114 9 The Discussion or Interpretation
part of our brain is paramount, because we still have to compare the results of our
own work with what we might have expected from existing theory to see what new
ideas will emerge. Starting to write is, therefore, stepping into the void. Students
often try to start their discussion in this way: they thrash around with a hodge-podge
of undifferentiated thoughts in their heads, hoping that something will turn up. Yet
we know that we must argue the discussion very tightly to convince the reader that
the conclusions we draw at the end of the thesis are sustainable. This conflict must
be resolved.
A related, and surprisingly common, problem is that some students are reluctant
to state a definite view. Randall was uncomfortable writing down judgments on
other people’s work, although he was relaxed about making criticisms of the same
work in our weekly meetings. ‘What if they disagree?’ he would ask. ‘What if I
offend them? They won’t be happy if my work contradicts theirs.’ This reluctance
even extended to stating his own conclusions, because he did not want to be seen to
assert that his work was better than other people’s—yet most of us would see this
as the whole point of doing research!^1 Part of the problem was lack of confidence
in the rational processes he had followed. (Another problem was a tendency to be
excessively deferential to more senior researchers.) The first step to addressing this
problem was to clearly identify what the conclusions were, and then to gain confi-
dence that they were correct.
I advocated in Chap. 4 that you resolve the creative-logical tension by compos-
ing a rational structure for the thesis that will get you systematically from the aim to
the conclusions. Once this structure is in place, you then start to flesh the argument
out, giving the creative part of your brain free rein. Your writing might require that
you modify the structure, or you might leave the structure intact and modify the
argument. You have set up a fruitful dialectic. I also noted that you can use exactly
the same technique when writing individual chapters. Each chapter must have an
aim and conclusions, and you must structure the chapter in such a way as to get you
logically from the aim to the conclusions. In most chapters it is not too difficult to
do this, because you know what the conclusions are before you start to write. How-
ever, in this chapter research is still in progress, so you’re not sure what the conclu-
sions are. Therefore you can’t design a structure that will enable you to reach them.
I’ve heard the discussion chapter explained by analogy with painting. Through-
out your research, you have been close to the detail of the work (creating and touch-
ing up individual elements, standing right in front of the canvas), tightly focused
on individual items. When you come to the discussion, you may be looking at the
whole for the first time; it is as if you had returned to your painting after a break,
and are now gazing at it from a few metres away, with an opportunity to assess and
describe its strengths and faults as a complete work.
This is probably the part of your thesis where it is most important that you
show your ability as a critical thinker. Examiners are particularly impressed by
(^1) Randall was another example of a kind of research personality I mentioned earlier, with a re-
luctance to bring work to that final point where it could be refereed or examined; to complete
something. In some students this is a striving for an unnecessary perfection or completeness—for
example, a perception that because the work has opened up new questions then it is unfinished.