starting position. They conducted their analysis clearly and
incisively to show hidden layers of causation or meaning or
complexity resolved by their approach. There was never any
muddle or confusion in their research process, beyond that
generated by the clutter or indirection of earlier researchers’
misguided ideas, which was soon decisively cleared away. The
authors were never at a loss for explanation, but rather had a
confident understanding throughout, which led to their strong
value-added conclusions. They were sure that their path-breaking
work would be appreciated and would now be taken up and
referred to many times by future scholars. They conclude with
some modest words about the agenda for future research in the
aftermath of their contribution. This research article myth is a
potent beacon for professionals across all the social sciences,
arts and humanities. It is what people almost always aspire to
reproduce in writing a journal paper. More worryingly, it is an
established pattern which most editors and referees tacitly
demand should be followed religiously in the structure and for-
mat of submitted papers, if they are to be successful in getting
accepted.
The reality of doing research and publishing papers is quite
different, for the most senior professional academics as much as
for PhD students. Most new research starts out as an itch, a
vague discontent with an accepted answer or a dissatisfaction
with what has already been written. Authors develop a paper
driven most by a career urge to get something into print and
onto their CV, or a drive to get some professional recognition, or
a desire to express their differences from or belonging to some
group or school of thought. After a lot of chopping and chang-
ing in its direction, the paper lurches off the ground in a highly
unsatisfactory preliminary form on the author’s PC. The basic
idea is next given in university workshops or seminars, only to
be criticized by even the author’s friends. After a lot of rewriting,
and many false starts, the author has something more credible
and decides to devote some scarce research time or even scarcer
sabbatical to the chosen theme, perhaps also searching for a
grant or funding support to meet the costs involved. The actual
in-depth research period proves confusing, demoralizing and
difficult. The sources or evidence are not there, or the data resist
all explanation, or the analysis which the author expected to
242 ◆AUTHORING A PHD