Writing a dissertation: Lessons learned
Riebschleger, JoanneWRITERS AT WORK
Abstract
An author with a new doctorate shares lessons learned about writing a dissertation. Lessons include (1) there are few sources to guide one on how to write a dissertation; (2) it is easier to critique research than to create research; (3) dissertation writing is an evolutionary communication process; (4) criticism is good; (5) dissertation writing produces a product; (6) hypotheses rule and methods matter most; and (7) less is more. Additionally, the author asserts that (8) writing for dissertation is an apprenticeship experience that prepares one for writing for publication.
FOR THE LAST 2 1/2 YEARS, I have been writing my dissertation; it is just recently completed. During this experience, I learned a few things about dissertation writing. From an "insider" perspective, this is a summary of those lessons.
This article is for doctoral students who are sweating over another draft of a rising pile of discarded dissertation drafts while considering if it would be more fun to wash walls and clean closets. My own personal draft discard pile rose to 31/2 feet. The walls and closets should have gotten cleaned, but I forced myself to write instead. Within the prolonged writing effort, I have learned that there are few sources that guide one on how to write a dissertation; that it is easier to critique than create; that dissertation writing is an evolutionary communication process; that criticism is good; that dissertation writing produces a product; that hypotheses rule and methods matter most; that less is more; and that the dissertation writing experience is an apprenticeship.
Lesson 1: There are few sources to guide one on how to write a dissertation. There are written guides for what to put in a dissertation, and there are guides for surviving the dissertation process (Newman, Benz, Weis, & McNeil, 1997; Rudestam & Newton, 1992). There also are guides for reference and bibliography formats (American Psychological Association, 2001). Every university provides a detailed list of overall dissertation formatting requirements which one must meticulously follow. Additionally, the informal network of former doctoral students gives ongoing advice that is sometimes paranoid, and sometimes practical, for example, to have "lions" for committee chairs (versus more timid animals), to expect to be "beaten up" verbally in a defense hearing, to have a writing schedule, to set specific dissertation goals, to expect to give the committee members anything they want, etc. While I found that each of these sources was a contribution to my dissertation development, none of them told me how to write a dissertation. When I sat in front of a blank computer screen- they did not tell me how to construct the sentences, what to include or exclude in a paragraph, how to write the hypotheses, or what to emphasize in the draft.
Further, my own innate love of writing was not at all helpful in the dissertation writing process. In my experience, the dissertation writing process was often tedious, and the statistical analysis was often magically exciting-the opposite of my early predictions. I grew up writing stories at the age of 6, for example "Ollie the Otter," and poetry in my teen years, such as, "At night, by candlelight, the lioness and I have ruled the world ... alas, time has depleted what the sun has obscured." Even today, I feel elation at reading about the creative process of writing described as "my job-my itch, urge, dream, hobby, entertainment, prayer-is to tell stories on paper ... that inform and move their readers, and that is what I do to shoulder the universe forward two inches" (Doyle, 2000, p. 44).
When I was writing the dissertation, I was frequently bored with the terse style of dissertation writing. Subject-verb-object-period. Subject-verb-object-period. Subject-verb-object-period. My creative flair had failed to prepare me for this writing style. Nonetheless, subject-- verb-object sentences-terse, dense, and rapid-were the style required to relay the "what" of the content, to survive the stages of the dissertation, to serve as the text within the required document formats, and to negotiate the paranoia and practicality of the process. In other words, subject-verb-object sentences got the job done.
Lesson 2: It is easier to critique research than to create research. The doctoral course work prepared me well to critique research journal articles. I could quickly find disagreement between statistical outcomes and discussion/recommendations. Low sample number and nonexperimental designs were easy fodder for criticism. I was suspicious of one-tailed t-scores, low statistical power, missing theory, statistical procedure assumption testing, new standardized tests, and sampling procedures. "So what?" I would say aloud, to articles that offered no practical social work implications. These research method critique skills were most helpful in writing the limitations of my dissertation, a section which spanned three of the 227 pages.
The research critique skills were often a barrier to writing the dissertation, especially during the formative stages of document development, i.e., the prospectus and early dissertation drafts. Generation of ideas for research led quickly to cognitive leaps of research limitations. Acknowledgment of the limitations made me fearful to proceed. It held me up in the writing process for a good 6 months. Especially fear-invoking were those pages of checklist questions for analyzing a research study that were so helpful for the qualifying examination. I would apply the checklist questions to my sketchy ideas of a research study and feel bombarded by deficit and doubt. I strongly suspect that newfound capacity to critique research is a barrier completion factor for people who never leave the All-But-Dissertation state.
Only after I was forced to create research and to accept the necessity of research limitations, was I able to understand the long pauses and discouraged looks of my research methods professors, when my doctoral colleagues and I voraciously attacked a piece of research. My message for doctoral students: Be prepared to live with research limitations. Put the research checklists away for a while. Be kind to yourself; it is hard work to create research.
Lesson 3: Dissertation writing is an evolutionary communication process. While some doctoral dissertation guides touched upon the fact that dissertation writing is a process, they did not explore this concept in enough depth. In writing my dissertation, I learned that the dissertation production is a long series of communication behaviors; it is an ongoing, dynamically changing evolution of explanations, negotiation, compromise, and sometimes, capitulations. It is necessary to work and rework the writing to make things clearer. There is much questioning and defending of one's conceptual assumptions to support the infrastructure of the research. Committee members don't always agree or understand things the same way. They may advise one to proceed in ways that are incongruent. It is a delicate maneuver to relay the input of one member to another in such a way that all are reasonably satisfied.
One piece of advice from the informal network that did help me was this, "Remember, this is not just your work. It is the work of the committee." This saying made even more sense when the dissertation document began to turn in unanticipated directions or new, puzzling (to me) requirements were added. They helped me deal with a natural tension within the writing process-independence versus dependence. While the dissertation process requires much independence and self-directed behaviors (see wall and closet cleaning versus writing), one is operating within the confines of a sometimes remote group of directors/editors. At times, it is necessary to yield to the wishes of those who mentor sporadically, and from far distances. Communication helps one negotiate this wieldy process.
Lesson 4: Criticism is good. An important lesson of my dissertation writing process was that committee members who provided more feedback, including more negative feedback, often helped me the most. It was not easy to hear that the latest draft had many weak areas, inconsistencies, and repetitions. While these exchanges were certainly a communication process phenomenon, I think it was a sufficiently important lesson as to stand alone.
People who are willing to negotiate the process of doctoral education are often perfectionists, people with strong ideas, and people with histories of academic success. They may not be used to receiving negative feedback within academic settings. Only after I observed the visible positive improvements in my subsequent drafts, was I able to view negative feedback in the context of helpful. After that, I sought it without hesitation. The lesson I learned that doctoral students may wish to heed is this: Criticism is a good thing. Put your feelings aside, listen with an open mind, and write another draft as directed.
Lesson 5: Dissertation writing produces a product. Although the completion may take longer than one hoped, and the process of the writing tends to consume our lives, there is an end stage to the dissertation; there is a final manuscript. I found I got so lost in the process of writing a dissertation, that I somewhat forgot there was an end product. You work and work and work, and one day it is done. You look read it over and say to yourself, "This research isn't too bad. I'm kind of proud of it."
Although much of the dissertation-as-product factors have been detailed in dissertation writing guides and the informal advice network, here are the ones that helped me the most in generating my final dissertation manuscript product: Write your drafts in the university-required dissertation format. The sequencing layout required by your chair/committee may differ from the sequencing layout described in dissertation writing guides. There is no such thing as too much proofing. Make a few attractive, concise charts-but not too many. Define everything. Use the exact same construct and variable terms throughout the manuscript. Be theory driven. Write for audience clarity. Stick to short, declarative sentences. Write as much as you can in the least amount of space. Try to write an idea, conclusion, etc., only once. Back up your work and keep a hard copy. Date every draft the moment it comes from the printer. Number all the pages all the time. Have a statistician check your work. Limit quotes. Eliminate metaphors, case examples, and similes; they work well in practice literature, but are often viewed as unnecessary material in dissertation writing. Contact authors of scales and important background literature; these individuals are often helpful and usually reply quickly.
Lesson 6: Hypotheses rule and methods matter most. I learned that the content of the dissertation needs to be directly tied to the research questions, as described within hypotheses constructs, theory, and background literature. This may appear to be obvious for doctoral students educated in scientific method critique who may be tossing their heads and saying "So what? I know that already," but what I am trying to say is that in real life dissertation writing, it is a pain fully difficult, page-by-- page, decision-by-decision development sequence. I found I had to keep a copy of my hypotheses and research questions in a visible spot on my desk and use them as a constant reference for decisions about what to include in the dissertation.
There is an ongoing strong tension between inclusion and exclusion of material. This is particularly complicated because by the time one gets to the point of writing a dissertation, one knows a good deal about the topic. Since hypotheses are a reductionist synopsis of what is often a complex projected construct relationship, there is a natural urge to want to clarify main ideas with a more comprehensive point of view, for example, the nuances of studies and populations. To make inclusion/exclusion of material decisions even more difficult, your chair/committee is likely to want more information about other potential influences on the projected hypotheses relationship somewhere in the document. Thus, the dissertation needs to address nearly everything, but contain only the most salient material as guided by the hypotheses and the research questions. What worked best for me was: (1) a first step of cross-checking with the hypotheses and research questions (If it wasn't in there, I didn't include it); and (2) asking my committee chair/committee members their format preferences for handling additional explanatory material. They may want a separate section; they may just want a quick clarification on a point within the text.
The other lesson I learned about exclusion and inclusion of dissertation text material was that the chair and committee of a dissertation wanted detailed, explicit information within the research methodology section. Methods mattered most. It was necessary to spend much of writing effort detailing the population, sampling procedures, tests, and data gathering steps.
For example, one small deviation from sampling procedures from one group to another, driven by real life sampling realities, resulted in my writing detailed explanations (accompanied by t-tests and tables verifying there were no differences between the sample groups). Lest this is frightening to doctoral students in formative stages of the writing of a dissertation, don't-your chair/committee members will let you know what is missing (see criticism is good). Be prepared to spend a lot of time writing the research methods section.
Lesson 7: Less is more. While there is a good deal of explicit material on research methods, the overall thrust of writing for dissertation is that simpler is better. Less is more. Some of this may be apparent in my suggestions to stay with the same terms, to include only material salient to hypotheses and research questions, and to stick to short, declarative, staccato- type sentences, etc. For example, when I wrote about the "social constructions" of mental health professionals of families of people with serious mental illness, I could not try to make the document more interesting by switching now and then to "views" of mental health professionals.
Within the rewriting of the dissertation, I scanned every sentence for necessity within the document. If the sentence was necessary, I tried to find a way to make it shorter and denser. I checked to see if the concepts had been mentioned before; this was done to ensure I was writing the material only once. Unless I was writing a summary section, previously referenced material was usually deleted. Further, as one of my committee members said, "if it answers the research question, leave it in. If it doesn't, get rid of it" (see hypotheses rule).
The lesson I learned about writing for dissertation is that one must say only the most important things, for example, adopt a just-the-facts approach, within the least amount of space. It is helpful to imagine a reader quickly scanning your dissertation. In the few moments one is looking at your work, the reader will need to be able to understand as much as possible. Within this imaginary exercise, it is easier to resist the temptation to add more, and it is easier to try to reduce your manuscript to the simplest possible content.
Lesson 8: The dissertation writing experience is an apprenticeship. While some may view the dissertation writing as merely an academic rite of passage, I have come to view the experience as an apprenticeship. Writing a dissertation was a difficult, but valuable, onthe-job, mentored, skill development experience. Further, there is no substitute for hands-on learning. The truth is no guidebook or article on dissertation writing can really tell one how to write. At some point, one must sit in front of a blank computer screen, construct sentences, make decisions about what to include and exclude in the draft, and choose one's emphases.
However, I do believe that learning to write my dissertation was replete with lessons that are likely to serve me well in the academic environment. Writing for publication often requires (a) engaging in self-directed writing time, while following the writing style and format required by a particular journal; (b) describing one's research creation-a work that is sure to be imperfect; (c) using an evolutionary communication process within the development of the manuscript and subsequent drafts; (d) accepting criticism from reviews and editors; (e) producing a manuscript product; (f) organizing the content of the manuscript based on the main ideas-thus making ongoing decisions about inclusion and exclusion of written material; and (g) providing the most information within the least amount of space, as a service to your scanning readers.
This "insider" perspective of lessons learned during the writing of my doctoral dissertation is a summary of a whole lot of my own sweat equity. While it cannot reduce the necessary growing pains of the doctoral dissertation writing experience, it is hoped that the emphases herein provide practical (not paranoid) advice for those students engaged in the apprenticeship travail.
References
American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Doyle, B. (2000). A joyful humming. Notre Dame Magazine, 29(2), 42-44.
Newman, I., Benz, C. R., Weis, D., & McNeil, K. (1997). Theses and dissertations. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (1992). Surviving your dissertation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Joanne Riebschleger is assistant professor of sodal work Central Michigan University Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work 127 Anspach Hall, Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859; email: riebs1j@mail.cmich.edu.
Copyright Families in Society Nov/Dec 2001
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved