Summarization of the two articles

AUTHOR: Joanne Riebschleger

TITLE: Writing a Dissertation: Lessons Learned

SOURCE: Families in Society 82 no6 579-82 N/D 2001

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is
reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited.

ABSTRACT

An author with a new doctorate shares lessons learned about writing a
dissertation. Lessons include (1) there are few sources to guide one on
how to write a dissertation; (2) it is easier to critique research than
to create research; (3) dissertation writing is an evolutionary
communication process; (4) criticism is good; (5) dissertation writing
produces a product; (6) hypotheses rule and methods matter most; and (7)
less is more. Additionally, the author asserts that (8) writing for
dissertation is an apprenticeship experience that prepares one for
writing for publication.

    FOR THE LAST 2 1/2 YEARS, I have been writing my dissertation;
it is just recently completed. During this experience, I learned a few
things about dissertation writing. From an "insider" perspective, this
is a summary of those lessons.

    This article is for doctoral students who are sweating over
another draft of a rising pile of discarded dissertation drafts while
considering if it would be more fun to wash walls and clean closets. My
own personal draft discard pile rose to 3 1/2 feet. The walls and
closets should have gotten cleaned, but I forced myself to write
instead. Within the prolonged writing effort, I have learned that there
are few sources that guide one on how to write a dissertation; that it
is easier to critique than create; that dissertation writing is an
evolutionary communication process; that criticism is good; that
dissertation writing produces a product; that hypotheses rule and
methods matter most; that less is more; and that the dissertation
writing experience is an apprenticeship.

    Lesson 1: There are few sources to guide one on how to write a
dissertation. There are written guides for what to put in a
dissertation, and there are guides for surviving the dissertation
process (Newman, Benz, Weis, & McNeil, 1997; Rudestam & Newton, 1992).
There also are guides for reference and bibliography formats (American
Psychological Association, 2001). Every university provides a detailed
list of overall dissertation formatting requirements which one must
meticulously follow. Additionally, the informal network of former
doctoral students gives ongoing advice that is sometimes paranoid, and
sometimes practical, for example, to have "lions" for committee chairs
(versus more timid animals), to expect to be "beaten up" verbally in a
defense hearing, to have a writing schedule, to set specific
dissertation goals, to expect to give the committee members anything
they want, etc. While I found that each of these sources was a
contribution to my dissertation development, none of them told me how to
write a dissertation. When I sat in front of a blank computer screen,
they did not tell me how to construct the sentences, what to include or
exclude in a paragraph, how to write the hypotheses, or what to
emphasize in the draft.

    Further, my own innate love of writing was not at all helpful in
the dissertation writing process. In my experience, the dissertation
writing process was often tedious, and the statistical analysis was
often magically exciting--the opposite of my early predictions. I grew
up writing stories at the age of 6, for example "Ollie the Otter," and
poetry in my teen years, such as, "At night, by candlelight, the lioness
and I have ruled the world ... alas, time has depleted what the sun has
obscured." Even today, I feel elation at reading about the creative
process of writing described as "my job--my itch, urge, dream, hobby,
entertainment, prayer--is to tell stories on paper ... that inform and
move their readers, and that is what I do to shoulder the universe
forward two inches" (Doyle, 2000, p. 44).

    When I was writing the dissertation, I was frequently bored with
the terse style of dissertation writing. Subject-verb-object-period.
Subject-verb-object-period. Subject-verb-object-period. My creative
flair had failed to prepare me for this writing style. Nonetheless,
subject-verb-object sentences--terse, dense, and rapid--were the style
required to relay the "what" of the content, to survive the stages of
the dissertation, to serve as the text within the required document
formats, and to negotiate the paranoia and practicality of the process.
In other words, subject-verb-object sentences got the job done.

    Lesson 2: It is easier to critique research than to create
research. The doctoral course work prepared me well to critique research
journal articles. I could quickly find disagreement between statistical
outcomes and discussion/recommendations. Low sample number and
nonexperimental designs were easy fodder for criticism. I was suspicious
of one-tailed t-scores, low statistical power, missing theory,
statistical procedure assumption testing, new standardized tests, and
sampling procedures. "So what?" I would say aloud, to articles that
offered no practical social work implications. These research method
critique skills were most helpful in writing the limitations of my
dissertation, a section which spanned three of the 227 pages.

    The research critique skills were often a barrier to writing the
dissertation, especially during the formative stages of document
development, i.e., the prospectus and early dissertation drafts.
Generation of ideas for research led quickly to cognitive leaps of
research limitations. Acknowledgment of the limitations made me fearful
to proceed. It held me up in the writing process for a good 6 months.
Especially fear-invoking were those pages of checklist questions for
analyzing a research study that were so helpful for the qualifying
examination. I would apply the checklist questions to my sketchy ideas
of a research study and feel bombarded by deficit and doubt. I strongly
suspect that newfound capacity to critique research is a barrier
completion factor for people who never leave the All-But-Dissertation
state.

    Only after I was forced to create research and to accept the
necessity of research limitations, was I able to understand the long
pauses and discouraged looks of my research methods professors, when my
doctoral colleagues and I voraciously attacked a piece of research. My
message for doctoral students: Be prepared to live with research
limitations. Put the research checklists away for a while. Be kind to
yourself; it is hard work to create research.

    Lesson 3: Dissertation writing is an evolutionary communication
process. While some doctoral dissertation guides touched upon the fact
that dissertation writing is a process, they did not explore this
concept in enough depth. In writing my dissertation, I learned that the
dissertation production is a long series of communication behaviors; it
is an ongoing, dynamically changing evolution of explanations,
negotiation, compromise, and sometimes, capitulations. It is necessary
to work and rework the writing to make things clearer. There is much
questioning and defending of one's conceptual assumptions to support the
infrastructure of the research. Committee members don't always agree or
understand things the same way. They may advise one to proceed in ways
that are incongruent. It is a delicate maneuver to relay the input of
one member to another in such a way that all are reasonably satisfied.

    One piece of advice from the informal network that did help me
was this, "Remember, this is not just your work. It is the work of the
committee." This saying made even more sense when the dissertation
document began to turn in unanticipated directions or new, puzzling (to
me) requirements were added. They helped me deal with a natural tension
within the writing process--independence versus dependence. While the
dissertation process requires much independence and self-directed
behaviors (see wall and closet cleaning versus writing), one is
operating within the confines of a sometimes remote group of
directors/editors. At times, it is necessary to yield to the wishes of
those who mentor sporadically, and from far distances. Communication
helps one negotiate this wieldy process.

    Lesson 4: Criticism is good. An important lesson of my
dissertation writing process was that committee members who provided
more feedback, including more negative feedback, often helped me the
most. It was not easy to hear that the latest draft had many weak areas,
inconsistencies, and repetitions. While these exchanges were certainly a
communication process phenomenon, I think it was a sufficiently
important lesson as to stand alone.

    People who are willing to negotiate the process of doctoral
education are often perfectionists, people with strong ideas, and people
with histories of academic success. They may not be used to receiving
negative feedback within academic settings. Only after I observed the
visible positive improvements in my subsequent drafts, was I able to
view negative feedback in the context of helpful. After that, I sought
it without hesitation. The lesson I learned that doctoral students may
wish to heed is this: Criticism is a good thing. Put your feelings
aside, listen with an open mind, and write another draft as directed.

    Lesson 5: Dissertation writing produces a product. Although the
completion may take longer than one hoped, and the process of the
writing tends to consume our lives, there is an end stage to the
dissertation; there is a final manuscript. I found I got so lost in the
process of writing a dissertation, that I somewhat forgot there was an
end product. You work and work and work, and one day it is done. You
look read it over and say to yourself, "This research isn't too bad. I'm
kind of proud of it."

    Although much of the dissertation-as-product factors have been
detailed in dissertation writing guides and the informal advice network,
here are the ones that helped me the most in generating my final
dissertation manuscript product: Write your drafts in the
university-required dissertation format. The sequencing layout required
by your chair/committee may differ from the sequencing layout described
in dissertation writing guides. There is no such thing as too much
proofing. Make a few attractive, concise charts--but not too many.
Define everything. Use the exact same construct and variable terms
throughout the manuscript. Be theory driven. Write for audience clarity.
Stick to short, declarative sentences. Write as much as you can in the
least amount of space. Try to write an idea, conclusion, etc., only
once. Back up your work and keep a hard copy. Date every draft the
moment it comes from the printer. Number all the pages all the time.
Have a statistician check your work. Limit quotes. Eliminate metaphors,
case examples, and similes; they work well in practice literature, but
are often viewed as unnecessary material in dissertation writing.
Contact authors of scales and important background literature; these
individuals are often helpful and usually reply quickly.

    Lesson 6: Hypotheses rule and methods matter most. I learned
that the content of the dissertation needs to be directly tied to the
research questions, as described within hypotheses constructs, theory,
and background literature. This may appear to be obvious for doctoral
students educated in scientific method critique who may be tossing their
heads and saying "So what? I know that already," but what I am trying to
say is that in real life dissertation writing, it is a painfully
difficult, page-by-page, decision-by-decision development sequence. I
found I had to keep a copy of my hypotheses and research questions in a
visible spot on my desk and use them as a constant reference for
decisions about what to include in the dissertation.

    There is an ongoing strong tension between inclusion and
exclusion of material. This is particularly complicated because by the
time one gets to the point of writing a dissertation, one knows a good
deal about the topic. Since hypotheses are a reductionist synopsis of
what is often a complex projected construct relationship, there is a
natural urge to want to clarify main ideas with a more comprehensive
point of view, for example, the nuances of studies and populations. To
make inclusion/exclusion of material decisions even more difficult, your
chair/committee is likely to want more information about other potential
influences on the projected hypotheses relationship somewhere in the
document. Thus, the dissertation needs to address nearly everything, but
contain only the most salient material as guided by the hypotheses and
the research questions. What worked best for me was: (1) a first step of
cross-checking with the hypotheses and research questions (If it wasn't
in there, I didn't include it); and (2) asking my committee
chair/committee members their format preferences for handling additional
explanatory material. They may want a separate section; they may just
want a quick clarification on a point within the text.

    The other lesson I learned about exclusion and inclusion of
dissertation text material was that the chair and committee of a
dissertation wanted detailed, explicit information within the research
methodology section. Methods mattered most. It was necessary to spend
much of writing effort detailing the population, sampling procedures,
tests, and data gathering steps.

    For example, one small deviation from sampling procedures from
one group to another, driven by real life sampling realities, resulted
in my writing detailed explanations (accompanied by t-tests and tables
verifying there were no differences between the sample groups). Lest
this is frightening to doctoral students in formative stages of the
writing of a dissertation, don't--your chair/committee members will let
you know what is missing (see criticism is good). Be prepared to spend a
lot of time writing the research methods section.

    Lesson 7: Less is more. While there is a good deal of explicit
material on research methods, the overall thrust of writing for
dissertation is that simpler is better. Less is more. Some of this may
be apparent in my suggestions to stay with the same terms, to include
only material salient to hypotheses and research questions, and to stick
to short, declarative, staccato- type sentences, etc. For example, when
I wrote about the "social constructions" of mental health professionals
of families of people with serious mental illness, I could not try to
make the document more interesting by switching now and then to "views"
of mental health professionals.

    Within the rewriting of the dissertation, I scanned every
sentence for necessity within the document. If the sentence was
necessary, I tried to find a way to make it shorter and denser. I
checked to see if the concepts had been mentioned before; this was done
to ensure I was writing the material only once. Unless I was writing a
summary section, previously referenced material was usually deleted.
Further, as one of my committee members said, "if it answers the
research question, leave it in. If it doesn't, get rid of it" (see
hypotheses rule).

    The lesson I learned about writing for dissertation is that one
must say only the most important things, for example, adopt a
just-the-facts approach, within the least amount of space. It is helpful
to imagine a reader quickly scanning your dissertation. In the few
moments one is looking at your work, the reader will need to be able to
understand as much as possible. Within this imaginary exercise, it is
easier to resist the temptation to add more, and it is easier to try to
reduce your manuscript to the simplest possible content.

    Lesson 8: The dissertation writing experience is an
apprenticeship. While some may view the dissertation writing as merely
an academic rite of passage, I have come to view the experience as an
apprenticeship. Writing a dissertation was a difficult, but valuable,
on-the-job, mentored, skill development experience. Further, there is no
substitute for hands-on learning. The truth is no guidebook or article
on dissertation writing can really tell one how to write. At some point,
one must sit in front of a blank computer screen, construct sentences,
make decisions about what to include and exclude in the draft, and
choose one's emphases.

    However, I do believe that learning to write my dissertation was
replete with lessons that are likely to serve me well in the academic
environment. Writing for publication often requires (a) engaging in
self-directed writing time, while following the writing style and format
required by a particular journal; (b) describing one's research
creation--a work that is sure to be imperfect; (c) using an evolutionary
communication process within the development of the manuscript and
subsequent drafts; (d) accepting criticism from reviews and editors; (e)
producing a manuscript product; (f) organizing the content of the
manuscript based on the main ideas--thus making ongoing decisions about
inclusion and exclusion of written material; and (g) providing the most
information within the least amount of space, as a service to your
scanning readers.

    This "insider" perspective of lessons learned during the writing
of my doctoral dissertation is a summary of a whole lot of my own sweat
equity. While it cannot reduce the necessary growing pains of the
doctoral dissertation writing experience, it is hoped that the emphases
herein provide practical (not paranoid) advice for those students
engaged in the apprenticeship travail.

ADDED MATERIAL

    Joanne Riebschleger is assistant professor of social work,
Central Michigan University Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and
Social Work, 127 Anspach Hall, Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859; e-mail:
riebs1j@mail.cmich.edu.

REFERENCES

    American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual
of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC:
Author.

    Doyle, B. (2000). A joyful humming. Notre Dame Magazine, 29(2),
42-44.

    Newman, I., Benz, C. R., Weis, D., & McNeil, K. (1997). Theses
and dissertations. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

    Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (1992). Surviving your
dissertation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

AUTHOR: Richard W. Johnson and Liza M. Conyers

TITLE: Surviving the Doctoral Dissertation: A Solution-Focused Approach

SOURCE: Journal of College Counseling 4 no1 77-80 Spr 2001

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is
reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited.

ABSTRACT

The authors discuss the application of solution-focused counseling in
support groups designed to help graduate students cope with the demands
of writing a doctoral dissertation.

    The doctoral dissertation is probably the most difficult task in
the doctoral student's academic career. According to Davis and Parker
(1997), as many as one third of doctoral candidates who have completed
their course requirements fail to complete the dissertation. Students
who do complete their dissertation often take several years to finish
their work.

    Graduate students often must cope with a number of personal
problems that may interfere with work on their dissertation. These
problems include procrastination, perfectionism, loss of motivation,
feelings of isolation, conflicting responsibilities, and discouragement
(Green, 1997). In addition to psychological problems, the student
working on a dissertation may also experience other problems such as
financial, family, health, and academic difficulties. Attempts to manage
these problems may include the use of institutional workshops, improved
advising, e-mail discussion groups, professional mentors and
consultants, graduate student support organizations, self-help books,
and support groups (Association for Support of Graduate Students, 2000;
Baird, 1997; Nerad & Miller, 1997).

    In this article, we describe the use of a solution-focused
support group as one means of aiding dissertators in overcoming
obstacles in their work. Solution-focused counseling, which builds on
client strengths in a collaborative fashion, seems to be particularly
well suited for graduate students, all of whom have histories of
academic success. Solution-focused counseling has been used successfully
with a variety of populations, including parents, couples, and students
(Murphy, 1997; O'Hanlon & Weiner-Davis, 1989; Webb, 1999).

PRINCIPLES OF SOLUTION-FOCUSED COUNSELING

    We have adapted the following principles from solution-focused
counseling in conducting dissertators' support groups. All of these
principles are solution-focused. Instead of assessing "what's wrong,"
counselors assist the clients in determining "what's working."

    1. Look for strengths. Instead of exploring reasons why clients
are having difficulty completing their thesis, counselors help clients
understand how they have been able to cope effectively in previous
situations.

    2. Clarify long-term goals. Solutions are more closely related
to goals than they are to presenting problems.

    3. Set short-term goals. Change is more likely to occur if daily
and weekly goals are established that are limited, salient, specific,
and attainable.

    4. Build on what is possible. Small changes in one part of a
problem can produce a "benevolent spiral" that leads to change in other
parts of the problem.

    5. Create a positive point of view. Counselors assist students
in recognizing that most of their work is likely to be good enough at
this stage of their career. The "good enough" standard helps to reduce
perfectionistic tendencies and to facilitate a more positive approach to
the project.

APPLICATION OF SOLUTION-FOCUSED COUNSELING

    A professional counselor leads the support group, often with the
assistance of an intern who is working on a dissertation. The groups,
which meet weekly for 75 minutes, are interdepartmental. Students, who
are primarily self-referred, may enter the group at any point during
their dissertation work. Students remain in the group until they finish
the dissertation or until they no longer feel a need to belong to the
group. Maximum group size is eight members.

    The support group concentrates on the process of writing the
dissertation and not on content. The members of the group set goals for
each week. In addition to dissertation goals, clients also list other
work goals and personal goals that help maintain balanced schedules.
Members report both the degree to which they accomplished their goals
during the previous week and their satisfaction with these
accomplishments by using a scale that ranges from 0% to 100%. Strategies
to help group members in setting and attaining goals are discussed
weekly.

    After reporting individual progress, each client is asked the
question, "What worked best for you in accomplishing your goals this
week?" This question helps clients develop a positive mindset and
discriminate between behaviors that are beneficial and those that are
not (see Endnote).

    In addition to the straightforward "What Worked Best" question,
counselors may also use the following questions (adapted from DeJong
& Miller, 1995; O'Hanlon & Weiner-Davis, 1989) to identify possible
solutions. These questions are particularly valuable when clients, who
may be discouraged, state that nothing is working well for them.

    * The Exception Question: "When has working on the dissertation
not been a problem for you?"

    * The Consultant Question: "What would you recommend that
someone else in the same situation might do?"

    * The Small-Step Question: "What is one small step you can take
to move ahead?"

    * The Coping Question: "How have you prevented the situation
from getting worse?"

    * The Miracle Question: "If you did not have this problem, how
would life be different for you?"

    Most of the members indicated in their weekly reports that they
profited from participation in the support group. Group members
generally reported a level of 50% or more in both the amount
accomplished and the degree of satisfaction. If the level of
accomplishment or satisfaction dropped below 50% for any of the
participants, the group devoted extra attention to these specific
concerns.

    In addition to the weekly reports, anecdotal evidence indicated
that the group meetings were effective for most members. Most groups
experienced relatively little dropout. A majority of members commended
the groups in end-of-semester evaluations. One former group member, now
an assistant professor, forwarded the following unsolicited message
regarding the experience.

I was in a dissertator support group three years ago. I was thinking
yesterday about how that group has had a long-lasting effect on me. I
wanted to let you know. I still make a list of goals for each week.
Also, when I get stuck on a project, I find that I still go back to
things we talked about in the group. I was having a lot of trouble with
a paper this semester and I got through it by trying to remember how we
all handled our dissertation fears and blocks in that group. I thought
you would like to know how much I appreciate the experience that the
counseling center provided, and that it has had a permanent impact. (L.
Magdol, personal communication, March 31, 1998)

ADDED MATERIAL

    Richard W. Johnson is associate director emeritus with
Counseling and Consultation Services at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison. Liza M. Conyers is an assistant professor in the
Department of Counselor Education, Counseling Psychology, and
Rehabilitation Services at The Pennsylvania State University in
University Park. Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to
Richard W. Johnson, 2384 Kathleen Street, Madison, WI 53711 (e-mail:
rwjohnso@facstaff.wisc.edu).

    Endnote. Copies of the "Weekly Goals Form," the "Self-Monitoring
Log," and the "Examples of 'What Worked Best' for Ph.D. Dissertators in
Accomplishing Their Goals" may be obtained from the authors by using the
following e-mail address: rwjohnso@facstaff.wisc.edu

REFERENCES

    Association for Support of Graduate Students. (2000).
Association for Support of Graduate Students Website [On-line].
Available: HYPERLINK "http://www.asgs.org" www.asgs.org

    Baird, L. L. (1997). Completing the dissertation: Theory,
research and practice. In L. F. Goodchild, K. E. Green, E. L. Katz, & R.
C. Kluever (Eds.), Rethinking the dissertation process: Tackling
personal and institutional obstacles (pp. 99-105). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

    Davis, G. B., & Parker, C. A. (1997). Writing the doctoral
dissertation: A systematic approach (2nd ed.). Hauppauge, NY: Barrons.

    DeJong, P., & Miller, S. D. (1995). How to interview for client
strengths. Social Work, 40, 729-736.

    Green, K. E. (1997). Psychosocial factors affecting dissertation
completion. In L. F. Goodchild, K. E. Green, E. L. Katz, & R. C. Kleuver
(Eds.), Rethinking the dissertation process: Tackling personal and
institutional obstacles (pp 57-64). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Murphy, J. J. (1997). Solution-focused counseling in middle and
high schools. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

    Nerad, M., & Miller, D. S. (1997). The institution cares:
Berkeley's efforts to support dissertation writing in the humanities and
social sciences. In L. F. Goodchild, K. E. Green, E. L. Katz, & R. C.
Kluever (Eds.), Rethinking the dissertation process: Tackling personal
and institutional obstacles (pp. 75-90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    O'Hanlon, W. H., & Weiner-Davis, M. (1989). In search of
solutions: A new direction in psychotherapy. New York: Norton.

    Webb, W. H. (1999). Solutioning: Solution-focused interventions
for counselors. Philadelphia: Accelerated Development.