creates misleading expectations amongst readers, or imperils
the intellectual coherence of their doctorate. Long early sec-
tions, written in their beginning years, are also frequently
scattered with hostages to fortune, calculated to alienate exam-
iners. Sloppy critical judgements or superficial treatments in
these chapters are often not reappraised later on, partly because
the student’s own accumulating research experience and expert-
ise may no longer relate to them closely.
The implications for readers are equally unfortunate.
Experienced PhD examiners are inured to slow-starting theses.
They will usually page through opening literature review chapters
quite quickly, not expecting to see much that is not already thor-
oughly familiar. But if they get 80, 100 or 150 pages into the
thesis (or even 200 pages in some instances) without meeting
any value-added material at all, their patience will typically
begin to wear thin. They may begin to question the originality
of a thesis with so much secondary analysis included and to
wonder if it really meets the standard for a doctorate. Students
often imagine that readers will closely scrutinize their small
critical comments and discussions in early chapters and ascribe
them far more importance than they actually will. To get a
more realistic view, think about how you approach books in
your own field. Most of us are quite cynical and critical with
new stuff, prepared to ‘gut’ books for their real value-added
elements. We are also initially rather sceptical of accepting
authors’ judgements untilthey have established their credibility
as original researchers. Readers of PhDs are no different. They
will tend to see your secondary analysis commenting on other
people’s work as pretty lightweight or dispensable until you
have established your own credentials as an original researcher.
At an early stage in the thesis they still have no reason to take
you seriously, or to believe that your criticisms are grounded in
an awareness of research realities.
When readers do eventually reach the author’s own research
materials in the focus down model, their narrowness or detailed
specificity may seem quite disappointing after the wide sweep
of work and flashier intellectual themes initially discussed. And
the speedy wrap-up ending to the thesis, inadequately linked
back to the introductory themes, may leave readers asking ‘so
what?’ and struggling to work out what they have learned from
58 ◆AUTHORING A PHD