Deciding on a dissertation format: Considering the implications of a PhD by publication

Tags

publishing, research writing, thesis by publication

By Liezel Frick (Stellenbosch University, South Africa)

Professor Liezel Frick is a colleague in the Special Interest Group that focuses on doctoral writing. She has long considered the dimensionality of the candidate and their text and adds South African experience to our generally Australasian perspectives.

Unlike the traditional monograph style of thesis (a collection of sequential chapters, each reporting on a specific aspect of the project in a linear fashion), a publication-based format has greater variation in form. For example, it may consist of an introductory and conclusive chapter that explain the logic of the dissertation, and a number of publishable and/or published works that may include articles, book chapters and/or published conference proceedings (see Mason and Merga, 2018 for a multitude of options this format might take on), or a hybrid of the above-mentioned formats (see Odendaal and Frick, 2016 for a conceptual frame on this hybridity).

Often students do not have (or feel they have) control over deciding on the format of their doctoral dissertation – institutional policies, disciplinary practices, and supervisor preferences may govern their decisions. The publication-based doctorate is gaining more impetus internationally and across disciplines, yet both students and supervisors are increasingly being confronted by this choice without having the necessary pedagogical knowledge or tools to make an informed decision.

In addition, the forces that drive the push to publish have not always originated from the noble intention of developing PhD students into responsible scholars. Adherence to quality assurance mechanisms and addressing slow and low completion rates at the PhD level underlie many managerialist policies and practices. However, what is often not explicit in these debates is whose interests are primarily served by publishing during the PhD – institutional stature and ranking, the supervisors’ academic credentials, or the scholarly development of the student?

Advertisements

Thinking about writing a thesis by publication? Some reasons for and against

Tags

article-based thesis, compilation thesis, thesis by publication

By Cally Guerin

 While the thesis by publication is very common in some disciplines and in some national doctoral systems, debate continues to rage about this model. On the whole, I’m in favour of the article-based/compilation format reporting on research done during candidature, but with some important caveats. Here I outline some reasons for and against presenting doctoral work as a series of publications.

Take your time – or get to the point?

Tags

academic publishing, genre, thesis by publication, writing style

By Cally Guerin

I’ve had the opportunity to read lots of interesting papers written by doctoral students and colleagues lately, as well as reviewing journal articles. As I work through the various pieces of writing and line them up against each other, the styles used in different genres are clearly evident. This is especially noticeable when a paper doesn’t quite produce what one would expect of that genre. One of the challenges for any author working across a range of genres is adapting one’s own style to suit the current writing task. In particular, I’ve been noticing a tension between the more leisurely, discursive manner of a thesis, and the brisk pace of the journal article that needs to get to the point much more quickly and efficiently.

Having started my academic life in the world of feminist literary criticism, I find I’m drawn to the style of writing that takes its time to unpack each point of the argument in detail. But I’m torn between that and wanting to get to the main point quickly – like everyone else, I’ve got a lot of other stuff to read too! If the idea can be expressed adequately in 5 words, then why use 15 to make the same point? And too often, it seems that those extra 10 words are padding formed from empty jargon that poses as ‘intellectual’ but doesn’t really say much at all.

I think the ability to write in different genres (thesis, journal article, book chapter) is one of the difficult challenges facing doctoral students, who are expected to understand the differences of genre in quite nuanced ways in order to pitch their work to different audiences and different outlets. I’m very much in favour of the thesis by publication, and advocate that format most of the time. For those who plan to work in universities or in research institutes that require publication in academic journals, there are great benefits in learning how to write articles, and how to negotiate the reviewing and publishing process. Most will only need to write a thesis once, but will need to know how to write articles repeatedly during their research careers.

But just lately I’ve noticed a sneaking feeling forming deep beneath my general conviction that thesis by publication is mostly helpful. I’ve been wondering what might be lost along the way if the traditional thesis format is abandoned. Where else does one have licence to follow through on the fine detail of intellectual thought, to expound at length on a complex theory, or to work through the digressions and tangents that surround the core ideas?

And there are some very good reasons why we don’t always want scholarly work to be constrained by the demands of contemporary publishing practices, of tight word restrictions imposed by journals, or the costs of printing hard copies within the traditions of how many pages the existing machinery can bind together. Not everything can be fitted into such tight spaces; not all writing needs to be quite so dense. Maybe this represents one area in which inexpensive publishing in electronic media becomes so important in disseminating extended excursions into intellectual thought—a few more pages (maybe even quite a few) might not cost much more, but allows for the longer discussion of an idea. This extra space could apply to longer journal articles just as much as to books that otherwise would not find a publication outlet.

Perhaps this all points to the strengths of a PhD thesis format that allows for a combination of published papers and the more conventional framing chapters (sometimes referred to as a ‘thesis with publications’ or ‘hybrid’ – see Jackson 2013; Sharmini et al. 2014). Here the big introductory, context-setting chapter allows for more extensive philosophising on the topic. That’s the place to take up the more leisurely style of careful unpacking of big ideas. But the shorter, neater, more concise representation of the findings can be found in the article-length chapters forming the middle of the thesis.

This preference for different kinds of writing might also mark a tension between scientific and humanities writing. There’s obviously a place for the beautifully crafted sentence in science writing – and certainly, poetry can find a place in science – but it doesn’t always have to take a lot of words to get there!

 

What’s it worth to you? Awarding authorship percentages

Tags

author order, co-authoring, joint authors, thesis by publication

By Cally Guerin

In the process of writing a paper with a group of colleagues recently, I was reminded of the complexities of assigning authorship. In particular, the question came up regarding who had done the most important and/or the most difficult work.

Some felt that the original concept for the research was most important; others claimed that research design was the challenging part; another felt that organizing the data collection and actually collecting some results was key; yet others believed the analysis of that data mattered most; and for others, framing all that empirical data in the relevant literature and locating it in the current debates in the field was what took creative imagination and lots of background reading and preparation.

These issues are pertinent to doctoral candidates writing joint-authored papers in theses by publication. At my university, a statement detailing who did what must be signed by all authors for any co-authored chapters written as journal articles (whether or not those chapters have actually been published yet). This is sometimes fairly straight forward if there are only the supervisor and candidate to be named. In other situations, where to draw the line on who contributed what gets considerably murkier.

There are some guides to working this out. The Australian Code of Conduct for Responsible Research states that:

Attribution of authorship depends to some extent on the discipline, but in all cases, authorship must be based on substantial contributions in a combination of:

• conception and design of the project
• analysis and interpretation of research data
• drafting significant parts of the work or critically revising it so as to contribute to the interpretation.

It is possible to think that this means the three elements listed are of approximately equal importance, though there are plenty who wouldn’t agree.

The Vancouver Protocol makes it clear that legitimate authors must participate in all stages of

• conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data

AND

• drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content

AND

• final approval of the version to be published.

But these codes and protocols tell us more about who should be included, rather than how big their contribution might be (‘substantial’ is not all that helpful when it comes to disputes over percentages of contribution – everyone might think their work counts as ‘substantial’). It seems that some researchers still place greater value on some elements of the project than others do.

Suzanne Morris has made a very valuable contribution to this discussion. Her tool, Authorder, goes a long way towards working through these more complex questions – although it does require that all authors cooperate in finding agreement on what percentages they are willing to assign to the full range of tasks undertaken in writing a paper. While it is not prescriptive in terms of what tasks to include in the list, nor the percentages that ought to be assigned to each task in the process, Authorder is a wonderful instrument for guiding what can sometimes become a rather difficult discussion.

I love co-authoring papers, and have learnt a huge amount about writing from everyone I’ve written with – how they approach their research, tips on everything from ethics applications to database searches, and the writing processes that they find useful. Part of this learning includes discovering where other authors place the value and importance in their writing.

What are your experiences of co-authoring? When it comes to getting credit for your work, what should you be rewarded for? What takes the most time? What is valued most? Are all parts of the project and writing equally important for getting a paper ready for publication? It would be really helpful to hear more from others about the complexities of this area of doctoral writing.

Journal article or book chapter?

Tags

research profile, risk-taking in writing, thesis by publication, writing book chapters, writing journal articles

by Cally Guerin

In the context of trying to find out more about theses by publication, I’ve been reflecting on where doctoral students might place their publications. What are the differences between the genres of journal articles and book chapters in edited collections? Are these differences significant, and if so, how? If we are to support doctoral candidates in their writing, it can be useful to have thought through the different opportunities these genres offer, especially if we are advising students to publish their research.

It seems to me that, in Educational research at least, writing for peer-reviewed journals places different constraints on what we might write about, and how we might go about it. When sending something off for double-blind review by a journal, I notice that I’m more inclined to ‘play it safe’. It seems that one must be able to please any possible reader imaginable, as there is no control over who might be asked to make a decision about the article. This means the paper often ends up taking the form of a traditional ‘scientific’ paper reporting on empirical research, and using the IMRAD structure mentioned in my last blog. Even so, I can’t seem to keep the results and discussion separate in qualitative research! It just doesn’t seem to make sense in the kind of writing I do.

In contrast, book chapters in edited collections seem to be places where one can take rather more risks. Book chapters allow more space for reflection on bigger ideas than journal articles, and a little more licence to be more adventurous in the approach to the topic. Perhaps this is partly because, again in Education research, the essay form is more common in book chapters than in journal articles. As part of an edited collection, these chapters don’t need to stand alone in the way that articles usually do, even in special issues; rather, they sit alongside other chapters exploring closely related issues. This often allows for some cross referencing between chapters, either by authors or the editors, so that each chapter doesn’t need to say absolutely everything on the topic, and the ideas can expand out beyond the individual chapter. In this situation, a quite distinctive, personally inflected contribution can be valued for the facet that it adds to the composite whole. It also seems that those reviewing the chapter, the editors and possibly other contributors to the collection, are likely to be a more empathetic readership in terms of their interests and concerns. I’m not suggesting that this necessarily makes it an easier option, but it does feel less like writing into the black void of the unknown.

Pat Thomson makes a good case for the advantages of book chapters, but there is some debate about the usefulness of articles vs chapters in terms of citations and profiling (see Kent Anderson in ‘The Scholarly Kitchen’ and Deevybee in ‘BishopBlog’). While these arguments against book chapters may become less and less valid as e-books become more visible through standard search engines, doctoral candidates should at least be aware of these other elements in the equation. If they are thinking about a thesis by publication or publishing from a more traditional thesis format, concerns about building a research profile and becoming known in the field might play into these decisions.

What’s your experience of writing in these two contexts? Do you find that you write much the same, regardless of the type of publication, or do you find yourself modifying your approach? Is this because of the audience you anticipate for the different genres? And what advice should we offer doctoral candidates considering these options as part of a thesis by publication? All suggestions gratefully received!

Leave it in or delete it? Dilemmas in writing the research story

Tags

delete from thesis, research story, thesis by publication

by Cally Guerin

Increasingly I find myself reminding students that a thesis doesn’t have to report on every single thought the researcher has had for the past 3 or 4 (or more) years of candidature. Sure, it is very valuable to include descriptions of null responses or negative results from experiments – this is certainly interesting to those working in that particular field and provides helpful information for other researchers in the area, sometimes closing off possible paths that are now known to be unfruitful. It can also be very useful to report on problems that arose during the project which changed the direction of the research. Such insights can demonstrate critical thinking on the part of the candidate who not only encountered problems along the way, but who also found innovative solutions.

What gets left out is sometimes as important as what is left in the thesis, however. Not everything that has been read needs to be included in the literature review; indeed, critical thinking is demonstrated in part by being discerning, by choosing what is relevant and important to the discussion, rather than offering up a grab-bag of all that vaguely touches on an area. Staying focused on one central line of argument, maintaining a strong sense of direction and not going off onto irrelevant tangents, makes for good research writing, as does the capacity to delete sentences that, however beautifully written, move off in a different direction. Likewise, a scholar must choose what is usefully included in the final telling of the story of the thesis.

I use the word ‘story’ deliberately to imply that this is one version of events that has been carefully constructed and crafted to present a coherent account of the research process. I like Rudestam and Newton’s (2001) description of a well-written thesis containing many of the elements of detective fiction: a mystery in terms of a research question that requires answering; clues that take the form of data collection; the elimination of incorrect answers or red herrings encountered along the way. The thesis doesn’t necessarily have to follow the chronology of events as experienced by the researcher – just because delays were experienced in starting one part of the project doesn’t mean that the story must follow precisely the same sequence of events. Readers need a coherent story about those events that adheres to its own internal logic in order to understand the value and integrity of the research itself.

Perhaps this is as good a place as any to make a plug for the thesis by publication. This form is often rather leaner than traditional format theses (though not necessarily meaner!). I think that thesis by publication offers one way to help students stay focused on what is interesting and useful to the reader. Writing with the audience of journal reviewers in mind can be a valuable aid towards being a little more objective about one’s own writing; having a strict word or page limit can also focus the mind on what really needs to be included. Using the format of a journal article encourages researchers to hone in on what’s new and important, and to recognise what is assumed knowledge at this level.

Does this resonate with your own experience? As examiners, what do you want to see left out of theses? As supervisors and writing teachers, what do you find yourselves saying to students on this topic? And as PhD candidates, where do the struggles occur over what to leave out?

Rudestam, K.E. and Newton, R.R. (2001) Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process. 2nd Edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.