 |
 |
Hi all, especially Margarida Good point, Margarida. To be fair to Sue (my chief examiner) I am inclined to get up on soapboxes! So perhaps there was too much 'soapbox' included in populist language, and insufficient 'simple language embracing complexity' when Sue gave me that feedback. In the light of the discussion since on the list, I really endorse the need to take calm breaths and consider the feedback one's supervisors give one about what standards need to be evident in a piece of work (even if you want to wring their necks at the time you receive the feedback!) Also important, I believe, is the history of the supervisor/s. As I said, Sue has never had a thesis 'bounced', but it's probably because she is SO insistent that the candidate produces their best work - even if that work goes way beyond what the candidate felt they could do at the time - and won't allow submission for examination until it reaches that point. In New Zealand, the candidate can submit against supervisor advice, but Sue, who's been on the Higher Degrees committee for ages, said she's never seen one achieve success when submitted like that. So, all the best to those of you who are still working towards your PhDs. The success is worth the struggle I believe. I felt a bit like my compatriot Sir Edmund Hillary who, on reaching the top of Mt Everest, said, "We knocked the bastard off!" And congratulations to the recent PhD achievers, hope you feel great satisfaction. We owe thanks to our own supervisors and the friends/family who support us through the process. Kind regards Pip _____ From: BERA Practitioner-Researcher [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Margarida Dolan Sent: Friday, 16 February 2007 9:29 a.m. To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Slowing down and exploring my/our knowing Dear Pip, dear all, I am glad that you connected to my experiences. Regarding the point you raise "she told me that this is for an academic audience and to write the popular novel next!". Can I offer that there is a fine balance between 'simple language', that embraces complexity whilst *removing complication*; and 'simplistic language', that takes away the complexity, empoverishing the process, and paradoxically *adding complication*. With best wishes, -- Margarida Dolan, Ph.D. Skills Development for Research, Learning and Teaching *Please consider the environment before printing this email* On 13/02/07, Pip/Bruce Ferguson <[log in to unmask] > wrote: Hi all While very much sympathizing with Sarah's PhD examination experience, which must have been most dispiriting, I appreciate the careful explanation that Margarida so well expresses below. It is this attempt to express one's ideas - however novel - in language that is accessible to the reader, that has been a small part of the debate on this list. I remember my own PhD chief supervisor telling me, prior to the exam, that I was the person who knew the work best, so it was my responsibility to explain it clearly, both in the thesis and in the viva. At the same time, when I argued at one point about wanting to express myself as simply as possible, she told me that this is for an academic audience and to write the popular novel next! There does seem to be some tension between the two views, which is probably why she made me rewrite the darned thing FIVE TIMES before she felt it was ready for submission. She's never had a thesis 'bounced' yet, so listening to her advice and submitting to it (even when I wanted to wring her neck, probably a mutual feeling) paid off in the long run. Good luck with your own processes Sarah, and thanks so much for your thoughtful posting Margarida. I found it most helpful (especially the insight about Ch V!) Cheers Pip Bruce Ferguson _____ From: BERA Practitioner-Researcher [mailto: [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Margarida Dolan Sent: Wednesday, 14 February 2007 10:36 a.m. To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Slowing down and exploring my/our knowing Dear Sarah (and all), Thank you for your contribution that raises some very pertinent issues. For the list members who do not know me, I participate in the Monday Group facilitated by Jack Whitehead. I have two children under the age of 12; I am not a native English speaker; I have a disability that influences the mechanics of how I express my ideas, and how long it takes me to shape them into a coherent form; and whist I am based in the UK, I am frequently abroad for work and on behalf of the Proprioception Trust that I chair. It has taken me most of the afternoon and evening to write this email, and I have little time available so my apologies if I cannot follow up responses my comments might elicit. Sarah, I read your message with great interest yesterday just before attending the Monday Group meeting. I therefore had the opportunity of sharing at length my insights with the Group, and I feel that I supported all those present to engage with these insights. So let me tell you in what capacity I feel I can contribute to the understanding of two specific assertions that you make. My academic background to Postdoctoral level is in Pharmaceutical Sciences, and during my postdoctoral research I shadow supervised a number of PhD students. Nearly 10 years ago the focus of my career evolved to include enabling PhD students and PhD supervisors to develop an appreciation of complex dynamics and skills that can support them in various roles. Since then, I conceptualise, design and deliver programmes and modules for PhD students and PhD supervisors in large and small groups, and on a 1-1. These can be intra-or inter-departmental; and inter-Universities/Institutions. The diversity of paradigms underpinning the participants' contributions make these courses very pleasurable for me as the facilitator. Amongst what I offer in one form or another are "Completing your PhD", "Writing the Thesis", and "The Viva", including 1-1 filming sessions with discussions on how to engage creatively with invitations from the examiners to explore divergent perspectives. Over the past years I have engaged with tens of PhD supervisors; and hundreds of PhD students, their narratives, their theses, the viva and the post-viva. Many of them keep in touch with me years after leaving. What then can I offer you and the list based on my understandings from my professional and personal experience? Regarding "substantial number of LET [Living Educational Theory] theses that do not pass at PhD level without requiring a very substantial redrafting and resubmission", I am puzzled by your assertion and I believe it to be incorrect. I have not come across any evidence anecdotic or scientific that the number of such theses requiring "very substantial redrafting and resubmission" is first of all substantial, and secondly substantially higher than in all other areas of research, as could be implied from your message. From my experience it is the norm rather than the exception to rewrite whole chapters; reorganise the body of the thesis; and rethink conclusions and implications particularly in leading edge scientific areas, such as Neuroscience, and when complex statistical methods are required. Some areas of Philosophy and Theology also come to mind. PhD students are trainee researchers, and the viva is part of that training and an opportunity to engage with a diversity of perspectives- so changes are to be expected. Regarding "Judging by some postings it seems LETs require a kind of double writing process - first an awareness writing that speaks from the heart and then a rewriting that can depersonalise and deny the very values implicit in the original)" this is a very good point, and I am glad you raise it. My take on it is well articulated in the following quote by Andreski "Original thoughts can be understood only in virtue of the unoriginal elements they contain". It becomes extremely hard for anyone trying to engage in and appreciate someone else's offerings, if the concepts themselves present a challenge and on top of that the language used also presents a challenge. This is so important that I feel it is our responsibility as creators of meanings to support the reader evolve their understandings by using language the reader can relate to (which I hope I am achieving in this message). For most of us, this is by no means a simple task. I would like to share with you all an episode from my own PhD process. I had the opportunity of developing work supported by mathematicians, in an unusual area for pharmacists. It included complex mathematical modelling and associated language. This resulted in a very successful publication during my final year that become the basis of my Chapter V- and was I excited about this chapter! At the mock viva with my supervisor, I was surprised that he did not refer at all to Chapter V, and I made an observation about this. He explained that none of the examiners was a mathematician, so none would be at ease with the language, and would not risk asking questions. My supervisor told me to expect the examiners to engage, challenge and celebrate the novel interpretations I suggested throughout my thesis for concepts the examiners were familiar with, in language they were familiar with. I did not believe my supervisor then, but he was correct. There were no questions, suggestions, rethinking or rewriting involving Chapter V!! Inviting even the most interested and welcoming examiners to *new* possibilities using *new* language, and expecting informed questions of what is so *new* and therefore still fragile for them at the viva (a context where examiners also feel under pressure) can prove to be too much of a challenge. I hope this informs the debate. With best wishes, -- Margarida Dolan, Ph.D. Skills Development for Research, Learning and Teaching *Please consider the environment before printing this email* On 13/02/07, Sarah Fletcher < [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > wrote: Dear Eleanor, Thank you, With Love, Sarah E LOHR <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Dear All, I find the silence in response to this posting is deafening, and I want the community of inquirers that I imagine this List to be, to know that I have responded privately to Sarah's two questions. May be others have too. With love, Eleanor Sarah Fletcher < [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > wrote: What standards of judgement does the Academy use viz a viz LETs? Here are two areas I hope you will focus on in your conversations that draw on many postings from the on-going BERA e-seminar relating to standards of judgement and how these can reshape PhD submissions. I would be grateful for any advice regarding redrafting my own thesis: 1) How far are Living Educational Theories accepted by the Academy as a viable form of representing Practitioner Researchers' knowledge if we consider the substantial number of LET theses that do not pass at PhD level without requiring a very substantial redrafting and resubmission? (I am thinking about the very moving postings by several list members) 2) How far are LETs about raising self awareness and identifying values we aspire to live rather than an opportunity for serious engagement with different points of view that might assist in their clarification and in meeting externally imposed criteria in Academe? (Judging by some postings it seems LETs require a kind of double writing process - first an awareness writing that speaks from the heart and then a rewriting that can depersonalise and deny the very values implicit in the original) Here is the URL of my own thesis written as a living educational theory http://www.cfkeep.org/html/snapshot.php?id=47161571911687 <http://www.cfkeep.org/html/snapshot.php?id=47161571911687> a copy of the comments from the advisor appointed to comment on its readiness for examination and an anonymised transcript of the viva I underwent with 3 examiners. I am planning to redraft my thesis soon. Kind regards, Sarah --- Jack Whitehead wrote: > > If you have some evidence-based accounts that might > help to take forward our > enquiries into the theme of our e-seminar and that > you would like a response to in > the e-seminar itself from a Monday evening > conversation, do please send the url for > the account or the account itself to me at: > [log in to unmask] . > > Love Jack. > Sarah Fletcher http://www.TeacherResearch.net <http://www.teacherresearch.net/> Sarah Fletcher http://www.TeacherResearch.net <http://www.teacherresearch.net/> -- Margarida Dolan, Ph.D. Skills Development for Research, Learning and Teaching *Please consider the environment before printing this email*