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

 

Thank you for your contribution that raises some very pertinent issues. 

 

 

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".

 

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.