 |
| A poor and faulty starting point! (Photo credit: papertrix) |
From time to time PhDs are submitted and they are failed. Your 3 to 7 year investment does not come with any guarantee of a pass.
Nor is it enough complain that the supervisory team did not tell you that you might fail, or that you are at risk.
While failure is quite uncommon, there are no guarantees of success.
Most examiners are looking for positive evidence of success, but they are also
required to identify weaknesses and errors. Both roles comprise the
work of critical scrutiny and the professional process of examination.
On one occasion when I was serving as a PhD examiner we required major corrections with a 24 month timetable as that seemed to be the alternative to a failure. But the alarm bells ought to have been clear well before submission. Multiple errors and weaknesses may result in protracted re-submission or even outright failure.
On one occasion when I was serving as a PhD examiner we required major corrections with a 24 month timetable as that seemed to be the alternative to a failure. But the alarm bells ought to have been clear well before submission. Multiple errors and weaknesses may result in protracted re-submission or even outright failure.
Examiners often spot weaknesses that your supervisors may not have identified or scrupulously checked.
It is not uncommon for examiners to check the accuracy of all your sources, for
instance. Sometimes examiners will compete to find the most errors in your work!
Cumulatively minor changes are alarming because they point to a lack
of accuracy and a poor standard of professionalism. Even minor corrections many
involve months of tiresome (and expensive) checking of sources in overseas
research libraries, if that’s where you used unique texts ...
Here are some quick fix solutions to help you avoid the
dreaded F-verdict.
1. Original Contribution is the Key
Be clear about your original contribution to the body of
human knowledge. That’s what the doctoral qualification is based on. This does
not mean that you will not be heavily dependent on a collaborative engagement
with others and with past scholarship. But is does help you case if you are
able to outline what you have discovered that is new.
It’s not enough to create
patchwork, a new mix, or a mash-up. Therefore stress the unique contribution of
your work and be clear about which parts offer fresh interpretations or challenges
to the orthodoxy.
This does not mean that your work has to revolutionise the
entire discipline or field of enquiry. But you will need a balance between
humility and a realistic sense of what your achievements have been.
2. Errors in References, Footnotes and the Bibliography
These are the anchor for your work and the foundation for
professionalism. If you have maintained these accurately from the start then
your final preparation of your thesis will be stress free.
It is essential that
your format corresponds with that recommended by your institution, and that it
is consistent. Check punctuation and title formats in italics, publisher, place
and date of publication in the right order. If there are 12 or more mistakes
you may be in trouble.
Also check that you are using standard editions of key
works. Penguin Books, for instance, often modernise spellings and style,
whereas Oxford UP does not.
3. Fat or Thin Bibliographies
Don’t force feed a bibliography with stuff that you never
read or did not use. At the other extreme don’t just list the texts that you
worshipped as your guiding lights. Omissions suggest you did not read enough,
or that you are concealing your influences. On the other hand, unnecessary
additions suggest a forest of confusion; they are the vice of excess packaging.
4. Ideological shorthand and sleight of hand
A theoretical bag of tricks often appears to be essential
for the post-post-post-structuralist. Don’t mix and match schools of ideas and
concepts just for show, and don’t be shallow. Critical and theoretical terms
often have distinctive histories and traditions.
You might hang yourself by a loose use of deconstruction and
signifiers left hanging on inappropriate semiotics. Key
words and ideas require careful and consistent use. Sloppy and inconsistent use suggests
that you are unsure about the progression of your thesis.
5. The solution to the word/world/universe thesis
If your thesis is too big it may buckle under the pressure.
Don’t pretend that you can overturn a major scholar’s life’s work in 3 years'
scholarship. Unless your are blessed with genius and superhuman powers your
most original work will be achieved in your post-doc years.
6. Research sources need to show a chronological range
If you just rely on research undertaken since 2000 you may
well be losing vital evidence that supports the foundation and origins of your
work. You may miss minority or contested debates. Similarly, your work also
needs to show evidence that it is up-to-date.
Again, sweeping generalisations about
Descartes or Darwin, or Hegel or Derrida should be avoided. Be precise about
intellectual phases and developments and reference works and texts rather than
author summaries.
7. Avoid general statements that lack evidence
Scholars agree that ...
Many critics have proposed that ...
A minority of academics would disagree.
We need names and footnotes. Sweeping statements tend to
betray lazy scholarship. We need precision and we are looking for nuance and detail.
Demonstrate your familiarity with all relevant secondary critical texts by
footnoting and discussing appropriately.
8. Tell-tale signs of the rushed submission
Apart from the multiplication of errors relating to
accuracy, the obvious signs of a rushed submission will be evident in the style
of writing. The style is uneven, sometimes colloquial, often fuzzy. The lack of
lucidity and precision fogs the sense of your work. Baggy or half-baked
sentences stifle communication.
9. Heads and Tails
It is essential to write a solid introduction and a firm
conclusion. These require more careful thought, and more studious revision than
any other part of you work. They open and close the doors to success or
failure. Poor openings and endings suggest a lack of confidence or an unseemly
rush to complete against the clock.
Dr Ian McCormick is the author of The Art of Connection: the Social Life of Sentences
(Quibble Academic, 2013)
Also available on Kindle, or to download.
Also try: The Art of the Abstract.
A Quick Guide to Writing and Abstracts.
Dr Ian McCormick is the author of The Art of Connection: the Social Life of Sentences
(Quibble Academic, 2013)
Also available on Kindle, or to download.
Also try: The Art of the Abstract.
A Quick Guide to Writing and Abstracts.
No comments:
Post a Comment