when chapters 1 to 4 are already pretty well defined. Generally
speaking, writing chapter 5 when all you have to look at are dis-
parate parts of (say) chapter 3 and chapter 6 is going to be a
much more difficult proposition. But on the other hand, writ-
ing up your thesis so that its chapter sequence just records what
research you did, in the order that you did it, can produce very
incoherent structures, which cut across or obstruct the current
organization of your argument and thought. Getting to a bet-
ter, designedchapter structure often influences how good your
doctorate is.
In this chapter I look at three different ‘cuts’ into the prob-
lem of organizing the component parts of your thesis into a
storyline. The first way of looking at the issue focuses on the
relationship of the whole and the core in your thesis, the
core being the most value-added bits, the sections where you
make a distinctive contribution to scholarship or research. The
second cut looks at the choice between ‘focusing down’ or
‘opening out’ in the overall sequencing of materials. How you
sequence elements often influences the weights which you give
each component of your thesis, in terms both of text space and
of research and writing time. The way that you make these deci-
sions can affect readers’ view of your work and your own effec-
tiveness as an author and researcher. The third perspective
focuses on choosing a strategy of explanation from a limited
number of options. At the broadest level, there are actually only
four possible ways of expounding your materials in creative
non-fiction writing. Each of these options has its attendant
advantages and disadvantages.
The whole and the core
There are two things to be considered with regard
to any scheme. In the first place, ‘Is it good in
itself?’ In the second, ‘Can it be easily put into
practice?’
Jean-Jacques Rousseau^3Anyone planning a long text needs to think logistically for a
moment. Leave aside the intellectual issues of what substantive
44 ◆AUTHORING A PHD