I think are quiet independent of the difficulty of the task:

In my view, the argumentation is often unclear or not convincing, and observations and hypotheses are often stated in vague terms.
Many terms and concepts are used without definition, probably on the assumption that the readers will have knowledge of all primary sources relied upon.
The analysis provided in exploration of the central hypothesis lacks necessary detail and formality, so it is very hard to assess."

Recall that a thesis is a proposition laid down or stated as a theme to be discussed and proved, or to be maintained against attack. An argument is a series of statements leading to a proposition, made convincing by logical reasoning and evidence. It is clear that the examiner above had difficulty with the definitions of the concepts used in the argument and the value of the logic used to link those concepts into a conclusion.

Thus, an argument consists of the following parts:

A claim
The logical reasoning and evidence in support of the claim
The presentation of opposing views
A refutation of opposing views

In practice, the claim itself usually arises after you have observed a body of evidence, but in the thesis you present the claim first and then lay down the evidence to support it.

Deductive arguments are based on the laws of logic and the argument is valid if and only if the premises logically imply the conclusion. For example, Modus Ponens is the form of logic that states:

If X is true, then Y is true;
X is true.
Hence, Y is true.

For example, we know that the implication "If today is Friday, then tomorrow is a holiday" is true. If we also know that the fact "Today is Friday" is true, then we can deduce that "Tomorrow is a holiday" is also true. However, if the implication is false (perhaps we live in a country where people work on Saturdays), or the evidence is false (perhaps today is Tuesday), then we cannot deduce that tomorrow is a holiday.

There are other rules of logic that can be applied to produce valid arguments.

Deductive arguments require the extremely strong condition that it is strictly
impossible for the conclusion to be false. Inductive arguments are more common and are what you are likely to use in the argumentation of your thesis. Inductive arguments use evidence and logical reasoning to lead to highly probable conclusions. However, inductive arguments can also be refuted.

Common forms of inductive argument include the following:

Direct inference. You infer from a proportion of individuals having a certain property to a particular individual having that property. For example "99% of all birds can fly, and this is a bird, therefore it can fly." Your inference can be defeated by an additional biasing factor: your bird is an emu.
Inverse inference. You infer from a proportion of individuals having a certain property to the whole population having that property. For example, "99% of my patients responded positively to this drug, therefore 99% of all people will respond positively to this drug." This inference can be defeated by showing that your sampling procedure is biased; for example, all your patients are children.
Analogies. By drawing attention to similarities between structural or law-like features
of two systems, some support may be found for claiming that
a further, unobserved feature of one is likely to be similar to a corresponding
feature of the other. For example, you might decide that the human brain is like a computer and thus certain ways in which a computer works explain the way in which the brain works. These arguments are defeated by disanalogies, pointing out the ways in which the systems are different.
Correlations. Use carefully! Some correlations may support your argument because there is a causal link: Every time the moon is full or new, the high tides are very high and the low tides are very low. This occurs because there is a direct causal link: the gravitational pull of the sun and the moon combine. However other correlations can be very problematic: Every time ice-cream consumption goes up, there are more deaths from drowning!