Understanding Current Theory, Discoveries, and Debates 77
What a mistake! First, few people, anywhere in the world, will be as familiar as
you are with the basic ideas. Who else has spent years studying this same combina-
tion of topics and questions? Second, although their readers, the examiners, may be
assumed to be generally familiar with the field of the work, they will not necessarily
be expert. If there are two examiners, often one will be chosen because of familiar-
ity with one aspect of the work, and the other examiner because of another aspect.
If there is an examination board, some may be chosen because of their experience
rather than their knowledge, and all examiners are chosen more for their academic
credentials and ability to judge critical thought than for their detailed knowledge.
Critical thought will include, among other things, a clear, open-minded attitude to
existing thought on the topic, rather than a tendency to rigid judgments.
So, don’t ever assume that the examiners will know most of what you have
learnt during your project, and that you have to discuss only the remainder that you
believe is innovative and challenging. As I said at the start of this chapter, think of
the old ‘you’, and what you knew before you got started on this particular research
topic. That is the person your background is to be written for.
A related issue is that you need to learn to write defensively. That is, if you think
something might trouble an examiner, then address it. If they might confuse your
topic with some other similar but fundamentally unrelated topic, help them by ex-
plaining the distinction.
Defensive writing, though, requires a certain amount of mental gymnastics. It
means that you have to ask questions like, ‘If I were a reader, and I read this care-
lessly, or I didn’t really know the background literature, then what mistakes would
I make?’ And then you need to change your thesis to help the reader avoid these
mistakes. But, as in so many things in research, the exercise of forcing yourself to
take a different perspective—of trying to see your work from someone else’s point
of view—can be highly productive. It is particularly valuable when you are trying
to shape the context, but is useful for every part of your thesis.
Understanding Current Theory, Discoveries, and Debates
Examiners will be sensitive to instances in which major contributions are neglected,
or their significance downplayed. Summarize their contributions completely and hon-
estly. But remember also to point out how these other studies may have advanced the
discipline. For example, one student of mine, Raymond, had a tendency to write about
all previous papers as in one of two classes: a few papers were insightful, ground-
breaking, and of critical importance; the rest were, in his view, more or less misguided,
confused, foolish, or wrong. He often failed to see how they made useful contributions
(perhaps in a context that was now outdated, which however does not mean that the
work was invalid), possibly because of a lack of appreciation of the fact that much re-
search is incremental. At times he almost seemed to want to be a giant-killer who was
bringing down the inflated reputations of esteemed researchers. The net effect was
that his criticisms could seem inconsiderate and harsh, that is, they lacked balance.