Whether it is a dissertation or another research
project, most new researchers get hung up somewhere near the end
of the process and get in danger of not completing their work.
In the case of dissertations this is particularly serious, though
it also matters as one approaches the tenure-decision year. I
have abandoned a lot of research projects, and there are often
good grounds for doing so. Giving up can be a sign of mature
research judgment, but new researchers should usually complete
what they start.
Why do people get stuck? There are two primary reasons, I
believe: Fear, and Ambition.
The Fear of Failure: Whys, Whos, and Hows
The first obstacle is simple fear that the
finished product will be seen by others as inadequate. "Better
never to finish than to wind up a failure" is an attitude that simply
reflects lack of
self-confidence. It is particularly common in students and new
researchers whose social positions and backgrounds have not
instilled in them the automatic arrogance and sense of self-merit
that is traditional in the academic world. Women and sometimes
gay men, working class students, people of color, and those not
from eurocultural backgrounds suffer disproportionately. You may
be acutely aware that there always seems to be something you are
missing, something you just don't "get" about what is
expected of you. A thousand tiny signals send this message to
you, and your life may not have prepared you to tune in on the
other signals that would affirm that you belong. You should
recognize that you do have further to go to meet expectations
designed by people who are in many cultural and social ways quite
different from, and even opposed by social position to, yourself.
You should also recognize that once you have met these
expectations you will still be yourself, still be different, and
so be able to bring to your work more than what is expected of
you. You are likely to rebel against these expectations at some
point (unless your program faculty are unusually open-minded, rebel openly only after you finish the dissertation), and
more likely than others to develop surprising alternative
viewpoints eventually.
Meanwhile, working harder will pay off. There is nothing
required of you that you cannot learn, though some of it will
also not come easily, or pleasantly. Once you have proven that
you can do it, you will have the latitude to do something that is
more true to yourself. You should probably keep thinking and
planning your alternative perspectives even during the time when
you are trying to meet the expectations of others.
You should also know that it is very difficult to fail at
dissertation research. If you complete, you will almost certainly
pass. Many really mediocre dissertations are approved every year,
especially in the U.S. (based simply on volume). Your
dissertation in most programs need only be competent, not brilliant. It does not
prove you are a genius, just that you are technically ready to be
on your own as a researcher. Programs that really do have higher standards may
require you to re-write large sections of your dissertation a few times. If your
supervisor or committee keep you re-writing for more than a year or two, it's a
signal that you're not going to make it. You might still be able to get a degree
at another university, however. If your supervisor or committee makes you keep
changing your basic topic, that's also usually a sign you ought to go elsewhere.
The Excesses of Ambitiousness
It is a serious mistake to try to make the world take notice of your dissertation, or to cram a dozen ideas into one article for publication.
Do not try to revolutionize the field in your dissertation. This is not what
dissertations are for. Probably at most six people in the world
will ever read your dissertation. Don't waste your time. You can
certainly use your dissertation to lay the foundations for
significant future work, but that should be published in a book.
Make your dissertation manageable and modest in its ambitions. There will be
better opportunities later, when you already have the credibility of a PhD and a
good job, to put forward radically new ideas and perspectives. In your
dissertation you can hint at or sketch out such ideas, and even argue for them;
but don't make them the centerpiece.
If you happen to have, or come across, significant new ideas while
doing your dissertation, or if you want to try some newer or less
approved methods or approaches, there is always space in a
dissertation for these -- but you should insert them modestly
into the midst of work that also shows that you are conversant
with the older ideas and competent with the traditional methods.
This is particularly important for people doing discourse
analysis, semiotics, and other forms of qualitative or
interpretive research in dissertations. The older traditional
quantitative methods and forms of argument should usually still appear somewhere in
your dissertation. Their prominence will depend on the
composition of your committee and how progressive generally your
chosen field is (not just your specialty field, but the larger
field whose name is on your degree -- you will be hired by people
in that larger field).
Even researchers who are past the
dissertation stage get hung up, either because of fear of
failure, or because they want to put too much into one project,
too much into one article.
Some advice. In the natural sciences there is a practice known as
the MPU, or minimum publishable unit. Large research projects
subdivide their empirical findings into simple facts which are
significant enough to get published: one fact cluster, one
publication. This is of course absurd and counterproductive, but
is encouraged by the mindlessness of the "productivity
model" of academic research. Outside the natural sciences it
does not work because generally speaking findings are regarded as
significant only in some larger context and not simply as matters
of fact. Your articles have to have a point, and not
just report some findings.
Nevertheless, new researchers are well
advised to submit short articles that make just one or two
specific points and provide supporting evidence.
It is much easier to get a short article published
than a long one.
And having more articles in total is an asset when promotion and
tenure review comes along.
One of the principal secrets of research is that no good
research project is ever finished. There is no natural
ending point. Good research generates new perspectives and new
questions and potentially goes on indefinitely. You must
arbitrarily cut off some part of the research, frame it for an
audience, use it to make a point of interest to them, and publish
it as is. The reviewers of the article will then ask why you have
not included X, Y, and Z. You probably have already done X,Y, and
Z but not included them. You will negotiate with the editor of
the journal how much of this to include in your revised version,
which will then most likely be published. That is how it usually works.
The logic of a book is the opposite of that of a journal article.
You should attempt to be reasonably comprehensive about your
topic. What you don't say you should reference or cite. A good
book is one that people _use_ because it helps to define a topic
and provide a way into it for others. It is still true that it is
easier to publish a short book
(200-300 pages) than a long one. In the near future people may
publish or add to information webs, and books as such may become
obsolete. But not for a while yet, and even after they are
obsolete, universities will still expect you to publish some.
The concept of a dissertation belongs to the logic of the
medieval guild system and has really been obsolete for at least a
century. It belongs to a time before large-scale academic
publishing of books and journals. Academic journals themselves
are today already obsolete because of
new electronic information technologies, but no one wants to
admit it because journals do the work of evaluating research,
which university committees know that they themselves are no
longer competent to do because of specialization and the extent
of knowledge in any field. Books are still useful, but maybe not
for much longer. Don't romanticize the doctoral dissertation. It is meant to be
a grand learning exercise, a full dress rehearsal for later professional
research. It should result in at least something that is publishable and of
interest to a research community. It can also be the basis for contributing to
wider understanding on the part of the educated public or other professional
communities, but you will get little academic credit for those outcomes. You do
a dissertation mainly to learn how to do research, including how to write about
research. If something more important comes out of your work, consider yourself
very, very lucky.