theEzone : Writing

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.

Images of originality

robyn.owens — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 23:02:00 GMT

Any diagrams, figures, or images in your thesis must be treated in the same way as your text: they must be your own, or they must be appropriately cited. However, unlike text, when an image is copyrighted (and it is safe to assume that all are unless it is explicitly stated that they can be used with a citation only), then you must obtain permission to use someone else's image.

The over-use of figures downloaded from the internet detracts from the quality and it is preferable to see the candidate's own images, which then would be clearer and in some instances more appropriately targeted to the relevant information.

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"?

Theses, books, and articles

robyn.owens — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 06:18:00 GMT

Frequently examiners comment on the candidate's publications, or the potential for publications. Here is the gist of three independent comments on the same piece of work; these comments provide an interesting calibration for measuring the thesis against the book or against a set of articles.

In terms of publication, this author should move relatively quickly to approach publishers. The topic is one that lots of people are working on and the data require rapid publication to remain relevant - if not as a complete book, then as a series of articles.

One can typically only write one book based on a PhD thesis.

There is no doubt that there are three or four substantial journal papers that can be mined from this thesis.

The oral exam

robyn.owens — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:47:00 GMT

Some examiners assume that there will be a viva.

Overall, the experimental methodologies and statistical analyses applied are appropriate for the research undertaken, and the thesis is easy to read and understand. However, the candidate has used different symbols to denote the same variables in different parts of the thesis. The candidate needs to explain the differences between these symbols during the oral examination.

During the oral exam the candidate should report on the status of the papers submitted to journals.

Self plagiarism and salami slicing

robyn.owens — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:55:00 GMT

Self plagiarism occurs when you re-use your own published work in your current work, without citing the original published work. It's considered an academic crime because in the act of publication you have assigned the ownership of your original work to someone else (the Journal), and now you are passing it off as it it were once again your own.

Salami slicing refers to the act of chopping your work up into tiny publons: units of publication that are minimal at best, just enough to get published (a publon is also known as a least publishable increment). Salami slicing usually occurs with the re-use of data, or with a slight change of data but saying essentially the same thing in another publication.

Both self plagiarism and salami slicing are considered poor practice because they flood the academic community with near identical papers, making it more difficult for scholars to find relevant information.

The very obvious use of cut-and-paste (identical wording for very large parts of the chapter) is disappointing. Perhaps this could have been avoided by structuring the results differently?

The most common mistake

robyn.owens — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 04:18:00 GMT

I am sure it must be true: the most common mistake in English writing is to use "it's" as a possessive. I know we are all taught this in primary school. "It's" means "it is". Nevertheless, it is a common comment from examiners to PhD candidates:

"You have made the most common mistake in English writing here. "It's" is a contraction of "it is" and that is the only time an apostrophe is used. "It's a beautiful day" is correct, whereas "The car lost it's control on the slippery pavement" is incorrect. The way to tell whether to use "it's" or not is to substitute "it is" and see if it makes sense. Remove the apostrophe here and wherever else it may be used incorrectly."

Now I know we all know this; nevertheless, this is one of the most common comments made by examiners. Perhaps the linguists among us will tell us whether this confusion actually is the most common mistake in written English. When I checked the web I found a wide variety of claims as to what is the "most common mistake in written English": Your vs. You're; It's vs. Its; There vs. Their; Affect vs. Effect; and the Dangling Participle were high on the list. Also popular were missing articles and spelling mistakes.

The usual convention in scholarly writing is to avoid all use of contractions. The use of contractions creates a familiar tone and does not sound as serious as spelling out the words in full.

When "not perfect" is an asset

robyn.owens — Fri, 25 May 2007 06:50:00 GMT

We sometimes worry when our research doesn't turn out the way we wanted it to, or that the results don't seem clean or easy to explain. One examiner didn't find this a problem at all.

"I particularly like the inherent honesty of her writing, highlighting various difficulties throughout, including her vision for future work and recommendations."

Precision adverbs

robyn.owens — Mon, 21 May 2007 13:45:00 GMT

An examiner of a scientific thesis wants a ban on words indicating a probability not entirely certain:

"Page N: 'Although the correspondence between the XXX and YYY frameworks is not clear, it is likely that ...' Hmmm. Scientific sentences containing adverbs such as 'likely' (or 'very', 'hardly', 'quite', 'almost', 'nearly' ...) are highly likely to be not very scientific. Either write something concrete about the relationship between the XXX and the YYY, or don't write anything at all."

I expect the same precision is required in a humanities thesis.

That's what I want!

robyn.owens — Wed, 09 May 2007 13:44:00 GMT

Three examiners, all commenting on the same thesis:

"I recommend this thesis be passed with no requirement for any correction or amendment and that the candidate be awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The thesis as such is a substantial and original contribution to the knowledge in the field, the candidate shows excellent familiarity with the relevant literature (with an estimated number of references of more than 1,000), the techniques adapted are challenging and up to date, and the results are suitably set out and accompanied by a close to perfect exposition. Therefore, I do not hesitate to score this thesis as exceptional, at the forefront of international PhD theses in the field."

"This is a thesis rich in cutting edge technology, technical sophistication and original, publishable (indeed already published) findings."

"This is an excellent thesis comprising an impressive body of work. The thesis is extremely well written and organized. ... The introduction, in itself, demonstrates excellent scholarship and illustrates a detailed and critical understanding of the field. ... The candidate assertively emphasized the main contributions of his work while pointing out the issues that remain to be addressed. Overall, this is an excellent thesis that compiles a substantial amount of work and undoubtedly contributes to the advancement of this field."

Oh dear!

robyn.owens — Tue, 08 May 2007 05:05:00 GMT

"The thesis presented for examination is poorly prepared as evidenced by errors in figures, incorrect labels on tables and figures, no chapter titles in the table of contents, references to appendices that are not included and a significant section of chapter 5 missing. I question whether the co-supervisor has seen the thesis given that his name is incorrect. Given these omissions, it is difficult to examine the thesis and it certainly requires resubmission."

Anticipating expectations

robyn.owens — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 02:57:00 GMT

One of the first things you learn in any writing course is to model the reader. Here is a quote from a recent examiner's report where the candidate has clearly done this very well:

"This thesis was an interesting one to assess. There is much very good material contained in the work and the presentation and level of analysis are exceptional.

Overall it is clearly passable without changes.

I started examining this thesis by making a list of the key authors and work I would expect to encounter. The thesis cleared all of these first hurdles I had thus set up with some daylight to spare. I then wondered about the method employed and set up an expectation of encountering principal components analysis, which prompted some curiosity as it failed to make a significant early appearance. My fears were subsequetly more than settled by a very competent analysis and explanation as to why such an approach was inappropriate or not the best in this case.

My favourable impression of the work on these counts was added to significantly by the clarity and extent of the literature reviewed and analysed with the summary tabulations of the empirical research findings on XX being noted as particularly effective."

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?

Economical Writing

robyn.owens — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 06:28:00 GMT

Has your supervisor ever asked you to cut back on your writing? Here are some hints from an examiner:

"From a presentation viewpoint, the thesis is also around twice as long as it needs to be, for two main reasons. Firstly, the writing style is seriously uneconomical, with extensive use of passive sentence constructions, redundant padding and meaningless cliches. By the time I reached the end, I was ready to kill if I encountered "It is speculated that ..." as a construction again. Judging by the prominence of citation (several times per page), some person called "Studies" (be they recent or previous or numerous) seems to have carried out almost all previous work in the field. Just one example of a combination of these issues; "Previous studies demonstrate that X plays a key role ...". This would be marginally less painful if the entire same sentence did not reappear in multiple chapters. Which is the second point. The entire thesis could have been collapsed into a single introduction, methods, results, discussion chapter format to avoid large scale repetition."