The character sketch of the sample of exemplary dissertations reveals that there appear to be seemingly endless ways of writing a dissertation. Describing exemplary dissertations is useful for generating some broad characteristics of each of the core components, as well as showing the many ways in which candidates go about writing particular components. It does not, however, reveal a conclusive pattern across the sample that can explain why the variation occurs – i.e. it has no way of making sense of the principles underpinning these choices. Therefore, in an attempt to move away from preconstructed categories and writing classificatory systems, what results from inductive description is an endless list of the many choices available to candidates.
Despite this, however, using the inductive schema to divide dissertations into core components is a useful starting point to reconceptualise the dissertation as active parts rather than ‘wholes’ that abide by the same rules throughout. This allows for flexibility to account for what candidates actually do, rather than imposing a set of assumptions and relatively fixed rules on doctoral writing. However, in order to sufficiently engage with the diversity and complexity of doctoral writing, a way of understanding which can look beyond what candidates write about and rather analyse the organising principles that give rise to the myriad choices, is needed. The remainder of this thesis provides such an understanding using select concepts from LCT.
5. CONCLUSION
This chapter has attempted to ‘return to basics’ by starting with the definition of a doctorate, as stated in policy and university rule books. Working from these criteria, it has considered how thesis-writing guidebooks advise candidates on how to write the dissertation, as well as more theoretically-informed literature that contradict much of this advice. The insights gained from this literature revealed how many common-sense assumptions are created by oversimplifying dissertations on the one hand, and imposing prescribed writing systems on
dissertations on the other. An inductive character sketch description of the sample of exemplary dissertations revealed that these assumptions often obscure features of dissertations – including both what features get included and how these parts of the dissertation are written.
In an attempt to move away from preconstructed categories and assumed ‘norms’ of dissertations, the chapter developed a schema for doctoral writing based on examinable criteria and the inductive description of the sample. This allows for dissertations to be reconceptualised in terms of their ‘core components’ and provides a starting point to understand the complexity of doctoral writing. The chapter also revealed, however, that in order to make sense of the variation evident within the schema, specific analytical tools from LCT, which can analyse the bases of the knowledge-building practices, are needed.
Drawing on the dimension of Specialization, Chapter 6 provides an analysis of the overarching strategies candidates use when constructing the core components outlined in the schema. In particular, it uncovers some generalizable principles that form the bases of the knowledge- building practices that give rise to the diversity evident in the sample. This more macro analysis is then extended in Chapter 7 and 8 where Semantics is used to provide an added level of ‘analytical zoom’ to analyse the knowledge-building practices enacted in the ‘constructing findings’ component in more detail. In analysing the organising principles of knowledge- practices, the analyses presented in the remainder of this thesis provide the foundation for pedagogical implications of doctoral writing to be established.
CHAPTER 6
STRATEGIES FOR DEMONSTRATING KNOWLEDGE:
Unpacking the schema
1. INTRODUCTION
Chapter 5 provided an overview of the characteristics a doctoral dissertation must exemplify in order to be awarded. From national and institutional policy as well as thesis-writing guides, the chapter identified a set of generalised requirements for a doctorate, including:
• making an original contribution to a field;
• demonstrating sufficient acquaintance with the literature of the field; and • using appropriate research methods.
Despite dissertations often being represented in thesis-writing guidebooks and literature on writing as relatively straightforward, stable entities, the initial review of the sample of 25 exemplary dissertations used in this study showed that there are seemingly endless ways to fulfil these requirements. The overview also revealed that this variation was not necessarily informed by discipline or even subject area.
This chapter attempts to start to make sense of this seemingly endless variability so that a foundation for pedagogic and research implications can be established. It does this by focusing on the five ‘core components’ inherent in doctoral dissertations, as identified in Chapter 5, including:
(i) establishing a rationale for conducting the research (ii) explaining the phenomena being studied
(iii) explaining how the phenomena were studied (iv) constructing findings, and
(v) demonstrating an original contribution to the field.
How candidates ‘speak’ to each of these core components differs vastly. For instance, ‘sufficient acquaintance’ with ‘appropriate’ methods may be demonstrated by using a sophisticated quantitative methodological tool or by using qualitative methods. Within
qualitative studies, a theoretical framework could be used to inform the methodology and analysis, or the study could adopt a hermeneutic approach. Studies may foreground the use of a specific approach (such as a specialist method or theory) as an ‘appropriate method’, while others may foreground their own lived experience as giving them the authority to understand particular phenomena. These myriad choices cannot be accounted for with ‘cookie-cutter’ or ‘one-size-fits-all’ rules, hence the general requirements. This is both a necessity, as requirements need to accommodate diverse forms of disciplinary knowledge-building practices, and it is a conundrum, as there is no clear direction for new candidates to follow or practical insights to inform doctoral writing pedagogy.
This chapter uses Specialization to analyse the organising principles that give rise to the myriad different ways of writing doctoral dissertations – as presented in the sample of dissertations used in this study. The analysis presented here is thus purposely theoretically driven as it is intended to generate pedagogic foundations. While the use of theory is argued to be necessary to analyse the knowledge-building strategies used within each core component, the components themselves are inductive. The aim of the analysis presented in this chapter is therefore less about revealing what candidates write about in terms of content (i.e. the focus of the text), and is more about why they have written in particular ways (i.e. the basis of the text). Adopting this aim the theory is able to reveal and articulate generalizable techniques that candidates use across subject areas and disciplinary fields, rather than producing a further list of endless unique features according to preconstructed categories.