| Hi Everyone
We are so fortunate to have a contributor in Dianne. Her clarity of thought and expression moves on every e-seminar she contributes to. In this case, as always, Dianne has hit the metaphorical nail on the head. I am sure I am not alone to say Thanks so much, Dianne.
Thinking about your task of writing a thesis - have you read these 2 publications, Dianne?
Rugg, G. and Petre, M. (2007) The Unwriten Rules of PhD Research, The Open University Press, maidenhead, UK - their chapter on reading critically is particularly worthy of note...
Murray, R. (2007) How to Write a Thesis, the Open University Press, Maidenhead, UK
My agenda for today? Completing a review of literature in the UK and US about coaching (for
leadership) then assimilating highlighted quotes and critical engagement notes into a draft of my coaching overview for the SAGE Handbook. My challenge is to ensure that a balance between the reviews of other aspects of coaching in education does not become overshadowed by my current focus on 'leadership'. One of the most interesting aspects I have come across in preparing this manuscript is to trace where prevailing discourses in coaching originate and how they are perpetuated. Yesterday, for example, I noticed that research by Allan, P, suddenly appeared in a national review undertaken by the Teacher Development Agency. Tracing back his article to the International Journal for Evidence Based Coaching and mentoring I found he had indeed carried out research in coaching. However it was with just 4 teachers in his school and he stressed, very rightly, how the outcomes were a matter of subjective feedback. The TDA survey held up his work as a noteworthy
example that was influencing regional and via this survey, a national policy enabling coaching for leadership. Looking at other citations (including to my co-research, however, I've never been involved in this area!) I reflected how publications can mislead,
Warm regards,
Sarah
Sarah Fletcher
Convenor for BERA Mentoring and Coaching SIG. Further details at http://www.bera.ac.uk --- On Mon, 2/28/11, Dianne Allen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Dianne Allen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Writing with an eye to publication - is writing a PhD thesis similar?
To: "Teacher researchers' list for the mentoring and coaching Special Interest Group" <[log in to unmask]>, "Sarah Fletcher" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, February 28, 2011, 12:28 AM
Sarah,
I am writing on the basis that we have an audience
of more than you and me ...
I know that there are times when my assertoric
voice can drown some other voices out; whether it is sharing from my experience,
or summarising and analysing ...
To contribute, I need to be myself when it is these
things I have to offer.
But if we have one other who is finding these
practitioner exchanges enlightening and helpful, then I for one will be
satisfied.
Can I address your comments in two ways?: - one to
share what I am experiencing as a reviewer in the 'publish or perish' context
for some academics; and one to share the agony of my thesis writing
experience. The second phase will take some time for me to prepare, and so
I will do that in a separate post.
First the comment "A thesis needs to contain material worthy of
publication but I do notice that some of the less well composed papers I review
(for academic journals) tend to be attempting a straight lift of writing from
thesis to publication without modification. Just a few days ago, I had a paper
of 2,500 ish words long that had no conclusion to draw together points made in
the body of the article but it brandished an impressive bibliography.
Unfortunately, this bibliography neither related to the title of the paper nor
to its abstract..."
I think there is a distinction between 'contain
material worthy of publication' - ie content has elements of significant
originality that it is important for the field to receive and recognise; and
what an examiner will recognise as 'suitable
for publication in an esteemed book or in refereed journals of high
repute'.
In the second case here, the examiner is operating
as a journal editor and saying that it is not only the content, but how it
is presented, that is at a level suitable for publication'.
Copying and pasting, from a thesis chapter, to
offer as a submission for a journal paper, unless the chapter has been crafted,
in writing terms, as a standalone item, with a very useful and informative
introduction and a relevant summary/conclusion, is not good enough, and that is
why reviewers rightly reject them, or ask for significant
re-writing.
Does that address the distinction you are
making?
Yes, usually a conference paper is crafted as a
standalone, shorter piece, and the person with the paper has to be there, in
person, and see and feel the reaction and interaction - so more is at stake and
more care is taken, compared to the anonymous submission to an anonymous journal
editor (by comparison).
Dianne
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 6:58
AM
Subject: Re: Writing with an eye to
publication - is writing a PhD thesis similar?
| Hi Dianne (and Everyone)
I'm hoping we have an audience of more than just me to respond to
your insightful posting!
The criteria for PhD awards are familiar to me (obviously) as I
work as a consultant mentor for research but I'm wondering if you adopt
a similar writing style for a thesis, per se, which is not published as
you do for a conference paper, which is likely to be. Do you
understand the distinction I am trying to make? A thesis needs to
contain material worthy of publication but I do notice that some
of the less well composed papers I review (for academic journals) tend
to be attempting a straight lift of writing from thesis to publication
without modification. Just a few days ago, I had a paper of 2,500 ish
words long that had no conclusion to draw together points made in the
body of the article but it brandished an impressive bibliography.
Unfortunately, this bibliography neither related to the title of the
paper nor to its abstract...
Thanks for writing in - any others' perceptions?
Sarah
Sarah Fletcher Convenor for BERA Mentoring and
Coaching SIG. Further details at http://www.bera.ac.uk --- On
Sun, 2/27/11, Dianne Allen
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From:
Dianne Allen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Writing
with an eye to publication - is writing a PhD thesis similar?
To:
"Teacher researchers' list for the mentoring and coaching Special
Interest Group" <[log in to unmask]>, "Sarah
Fletcher" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sunday, February 27,
2011, 6:09 PM
Hi Sarah and everyone,
I cannot speak for the situation in the
UK, but in Australia one of the criteria for 'PhD' level qualification
is the development of the thesis such that it is judged "suitable for publication in an esteemed book or
in refereed journals of high repute".
And in Australia (and NZ), the
Australasian Digital Theses Program provides for all theses to be
'published' - available in a digital form for anyone
searching.
Now do I see the process of writing a thesis for PhD
submission as identical to or very similar to writing for publication?
In my previous post (see below), which
was in part a response to Sarah's comments earlier about writing,
'serially' or 'holistically', I certainly see the thesis as similar as
regards 'quality of writing' as any other writing for publication ...
that is why I have been using my thesis experience to respond to this
seminar.
So far as content is concerned, and how a
thesis student is required to put together an argument, and by
examining/interpreting primary and secondary data and synthesising
that material, and working with and within a theoretical framework
while undertaking such an examination/interpretation, I think writing
for a thesis involves a journey into uncharted territory, and to the
extent that the student is involved in knowledge transformation
for themselves, with the potential for such a transformation, reported
at a level that communicates the possibility of knowledge
transformation to and for the field in which the study is conducted,
it may well be very different from other 'writing for publication'.
(And the difference is what Scardamalia and Bereiter call the
difference between 'knowledge telling' and 'knowledge transformation'.
[see my other post 'One other thing'])
In some research study situations,
getting the processed new primary data and interpretation/implications
information (involved in the thesis study) out to the field, as
quickly as possible, is part of the nature of the field of research,
so publication before examination (ie technical examination of the
thesis as a whole, for the relevant degree award) is
encouraged.
And in some universities, writing,
developed during and from practice experience, and published (in peer
referred journals) over a professional career, can be consolidated and
developed to represent a cohesive documentation that demonstrates the
development of the skills being recognised in the post graduate award,
and submitted for the relevant degree award process, even writing that
has been a joint enterprise (providing of course that the joint
authors can certify that you have contributed significantly to the
joint publication).
So, as well as using the conference to
tap the inputs from critical friends, writing the paper to which you
would be delivering a conference presentation, and having that
available for publication in the conference proceedings, or for
sharing with those interested in attending your presentation and
following up conferring about the topic, is a useful intermediate
exercise, and is again why Research support services recommend using
that device during the thesis study process to help a student build
those skills, have that exposure, develop the process of using
conferring to inform writing and writing to inform
conferring.
Does this help you understand where I
have been coming from, Sarah?
Dianne
Guidelines for granting HDR awards with an "Examiners’
Commendation for Outstanding Thesis"
- 48.
The following requirements must be met for a student to be eligible
to receive a Higher Degree Research (HDR) award with an "Examiners’
Commendation for Outstanding Thesis":
- a.
A student must be enrolled in one of the following courses:
- i.
A Masters by Research; or
- ii.
A Doctorate by Research; and
- b.
BOTH examiners must recommend a commendation because, in that
specific discipline, the thesis meets all three (3) criteria
listed below:
- i.
a contribution to the field of study that is exceptionally
innovative and original; and
- ii.
suitable for publication in an esteemed book or in refereed
journals of high repute; and
- iii.
this thesis is amongst the best presented I have
read.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011
2:40 AM
Subject: Writing with an eye to
publication - is writing a PhD thesis similar?
| Hi Dianne and Everyone,
I am intrigued - do you see the process of writing a
thesis for PhD submission as identical to or very similar to
writing for publication? I have never written a PhD thesis in
the sense I see you describing - the critical commentary for a
collection of 18 publications I submitted
which was mistakenly examined as a conventional thesis
(and it gained the highest quality non acceptance grade
despite that - i.e. please tweak and resubmit!) was not
intended by me for publication. There were 18 public works in
it - several of them peer reviewed papers published in
academic journals and books but the process for my writing the
review of my publications was different from writing for
publication per se. Obviously, the critical review was never
published as examiners were not located in the (3) years
before I de-registered
The general structure of a submission for publication can
usefully follow the outline for a thesis for PhD submission, I
agree - introduction/background; literature review; method
& methodology; findings; discussion & summary,
conclusions plus agenda for future study.
Apologies for my delay in replying - I have been walking
the walk! Completing my second chapter for the SAGE Handbook
of mentoring and Coaching in Education, I am co-editing,
Looking forward to hearing from others on our list about
writing for publication - any ideas?
Best regards
Sarah
Sarah Fletcher Convenor for BERA Mentoring and
Coaching SIG. Further details at
http://www.bera.ac.uk --- On Wed, 2/23/11, Dianne
Allen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From:
Dianne Allen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: Using MERLOT Re: Welcome to Writing with an eye to
publication
To: "Teacher researchers' list for the
mentoring and coaching Special Interest Group"
<[log in to unmask]>, "Sarah Fletcher"
<[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, February 23,
2011, 9:13 PM
Sarah, and others
interested,
While I was engaging with my supervisors,
during the thesis process, one
remarked that I write to
find out what I think. I found that
feedback
helpful.
How does that fit with what I
have been sharing so far ....?
First of all, the
thesis process is, I take it, part of the journey into
the
unknown.
So, compared to other writing 'for
publication', there are elements of 'the
unknown' that
the thesis writer will be dealing with, as they write.
To the
extent that it is still unknown, until the process
of writing helps reveal it
to the author, you cannot plan
it. In that phase you simply have to write
it:
write it out, write it up. What structure might suit
you best, for that,
will probably vary from person to
person. Then, because the thesis is
essentially an
argument, and the final product for publication is
the
argument, as tightly and as cogently, with enough
evidence, of the relevant,
to substantiate the claims
being made, the material developed in the first
iteration
will need to be recast, and restructured.
It is often
then recommended that one of the other tools that can help
the
writer develop their text, and argument, is the
attendance at, and
presentation of parts of the thesis
to, a live audience, otherwise known as
the
conference. This is where Francis Bacon's comment
of "Reading maketh a
full man; conference a ready
man; and writing an exact man." comes in handy.
And where
part of Brian's advice, about having inputs from
appreciative, but
informed and able to assess/critique
and contribute 'friends' can help him
meet some of his
list of tests.
Another tip, from another involved in
supervising thesis work was: read, read, read and write,
write write ... and (you can guess the next bit!) read,
read, read, and write, write, write!
A further tip
was, where you have an overall structure for your thesis,
write the introductory paragraph for each part. Then,
and as time goes by, revisit and re-write that introductory
paragraph.
I would add to that: from time to time
stand back from your draft, and deal with it as if it were
someone else's work and you were asked to summarise
it. Summarise that, and ask yourself, if I were to put
that summary up, as my introductory paragraph, what would
the text that was to follow now need to look
like?
Dianne
Sent: Tuesday,
February 22, 2011 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: Using MERLOT Re:
Welcome to Writing with an eye to
publication
Last week, I described how my
thinking style influences & is influenced by
my
writing as I prepare to draft a paper for publication and
how it differs
from a friend's style. Coincidentally, I
have come across a passage in
Phillips and Pugh (1993)
How to get a PhD, Open University Press that
cites
research by Lowenthal and Watson (1977) describing
a similar distinction.
(p. 58) In a study of 170 academic
staff members, they identified two types
of writers whom
they termed serialists and holists. 'Serialists...
see
writing as a sequential process in which words are
corrected as they are
written and who plan their writing
in detail before beginning to write.
Holists... can only
think as they write and compose a succession of
complete
drafts. In fact I think my style of writing for
a publication overlaps
between serialism and holism as I
often plan my writing in detail before I
write & I
also write complete drafts.
Best
regards,
Sarah
PS I came across this quotation
today. "A clever person solves a problem. A
wise person
avoids it." Albert Einstein. I like it as it communicates
for me
why starting from a problem in action research can
be problematic and why
starting from strength works - the
main reason why I have shifted from using
a living
educational theory approach to an appreciative inquiry one
in
researching my learning and assisting teachers to
research their learning. I
was increasingly aware of
getting hooked into solving 'problems' rather
than
thinking creatively and playfully. I find if I am
'stuck' when writing
trying to solve why and work out
what to do can engulf my creativity. If I
step aside from
looking at why a draft doesn't work and look for
the
sections that do work for me and do communicate what
I want essentially want
to write about, I redraft my
paper with much more energy, motivation and
attention.
Spurred on by a feeling of achievement I am much more
prepared to
cut out or do a major rethink of sections
that don't
'work'.
|
|
|