Routines and Expectations

OK...I've set myself the goal of starting work by 9.30am latest each weekday morning. This allows me enough time to get up (6.30) and make sure that the children (and dog) have been fed and are ready for school, get any washing on and sort out what we're having for dinner (i.e. peer into the freezer) before walking the bright-eyed boy (and dog) to school. Fortunately, the husband is brilliant and makes tea, empties the dishwasher, assembles packed-lunches and walks the girl to the bus before taking himself off to work. If he's got to go on site, I have to incorporate his duties into my routine too. I usually get back home by 9.00: Radio 4 on, coffee on, sit at computer mug and marmalade toast in hand to check emails and facebook/blog for about half an hour. This short respite is very important to my psychological well-being being, as it represents a buffer between family and 'work' life. I won't do anything even remotely domestic, not even hang up laundry, until the late afternoon when I have to pick up the boy and daughter #3 arrives home: my study time is way too precious. It also provides me with the chance to limber up my word processing skills (mentally as well as actually), much as an arthritic must stretch their limbs before attempting any physical exercise.

I was somewhat disturbed, whilst in conversation with a friend, that a mutual academic acquaintance of ours (NOT at my currently uni.) whose doctoral studies had seemed to have run like a dream - had been told at the viva that the submitted thesis did not contain enough original scholarship to merit a PhD - it had to be extensively rewritten over the next 12months, or submitted as an MPhil. The student was naturally enough devastated, as was their supervisor, who had assured them throughout the whole three years that their doctoral programme was a paragon of scholarly virtue. Their organisation and commitment was second to none; the relationship with the supervisor one of friendly mutual respect. It was only when the appointed internal examiner eventually looked worriedly over the completed dissertation that alarm bells began to sound. So what went wrong? And how can this dreadful and wholly traumatic situation be avoided? I really feel very, very sorry for candidate, supervisor and their department. If regular reviews have been carried out to the satisfaction of all concerned, what more can be done? And what is to say that the external examiner hasn't just got out of the wrong side of bed, is having a bad day, or just doesn't like the thesis or the arguments therein? (That, too, happened to my friend's partner: they had 'the' expert in their particular field at the viva, who didn't seem to like the fact that their scholarship was repeatedly taken to task). Apparently, our mutual friend's work was stunningly well-written in beautifully polished prose -and that may have contributed to the situation: did the well-turned phrase camouflage the apparent shortfall of original content? But surely the supervisor would have realised this? And how much original scholarship is sufficient? When reviews of literature are practically mandatory, and one is called to engage continually with accepted scholarship on one's topic, it is very difficult to crank the argument around to display just how different our own argument is, without looking too deliberately perverse or obstreperous. On the other hand, we owe it to ourselves to reiterate that what we are doing is a departure from what has gone before!
Perhaps a process of self-review is in order (and this is what I intend to incorporate into my chapters) whereby we provide meta-comments about what we have said and its place in scholarship both pro and contra received wisdom. I've already got this underway, highlighting it as blue text. At the completion of each chapter, I'm going to assemble these meta-comments into a final summary, ultimately deleting the blue mid-text insertions. That way I can both monitor my own progress and point out original contribution to other parties (supervisor and examiners). It should also act as an alert if I'm falling short of content, or the argument is faltering. It could also be used as a pointer for what lies ahead. I think that I'm also going to insert (as a temporary measure) a chapter-by-chapter bibliography so that I can keep tabs on the spread of scholarship and note/reassess any gaps/over-dependence. God, it's so difficult to be interesting, cogent, objective and original! But at least I am now aware of the need to say what I'm going to do, do it and then tell everyone what I've done - and how brilliant it is!