46 4 Making a Strong Start
each of the three topic areas. By doing this, Martin could see which topic could be
reasonably sustained in the time allotted for his Masters degree, and that he would
not be able to tackle all five topics or even just the three he was interested in doing.
He had to focus and discipline his thinking, and understand the constraints of the
type of thesis he was trying to complete.^1
In a research project for a higher degree it is entirely normal to revise an aim,
narrow or expand the scope of the study, or discover that you may need fewer chap-
ters than you initially envisaged. As you work your thinking becomes more so-
phisticated and you gain confidence and authority in your area. Because of this, I
suggest that you look over your introductory chapter on a regular basis. Change a
word here or there, check and refine the statement of the aim, add or delete limita-
tions to the study, and think about the overall structure. By doing this, you are likely
to keep track of how you yourself are changing your thinking along the way, as
opposed to being surprised that you have ‘moved on’ from your original somewhat
naïve perspective. When your examiners read your thesis in a single sitting they will
be impressed that the study has remained focused and has not drifted from start to
conclusion.
Without focus, it is likely that you will never reach a critical appraisal of the
literature. Your treatment of the background material will appear haphazard as it
swerves from issue to issue in an attempt to cover a lot of ground. Examiners look
for depth of understanding, not a superficial grasp of a wide range of topics.
The Creative Process
Once you start the writing itself, allow the creative side of your brain to work
through the argument for you. When you have finished writing for the day, save
what you have written. Then go to bed, and sleep on it (the very existence of this
expression is evidence that our unconscious thought processes keep working even
when all rational thinking has been switched off). Your first task the next day is to
look at the chapter outline, then read the chapter as it stands. As well as picking up
typographical and grammatical errors you will readily see the results of the tension
between creative writing and rational structure. If you find that they are at odds, one
of them must give. Either your original rational structure was wrong, in which case
(^1) A research fellow who worked for me, who already had a PhD, had a similar problem. He would
start work on a tightly defined problem, working to a particular paper submission deadline, and
would quickly achieve his initial goals. However, in the process he would identify new issues, and
set out to resolve them to make sure the paper was ‘complete’. Pretty soon the scale of the work
would expand to a PhD, or more, and he would have so many doubts in his original, strong result
that he couldn’t publish. That is, the moment he achieved something—no matter how innovative
or useful or surprising—he would race on to supersede or invalidate it, and as a result never had
anything he was comfortable reporting. I have no idea how his PhD supervisor managed to get
him to submit a thesis! In 2 years working for me, he produced a massive amount of work but no
papers. Working to constraints is a key element in being an effective researcher.