Description
Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:Review the articles by Lindsay (2015); Lee, Chang, and Bryan (2020); and Klocko, Marshal, and Davidson (2015) located in the Topic Resources.Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments.Write a paper (1,250-1,500 words) that synthesizes the Lindsay (2015); Lee, Chang, and Bryan (2020); and Klocko, Marshal, and Davidson (2015) articles. Your paper should include the following:An introduction that provides an engaging opening statement as well as introducing and providing context for the topic: Researcher Skills. Provide a clear thesis statement at the end of the introduction.A topic sentence for each theme that connects the theme to the topic. Support the theme with evidence from each article. Synthesize your discussion of the topic to support your thesis statement.A conclusion confirms your thesis statement, briefly summarizes the main points from your three themes, and makes recommendations for future research on the topic.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Teaching in Higher Education, 2015
Vol. 20, No. 2, 183–196, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.974025
What works for doctoral students in completing their thesis?
Siân Lindsay*
Department for Learning Enhancement and Development, City University London, London, UK
(Received 7 February 2012; final version accepted 4 September 2014)
Writing a thesis is one of the most challenging activities that a doctoral student must
undertake and can represent a barrier to timely completion. This is relevant in light of
current and widespread concerns regarding doctoral completion rates. This study
explored thesis writing approaches of students post or near Ph.D. completion through
interviews. The study’s aim was to highlight factors identified by participants as
helpful or hindering thesis writing. The analysis revealed ‘helpful’ factors were related
to students’ intrinsic behaviours and supervisory support, particularly support that
adopted a ‘project-management’ style. Additionally, a subgroup of participants
discussed the merits of a continuous-writing approach which is further explored in
this paper with reference to the notion of writing to develop knowledge; this is
recommended for timely Ph.D. completion.
Keywords: doctoral; thesis; writing; Ph.D.; student; supervisor
Introduction and rationale
This study set out to identify, explore and understand the positive and negative factors
that can directly or indirectly enable doctoral students to write their thesis in accordance
with the recommended completion time for Ph.D. study at a UK university. The findings
presented are derived from interviews with doctoral students who were completing, or
had just very recently completed their doctoral programme. Two relevant theoretical
frameworks in the area of Ph.D. study were used to underpin the design and analysis
stages of this research, namely that of Latona and Browne’s framework for predicting
timely completions (Latona and Browne 2001) and Lee’s concepts of doctoral research
supervision (Lee 2008). The findings are examined to argue the case for a continuous
thesis-writing model, with reference to writing as a knowledge-producing activity
(Wellington 2010), and should prove applicable to most doctoral programmes in the
UK and beyond.
The rationale behind this study originated from conversations with five Senior Tutors
for Research (STR) to initially understand the impact factors that affect the rate of
progression and completion of Ph.D. study. Most STRs admitted that the Ph.D.
completion rates in their school or department were not ideal. When asked why, all
STRs talked about the writing up of the thesis as a phase which represented a major
stumbling block for Ph.D. students. In English doctoral programmes, writing up of the
thesis is typically the last major activity that a Ph.D. student does before the viva voce
examination (the ‘live voice’ examination whereby a doctoral student must successfully
*Email: [email protected]
© 2014 Taylor & Francis
184
S. Lindsay
argue and defend their thesis). ‘Writing up’ of the thesis is usually a highly concentrated
task during which no further research or data collection is undertaken. Based on the
perspectives of the STRs, this study therefore sought participation from doctoral students
who were writing or had just recently written their thesis in an attempt to understand what
enables or hinders this decisive stage of doctoral study.
Brief review of the literature
Doctoral completion rates and times-to-completion have been an ongoing concern for
higher education institutions (HEIs) across the world (Elgar 2003; Park 2005), despite
different countries adopting different programme structures. In the USA, for example,
doctoral students must undertake oral exams prior to being permitted to start writing their
thesis, and after passing these are called ‘ABDs’, meaning ‘All But Dissertation’.
Doctoral students in the UK are encouraged to write their thesis continuously throughout
their study prior to their viva voce examination. However, in reality thesis writing is
frequently seen as ‘a mopping-up activity at the end of a research project’ (Richardson
1998, 345). In recent years the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)
has published research degree qualification rates (RDQRs) for HEIs in England, for both
full-time and part-time Ph.D. students studying for the recommended period of time of 4
and 7 years, respectively. The RDQRs are used to positively discriminate English HEIs
for funding if they achieve timely completions. In addition to their financial impact,
doctoral completion rates are also important to consider for their impact on students’
emotional, mental and financial well-being.
During the last 20 years, various studies have focused on situational factors and
characteristics of doctoral students, using these as indicators of timely completions. Many
of these studies have used quantitative research methods to identify the following factors
that can have an impact on completion rates: discipline of study (Elgar 2003; Park 2005;
Wright and Cochrane 2000), gender (Martin, Maclachlan, and Karmel 2001), mode of
study (Rodwell and Neumann 2008), age (Park 2005) and whether home or overseas
(Park 2005). In 2001, Latona and Browne published a literature review examining such
studies and suggested that impact factors associated with the completion of research
higher degrees fall into one of three categories: (1) institutional/environmental; (2)
individual supervisory arrangements; and (3) student cohorts and characteristics (Latona
and Browne 2001). Whilst useful as a starting point for analysis, focusing on situational
factors may be problematic, with Manathunga (2005) arguing that some of these studies
are contradictory and may promote a risk-analysis approach amongst HEIs in selecting
students for doctoral study. Focusing on situational factors in this way also ignores the
larger, complex picture of the doctoral journey, especially when nearing the end.
Some studies have tried to identify key stages in doctoral study where Ph.D. students
are most at risk of attrition or are more susceptible of not completing. Lovitts and Nelson
(2000) suggest that attrition happens early on, with more than one third of doctoral
students leaving during their first year of study. Interestingly, little work has been done to
focus on the writing up phase of doctoral study as a critical point in leading to on-time
completion, or if it represents a significant risk leading to attrition. This is surprising since
writing up is a fundamental component of the doctoral journey, as Kuther explains: ‘The
dissertation is often the most difficult academic requirement a doctoral student faces;
many students exhibit delay in completing it’ (Kuther 1999, 1). Lee and Aitchison (2009)
argue that capacity-building for writing pedagogy is crucial as writing remains ‘neglected
Teaching in Higher Education
185
as a central component of doctoral education’ (87) and ‘problems and struggles with
writing can be seen as an impediment to efficient completion’ (89). Yet students are often
left on their own to learn the rules of writing according to the styles and nuances of their
particular academic discipline (Lee and Aitchison 2009), with Ph.D. supervisors
assuming that their students are able to write their thesis appropriately (Johnson, Lee,
and Green 2000). A study by Wellington (2010) explores the affective domain in the area
of doctoral student writing to show that the intrinsic feelings of students can impact their
approaches to writing and so need to be acknowledged. Wellington adds that the notion of
writing up as a detached phase of doctoral study should be rejected, and writing should be
viewed as a way of developing knowledge rather than just ‘knowledge telling’
(Wellington 2010, 148). Linked to this is the central message to Murray’s self-help
guide for Ph.D. students entitled How to Write a Thesis (2011) – Murray recommends
that students write their thesis from the start of their Ph.D. and throughout their research,
and advises a model of continuous writing that she terms ‘serial writing’ in which the
thesis is written in instalments, meaning that writing occurs regularly and with clear
intervals between instalments. Serial writing allows the writer to work to a pattern that
ideally suits their working and social environment, with the latter sustaining the writing
process and not undermining it. Further, Murray argues that serial writing is ‘critical for
the development of our thinking through writing’ (Murray 2011, 179).
In terms of completing on time, several studies have acknowledged the integral role
of the Ph.D. supervisor (Lovitts and Nelson 2000; Seagram, Gould, and Pyke 1998). A
few studies such as that of Bargar and Mayo-Chamberlain (1983) highlight the
importance of supervisory support for the essential activity of thesis writing, offering
recommendations such as encouraging students’ initial efforts, withholding criticism (in
the beginning) and undertaking a critical analysis of the writing throughout. Murray
(2011) builds on this and argues that supervisors should motivate their students to start
writing their thesis and to maintain writing throughout their research, highlighting the
mistake that some supervisors could make if they suggest deferring writing until the end
of the project.
In terms of approaches to Ph.D. supervision, these have been explored widely in the
literature with Lee’s eminent 2008 study that identified a framework for five concepts of
research supervision:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Functional: supervisors encourage a rational progression through tasks
Enculturation: supervisors act as ‘gatekeepers’ to their students becoming a
member of the disciplinary community
Critical thinking: supervisors challenge their students to question and analyse
their work
Emancipation: supervisors act as mentors, supporting their students to develop
themselves
Developing a quality relationship: supervisors use emotional intelligence to
enthuse and care for their students
It is interesting to hypothesise the approach that supervisors may take to support their
students as they write their thesis, as little has been published in this area. One might
expect that a critical thinking approach would feature strongly, as a thesis essentially
forms an argument that must show evidence of careful consideration and analysis.
186
S. Lindsay
A review of the literature has found that few studies have focused exclusively on the
student experience of thesis writing to identify factors that students believe enable or
hinder the process and subsequently may have an effect on doctoral completion rates.
Furthermore, little has been done to explore the approaches that doctoral supervisors may
take as their students embark on thesis writing. The purpose of this study was to fill these
gaps in knowledge.
Methods and data analysis
Institutional context
This qualitative study was undertaken at a London university in the UK. The university
has a large population of international postgraduate students, where 15% are from
European Union (EU) and 30% are from outside of the EU. The university ranks fourth
and tenth largest in terms of numbers of postgraduate taught-, and postgraduate researchstudents, respectively, in relation to 40 universities and HEIs in London.
Research approach
This study was undertaken using a case study approach, in the form of eight semistructured interviews with currently registered doctoral students who were actively going
through or had very recently gone through the experience of writing up their thesis.
Because case studies are typically small in the number of participants involved, there are
limitations in terms of how strongly any conclusions can be applied to a wider
population. However the merits of a case study approach lie in the richness of data that
can be gained from in-depth discussions and analysis of the data, which was felt to be
essential in helping to answer the research question. To circumvent the limitations of the
approach, selection criteria were applied to sample participants and as much as possible
avoid large deviations in the data. Therefore this study did not ask former doctoral
students for their insights to avoid problems of memory bias. Only currently registered
doctoral students in or beyond their ‘writing up year’ were approached. Within the
student records system at the university, the ‘writing up year’ is defined as year 4 of Ph.D.
study for full-time students, and year 7 of Ph.D. study for part-time students. Some Ph.D.
students do start writing up earlier than is required, whilst others choose to defer their
writing up year if they require more time to research. Doctoral students who are writing
up are no longer deemed ‘research active’ by the university and pay (often reduced)
write-up fees to remain registered as a Ph.D. student. Writing up doctoral students who
had recently withdrawn, or who had recently passed the viva voce examination were
excluded from the research sample to avoid overly negative or overly positive
experiences from skewing the study’s findings. Based on these selection criteria, the
resulting population was 183 doctoral students in or beyond their writing up year.
Approximately 15% of these (i.e. 30 students) were selected at random and sent a
personalised email inviting them to participate in the study. The email briefly set out the
purpose of the study, which was followed up with a more in-depth explanatory letter prior
to interview. Participants were told that their experiences would be used to help enhance
and inform the support mechanisms for future Ph.D. students. It was anticipated that
students having a particularly difficult experience of writing their thesis might view an
interview as akin to a ‘talking therapy’ session and their experiences might disproportionally represent problem cases (as described by Manathunga 2005). To avoid this, the
Teaching in Higher Education
187
invitation text was written in a neutral way, being careful to equally appeal to students
that had had or were having positive and negative experiences. Over a 4-week period
following the email invitations, 10 doctoral students offered to participate, though the
eventual number of interviews carried out reduced to 8 since 2 students withdrew from
the study.
Prior to undertaking the interviews, ethical approval was sought and granted by the
university’s ethical approval committee. This ensured that participants were fully aware
of its purpose and intended benefits, its intention to maintain their anonymity, keeping all
data pertaining to them secure, and clearly setting out their right to withdraw at any time.
Informed consent was gathered for all students prior to the interview. Further, students
were contacted by telephone prior to interview to ensure that they were comfortable with
the types of interview questions that were to be asked. Writing up can be a stressful
period for some doctoral students and it was important to ensure that the interview
questions asked did not exacerbate this stress.
Study participants
Eight doctoral students volunteered to participate in semi-structured interviews and their
details are shown in Table 1. Pseudonyms have been used to protect identities. Most
students interviewed began their Ph.D. study on a full-time basis, with two students
(Natasha and Sofia) transferring to a part-time mode of study during the research/data
collection stages of their study, both for financial reasons. Six students had also only
recently completed their viva voce (within the past 6 months or less). It is interesting that
most students had also completed their Ph.D. study within the recommended period of
time as required by the university and by HEFCE (4 years for full-time students and 7
years for part-time students). The amount of time it took for the students to write varied;
Table 1. Participant details.
Name
Status
Jennifer
Tom
FT
FT
Natasha
Evan
FT then
PT
FT
Lilly
Samantha
Sofia
Luke
TTC
TTWU
Funded?
4 years
10 years
9 months
5 years
6 years
4 years
N/A as writing
continuously
8 months
Self-funded
Self and
department
Self and
department
Self-funded
FT
4 years
8 months
Self-funded
PT
FT then
PT
PT
7 yearsa
7 yearsa
2 yearsa
N/A as writing
continuouslya
7 months
Self-funded
Self-funded
7 years
Self-funded
In employment during
thesis write-up?
No
Full-time employment for
5 years
Part-time employment for
6 years
Part time employment for
3 years
Part time employment for
3 years
No
No
Part-time employment for
7 years
FT, full-time; PT, part-time; TTC, time to completion (from start of Ph.D. until viva voce examination); TTWU,
time taken to write-up thesis; N/A, not applicable.
a
Indicates still writing thesis during time of interview.
188
S. Lindsay
some took as little as 7 months, others as long as 5 years, with the median length of time
being around 8–9 months. Two of the students interviewed had written their thesis on a
continuous basis. All Ph.D. students interviewed were self-funded, with 2 also receiving
financial support from their department. Four students were international, which helpfully
reflects the proportion of international postgraduate students across the university as a
whole. The students interviewed were from a variety of departments within the Business
School, the School of Arts and Social Sciences and the School of Health Sciences. Five
of the students were in some form of employment (part-time or full-time) during their
writing up year.
Data collection and analysis
The data from this study was derived from semi-structured interviews with 8 doctoral
students, where a total of 11 questions were asked. The first 7 questions were quantitative
in nature, with yes/no, numeric, list-option answer types, whilst the remainder were
designed to be more open-ended and in keeping with discourse about doctoral student
completions, using the help/hindrance scale by Kluever (1997) and Latona and Browne’s
(2001) framework for predicting timely completions to guide question design and/or act
as prompts during the interview. Questions were designed to focus dialogue and doctoral
student reflections towards the writing up stage of their Ph.D. study.
The semi-structured interviews were recorded on an mp3 recorder and transcribed
by the author. Thematic analysis was carried out on interview transcripts using Latona
and Browne’s 2001 framework of three groups of influences for predicting timely
completions (institutional and/or environmental; individual supervisory arrangements;
individual intrinsic). A further category of ‘individual factors (non-psychological)’ was
added based on Wright and Cochrane’s (2000) literature review to initially guide
identification of the themes. A random first transcript was analysed and used to
identify initial themes which were categorised as either ‘helping’ or ‘not helping’.
Subsequent analyses of the other transcripts added to the themes identified. Then,
common themes were re-analysed and differentiated according to their correlation to
Latona and Browne’s framework. Supervisory support themes were further analysed
in relation to their connection with Lee’s five concepts of doctoral research
supervision, namely: (1) Functional (supervisor acts as project manager); (2)
Enculturation (supervisor provides gateway to academic culture); (3) Critical thinking
(supervisor encourages student to think for themselves, solve problems); (4) Emancipation (supervisor as a mentor); and (5) Relationship development (supervising by
experience, developing a relationship with student which is exhibited by high
emotional intelligence; Lee 2008).
Research findings and discussion
Themes emerging from analysis of the interview data are shown in Table 2, where each
theme was grouped according to whether it enabled or hindered the doctoral thesis
writing up process. In the individual supervisory category, themes were further analysed
in relation to Lee’s concepts of doctoral research supervision.
Teaching in Higher Education
189
Table 2. Factors that enable or hinder thesis writing.
Enabling thesis writing
Institutional and/or
environmental
factors
Individual supervisory
arrangements
Individual factors
(non-psychological)
Individual intrinsic
factors
. Support from student’s own
department in terms of:
○ Providing adequate space
and resources for writing up
○ Reiterating key message
to write-up continuously
throughout study
. Peer support and encouragement,
peer review of thesis
. Supervisor exhibiting a
supervision model which is
predominantly functional/project
management-focused, and further
enhances the supervisor–student
relationship.
. Emotional and financial support
from family and friends
. Being in part-time employment
. Motivation
. Organisation
Hindering thesis writing
. Lack of wider institutional
support
. Negative peer pressure
. Supervisor exhibiting a
supervision model which
lacks functional/projectmanagement, emancipation
and relationship development
concepts
. Difficulty in balancing Ph.D.
around family and work
commitments
. Lack of motivation
. Lack of organisation
How institutional and/or environmental factors impact thesis writing
Natasha and Sofia were the only doctoral students interviewed who said that they had
written their thesis on a continuous basis. Natasha attributed her approach to the support
she received from her head of department:
my head of department gave a few talks to us and I remember he said ‘make sure you write
as you go along and write it with methodologies because … by the time you finish it, you are
going to forget’ … I really appreciated this advice … that bit of writing up made such a
difference at the end … I had quite a bit of work done, maybe a third of the thesis more or
less done. (Natasha)
Sofia chose to write on a continuous basis as her department did not encourage her to
move to writing up status until she had ‘a whole draft of everything’.
Unlike Natasha and Sofia, all the other students interviewed had left their thesis
writing until their final year, and clearly demarked research/data collection from the
writing process. Wellington (2010) supports this finding, arguing that the notion of a
‘writing up phase’ still prevails amongst many doctoral students and some universities,
including the university pertaining to this study. For example the central university
student records system categorises doctoral students on the basis of their status as
‘research-active’ or ‘writing up’, with further reinforcement of this categorisation by way
of tuition fee differentials, with writing up doctoral students paying less. Combined with a
relative inconsistency of message regarding continuous writing up across different
departments, it is little wonder that students remain confused and unsure about the writing
up process. Evan explains:
190
S. Lindsay
there was a lot of uncertainty (about the writing up process) … and that kind of fed through
to the students because if staff didn’t know what they were doing in terms of how our study
was structured then how were the students ever going to know? (Evan)
De Valero (2001) has recommended the provision of thesis-writing workshops where
with their peers, doctoral students can discuss their results, share concerns and receive
peer feedback. Findings from this study suggest that workshops like these might be a
good idea for institutions to organise – Lilly, Luke and Evan described the support they
received from their peers as they were writing their thesis, with Evan making use of
online messaging tools:
there were lots of late night chats over the internet: ‘oh what do you think of this sentence?’ or
‘does this sound right because I can’t tell anymore what it sounds like, does it make sense?’ So
there was lots of that and that kept you going because you knew you weren’t in it alone. (Evan)
Yet Jennifer, who progressed very well with her Ph.D., remarked on the negative
atmosphere she felt when she was around her peers:
So there was a lot of (from her peers) ‘how did you manage that?’ and ‘how have you
finished so quickly?’ … it felt like praise, but it wasn’t really … it was like almost veiled
criticism … almost like other people were holding me up as an example of ‘you can tell us
how you did it’. So I spent a lot of time trying to … get away from people saying ‘can you
read this for me’. (Jennifer)
Jennifer’s experience may reflect the fact that she had an excellent relationship with her
supervisor which enabled her to confidently progress in her studies, whereas the others
who depended on their peers had a moderate or less favourable relationship with their
supervisor (Lilly in particular).
Concepts of doctoral supervision during thesis writing up
Most of the doctoral students interviewed had a good to moderate relationship with their
supervisor(s). Due to rapid staff turnover in his department, Luke was supervised by four
different supervisors, which each time caused temporary setbacks in his progress. However
he was ‘saved’ by his final supervisor who worked hard to update herself with Luke’s
research, advise him on what aspects he needed to finish to move onto writing up, and
supported him whilst he wrote up his thesis. Lilly had by far the worst supervision experience
of all students, whereby her relationship with her supervisor was practically absent:
he facilitated me I would say, and that’s probably the full scope of his support. So he ticked
boxes, he signed forms; he got me through the hoops for the University. But he wasn’t too
good on emotional support and he was non-existent in any kind of academic input! … it is
hard to get that sense of confidence in your own work and conviction, because part of this
business is disseminating it and I’m trying to, but on my own … that’s the sadness … that he
(Lilly’s supervisor) didn’t lift a finger to try to help. (Lilly)
Jennifer appeared to have the most ideal relationship with her supervisor, and frequently
spoke highly of him and the support he gave her especially during the writing up process.
Most students identified the importance of their supervisors acting as ‘project
managers’ in terms of chasing up the thesis, and giving final say on when they believed
Teaching in Higher Education
191
their student’s work was ready for writing up or submission for the viva voce. This
approach aligns closely with the ‘functional’ concept identified by Lee (2008):
I saw my supervisor and I said to him, ‘look this is what I have got, I am going to stop at that
point, what do you think?’ And he said to me, ‘go ahead … you know you have enough …
put a full stop here and start writing up’. (Natasha)
she also made me aware of the fact that it’s (the thesis) is not quite there yet … having the
supervisor present throughout the writing up process … checking up on you and following
things through making sure you are on the way … that’s really crucial. (Luke)
Doctoral students also identified the importance of their supervisors providing ongoing,
relevant, constructive and timely feedback on thesis drafts. Students preferred feedback
which was meaningful and encouraging, and also showed that their supervisor believed in
their ability. This supportive approach enables students to develop themselves as
academic writers and is closely aligned to Lee’s mentoring or ‘emancipation’ concept
of supervision:
My first supervisor gave petty remarks … on grammar and sentence construction, stuff like
that … it just left you feeling very negative and … that they weren’t necessarily getting the
bigger picture. And then my second supervisor … she gave copious notes of feedback … it
made a difference … she didn’t mince her words either, which is a bit soul destroying at
times, but I suppose you need that … fact that her feedback was really targeted and you knew
what you needed to work on rather than just kind of an overview of a chapter was great.
(Sofia)
I just have to say that she was absolutely brilliant because she was very critical but very
supportive at the same time and I think that’s a really important balance … also she reassured
me about the quality of my work because, in the last stages you think is it rubbish? Is it any
good? Is it original? (Luke)
All the doctoral students interviewed remarked on the quality of their relationship with their
supervisor and how this was sustained as a critical factor for success in thesis writing:
my supervisor relationship was fantastic; I was really chuffed when I got allocated my
supervisor and we just really clicked, and he realised that I was quite autonomous and he was
quite happy for me to just run with it, as long as I kept him up to date. (Jennifer)
Well first of all that is why I went to this University because of John (Samantha’s supervisor)
… he is internationally well known and a very good person too … he has been really helpful
in setting up conference calls to allow us to chat on a regular basis. (Samantha)
In her 2008 paper, Lee argues that a supervisor may demonstrate a range of conceptual
approaches, yet students may only experience one or two of these. In support of this and
in relation to thesis writing, the findings here suggest that the functional, emancipation
and relationship development concepts dominate, whilst the concepts of enculturation
and, somewhat surprisingly, critical thinking, appear less important or are not used, at
least from the doctoral student’s perspective.
Individual but non-psychological factors
Five of the 8 doctoral students interviewed credited the emotional understanding and
support they received from family and friends whilst writing their thesis. Lilly reflected
192
S. Lindsay
on stories of perseverance and determination in her own family to inspire her to keep
going, whilst living up to the expectations and pride that her family had in her was a
critical motivator for Jennifer. Evan also appreciated that his friends understood why his
social life had to be placed on hold as he focused all his efforts into writing.
Prior to this study, discussions with STRs had indicated that financial support during
the writing up phase might be a key indicator for on-time completion. However, all of the
students interviewed were either self- or self- and department-funded, five of the 8 were
in some kind of paid employment and so most did not identify financial help during the
writing up phase as an important factor. Only Samantha acknowledged that without the
financial support of her husband she would not be in a position to complete her Ph.D..
Interestingly, all the students working in part-time jobs found that rather than being a
hindrance, their employment enabled an anchor to the outside world and provided a
useful schedule around which to write their thesis:
I find the work that I am doing … very inspiring even if it doesn’t directly relate to what I’m
writing … in a way it also gave a sort of framework that I’m working on Wednesday,
Thursday and Friday, so I have to get this done by Tuesday. (Luke)
it (work) broke things up … I did have something else I was focusing on during the week; it
wasn’t just the thesis … that did help. (Evan)
However, Tom, who started working full-time during the writing up stage, explains that
full-time employment was detrimental to his progress:
Well the first time I started writing up I believe it was spring 2005, and then I dropped out of
it somewhere in winter 2006. By that time I’d started to work so that’s when the troubles
started creeping up. By spending too much time at work … I just didn’t push myself in doing
it (the thesis) at all. (Tom)
Factors intrinsic to doctoral students that enable or hinder thesis writing
All students interviewed talked about their own behaviours that helped (or hindered) them
in writing their thesis. These behaviours were analysed and then themed under the
broader processes of ‘motivation’ and ‘organisation’ as shown in Table 3. Doctoral
students were motivated to write their theses when they demonstrated determination,
goal-setting (and self-rewarding), endurance and believed in their writing abilities.
Conversely, students lacked motivation to write if they felt doubtful, uncertain,
overwhelmed, apathetic or tired. Tom’s apathy emerged from his cynicism of Ph.D.
research in that he could not see its value and applicability in the wider world. Some
students such as Jennifer also admitted to perfectionism in hindering the thesis write-up,
whereas Luke claimed his writing ‘phobia’ was the reason for his delay in writing when
in fact he was procrastinating. Perhaps unexpectedly it was found that none of the
students interviewed expressed any notion of f
