Doctoral Process From Idea to Award: Being Scholarly, Prepare To Defend the Thesis

Doctoral Process From Idea to Award

Being Scholarly

It should be noted, with a distinct sense of irony, that defining the process and practice of ‘being scholarly’ may warrant a doctoral study in itself. Furthermore, there is no ‘formula’ that one can follow consciously in order to become and remain scholarly. However, there are a number of practices that are likely to enhance the standard of scholarship and thus help the candidate to ‘be scholarly’.

• It is rather obvious, although still worthy of inclusion, that the candidate should read a lot. The foundation of academic study is reading; becoming familiar and conversant with the literature in the substantive area of study. There is also a need to read more widely, candidates are likely to need to read related philosophical, epistemological and methodological literature.
• In addition to acknowledging the value of reading, the true scholar reads literature in a critical way. Candidates need to criticize the studies they read (Cutcliffe and Ward, 2003). They need to de-construct the arguments that have been made, consider the methodological rigor , think about why the author has chosen to use these words and not others.

They need to contemplate the longitudinal nature of knowledge generation and accumulation. Remembering that knowledge accumulation has a ‘horizontal’ parameter in addition to the ‘vertical’ parameter; Knowledge accumulation includes having more perspectives from which to know, in addition to knowing more ( Sandelowski , 1997).

• A potentially wise, although sometimes difficult, practice is to read one’s own thesis and think how it could be criticized by someone. This is not always easy given the emotional attachment that one develops with one’s own work.

However, try and ask yourself, if this was a thesis I was examining or reviewing, how would I criticize it, what limitations would I point out, how would I say it could be improved? In this way, one is able to anticipate some of the potential criticisms and limitations that could be identified by an examiner.

A particular section or aspect of doctoral theses which may benefit from additional scholarly attention is the ‘Discussion’ section. Too often, candidates do not enter into a full, rich, wide discussion of the findings. Scholarly discussions include the implications of the findings in relation to the four areas of practice, education, further research and policy.

Furthermore, the discussion should start at the substantive level and evolve to include the formal area. A scholarly discussion, in a nursing thesis, should be able to make some important and illuminative statements about each of these areas.

Lastly, thinking in terms of the wider academy of scholars, the scholarship of the candidate’s thesis may be enhanced by consideration of how his or her professional work is connected to the needs of other disciplines, society and the global community.

Perhaps by working with more than one mentor in different disciplines, the opportunity for interdisciplinary scholarship is enhanced.

Writing-up A point which must be emphasized, which the authors have already alluded to, is that writing the thesis should not be an activity that occurs ex post facto. So, even though this section occurs towards the end of this topic, in no way is this an indication of when writing-up should occur.

Remember the cyclic nature of some doctoral study. For example, if the candidate is using a grounded theory method, the processes of data collection, analysis and writing should occur simultaneously (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

Candidates are often discouraged by the daunting prospect of ‘starting to write’. Such a dynamic is more pronounced when the candidate has not undertaken any writing during the bulk of the doctoral study and leaves it for the end.

Thus, beginning writing as early as possible can minimize the ‘daunting prospect’. Writing a thesis often takes on a rhythm; when this is achieved the writing ‘flows’, it is fluid and smooth rather than staccato. The authors suggest that in the early stages of writing the candidate should not be overly concerned with producing the perfect piece, or that every sentence is grammatically correct.

Just write, as Max van Manen (2002) would say. There are pre-conscious processes occurring during such writing that should not be inhibited by over-attention to grammar. Ideas, insights and conceptualizations will be occurring. The proof-reading and attention to punctuation and grammar can happen later.

As we have stated previously, candidates may wish to try to publish as they go. A doctoral study can be conceptualized as producing a series of publications. One does not need to limit oneself to publishing only when the findings are in and the study completed.

There may be publishable papers arising from the literature review, the method, the findings and the discussion. Indeed, writing for publication will enhance your writing skills and may even help crystallize your arguments. There is obvious merit and value in having one’s supervisor or academic advisor proof-read the sections as one writes them.

In this way feedback and comments can be woven into the thesis as it develops. If writing this way, writing as one goes rather than at the end, it is quite possible that this will mean that the candidate actually writes more than one thesis!

Yet the value in producing work that can be refined, developed and improved with the increasing academic, scholarly ability of the candidate as he or she progresses through the doctorate should not be underestimated. The ‘pay-off’ in terms of scholarship far outweighs any ‘downside’ in terms of additional writing workload.

Preparing To Defend the Thesis

Our basic edict for this topic, namely that there is no one singular doctoral process, holds true for defending the thesis; there is no one singular correct way to offer an oral defense . However, there are some generic points which may assist in this preparation.

• Remember that no study is perfect (Cutcliffe and Stevenson, 2001). It is a laudable endeavor to attempt to produce the ‘perfect’ study, yet achieving this goal is unlikely. It is accepted as axiomatic that any study can always be improved and that all studies have limitations.

Consequently, in offering an oral defense, be aware that you are not attempting to portray your study as perfect. This awareness leads logically onto the next point.

• Anticipate when to defend a point and when to concede a point. Your oral defense will need to be tempered by a degree of self-awareness. Particularly important is knowing which points to argue. It is well within the remit of the candidate to justify and argue his or her case.

Indeed, the authors would expect this from the candidate as a demonstration of intellectual agility. However, a candidate who does not concede any limitations is likely to come across as a little arrogant and blasé in awareness. Hence, candidates should be aware of when to concede and when to stand their ground.

• Know your study; anticipate questions regarding each constituent part of the thesis, eg literature review, methods, findings, discussion. As examiners, we would be wishing to see a deep and wide understanding from the candidate of each of the separate sections within his or her thesis and how these knit together.

In fact, in examining these, examiners often work their way through each section, highlight potential questions or issues and then systematically work through these during the oral defense. Hence, the well-prepared candidate will have a familiarity with each section and should expect questions pertaining to all these areas.

• Remember that the examiner is not trying to find fault with your study or with you! But they will expect you to be able to articulate substantive points, defend methodological decisions.
• It might be advantageous if the candidate can arrange to have a ‘dry run’ or ‘rehearsal’ of the oral defense . This can be arranged with the supervisor or academic advisor and there may even be facilities within the candidate’s own academic department.

This practice is not to equip the candidate with the answers which he or she can then regurgitate in the real oral. What it can do, however, is provide the candidate with a sense of what an oral defense can feel like, provide an insight into the types of questions that can be asked, reduce the candidate’s anxiety that often surrounds a sense of the unknown.

• Lastly, there may be additional merit, particularly in terms of fielding awkward questions, if the candidate arranges to present his or her study to one’s departmental research colleagues at a research seminar or something similar. All these activities should increase the candidate’s familiarity with both the content of their study and the experience of answering questions regarding their thesis.

Conclusion and Summary

In summary, undertaking doctoral education can be an arduous yet extremely rewarding activity. Not just rewarding in the final outcome but rewarding in the process of doing as well. It requires a conscious and deliberate decision to succeed; the adoption of a certain ‘mind set’ and commitment.

Candidates need to be aware that undertaking doctoral education is a ‘marathon’ event rather than a ‘sprint’ and consequently it is likely to have its high and low points. Such liability is normal; it should be expected and should not, in and of itself, discourage the candidate.

While the authors would not subscribe to the position that upholds there being ‘one’ doctoral process, we have drawn on our own varied (and international) experiences in attempting to equip potential candidates with a number of strategies/tactics that may make for an increased chance of success. We wish you all well with your studies.

Points

1 Often referred to colloquially as ‘taught doctorates’.

2 Thus further indicating why one should not conceptualize ‘the’ doctoral process as a singular process. 3 The common if not preferred method for nurses in Canada, South Korea and the USA.

4 (And thus a good chance of attracting funding now and later.)

5 Evidence of this can be seen throughout government-led funding patterns within the UK in the past two decades. Recent examples include the research funding that was granted to studies which focused on HIV and AIDS, and more latterly on clinical supervision.

6 For example, if the candidate wishes to use grounded theory, then Glaser (1992) would strongly assert that the candidate has only a knowledge of the ‘local concepts’ and thus extensive literature reviews would not be appropriate.

7 This is especially the case with studies that have an emerging design.

8 For example, the University of Northern British Columbia offers doctoral candidates up to two-years-full time study leave at 60% salary. Plus, the candidate is encouraged to apply for ‘top up’ funding.

9 For example, medicine’s historical preference and greater affinity for positivistic approaches, and psychiatric/mental health nurses’ apparent comfort with qualitative approaches (Cutcliffe and Goward, 2000).

10 Sometimes, supervisors/academic advisers, funding bodies and examiners will check this process, and one cannot rely on memory or on ad hoc planning.

11 This is particularly important if you are doing a PhD by thesis, since this can be a lonely and/or isolated experience.

12 This can be addressed quite simply by constituting multidisciplinary graduate studies advisory committees.

Read More:

https://nurseseducator.com/the-doctoral-process-from-idea-to-award-identify-dissertation-topics-and-writing-proposal/

https://nurseseducator.com/doctoral-process-from-idea-to-award-getting-funded-study-mode-motivation-and-research/