HOW TO WRITE A SUCCESSFUL PHD IN THEOLOGY
A. THE THESIS GENRE
1. What kind of text is a thesis?
It is important to understand the genre within which you are working when writing a doctoral thesis. It is not like a novel, for instance, in that it can be entirely successful even when boring. It can be pretty pedestrian (not like a poem then). It can be very long (and so not an essay). Is it an academic book therefore? Most successful PhDs are turned down as books and sent back to be rewritten. The critical difference is that an academic book, though peer-reviewed, is regarded as the work of an established scholar. A thesis on the other hand is the attempt by an individual to be accepted as an established scholar. When we write a thesis therefore, it is for an examination and it is imperative that the text produced offers itself for examination (i.e. it should be easy to examine). When we write an academic book, we can take shortcuts without necessarily raising suspicions of incompetence (though we almost certainly will be caught out if we are being incompetent). Academic books do not have to labour to make themselves transparent to the examiners; successful theses do.
2. Hermeneutics: for whom is a thesis written? Mum and Dad? (dedicated to them perhaps but not written for them). The supervisor? (surely not). The examiners? - yes (although not appointed until late on - so not examiners specifically, rather written in order to be examined.
3. What do examiners want to be able to see in what they examine? They are looking for original research, a clear grasp of the field, high-level analytical capacities and powers of rational argument. Examiners want to be able to read this text and see easily that the person who wrote it has these qualities of mind….
4. To repeat: Academic books are about brilliant insight of established scholars (with proven track record), decisively saying something new about a field they have mastered. Theses are about proving that one has the qualities of an established scholar. To write a thesis as if it were an academic book is to risk failing in both genres, but more painfully in the thesis one.
5. The structure of the thesis therefore allows a graduate student to visibly display these qualities of mind to his or her two examiners. There is an element of the ‘clunky’ about many fine theses. Nothing should be left to guess work. Do not give suspicious examiners the opportunity to unpick it (‘I was enjoying this thesis until I came to Chapter Five - the bit at the top of page 178…’) . You must allow the structure of the thesis (generally Introduction, intervening chapters and Conclusion) to further your case that you have understood what is required to get the degree and that you have delivered it.
B. CHARACTERISTIC PROBLEMS OF THE GENRE
1. The Abstract: first and foremost we need to grasp the point of the thesis: what is it arguing: what is the original and informed contribution to the field? It should be summarised in 250 words. If you can’t do that, there is likely to be a problem somewhere.
POINT ONE: ABILITY TO SUMMARISE YOUR ARGUMENT. If you can’t summarise it, then don’t expect that your examiners will be able to either.
2. You will need to give information (possibly a first chapter or in a first chapter) as to what the current state of the question is: thus showing breadth and why your argument is relevant and a contribution to knowledge:
POINT TWO: YOU NEED TO SHOW THE CONTEXT IN WHICH YOUR ARGUMENT IS ORIGINAL AND MEANINGFUL. (This is radically different from your undergraduate work). It may take the form of a survey of literature or what is called Rezeptiongeschichte.
3. What do I put in my initial chapters? Announce your argument but don’t go straight into it. You will need to clear the ground, establish principles, clarify your own point of departure.
POINT THREE: DO NOT ASSUME A POINT OF DEPARTURE, OR JUST USE SOMEONE ELSE’S. THE EARLY CHAPTERS ALLOW YOU TO DEFINE FOR YOURSELF YOUR OWN POINT OF DEPARTURE. Bear in mind that the examiners cannot hold you to account for not doing ‘something else’ if you have already set out why you have not done that thesis but this one. Be prepared to defend sustained frontal attacks on why you have written this thesis and not some other one. If you have simply picked up on someone else’s point of departure, without thoroughly making it your own, then you will struggle to do this.
4. Your first priority is to set out your argument: step by step. Summarise findings and announce intentions at the beginning and end of chapters. Give repeated signposts for the examiner - but always add some nuance, or recontextualise in some way. That is a higher skill and is greatly to your advantage.
POINT FOUR: CONSTANTLY REMIND THE EXAMINERS OF YOUR ARGUMENT AND WHERE YOU HAVE GOT TO IN IT, BUT DO SO WITH VARIATION.
5. At what level do I insert this or that piece of information? How do I display the kind of broad reading and understanding which I need to show, and which the author of a book can assume or make implicit. What particular weight or balance must I give to any one item? The particular weight that you want to give any one item will constantly change as you write the thesis: what might seem to have been a central Chapter Title becomes an extended discussion within a chapter, and then a briefer one, and then a mention in the text, and then a footnote. Footnotes become mentions in the text, reasonable discussion in a chapter, proper discussion and then central to the argument of the thesis as a whole.
POINT FIVE: NEVER GET TOO ATTACHED TO THE FORM OF YOUR THESIS AT ANY ONE TIME (EXCEPT PERHAPS AT SUBMISSION). YOUR THINKING SHOULD BE DYNAMIC. ALSO TRY TO MAKE USE OF AS MUCH KNOWLEDGE AND REASONED INSIGHT YOU CAN BUT WHERE AND HOW WILL CONSTANTLY CHANGE. SOME DISCRETE AREAS OF KNOWLEDGE CAN BECOME AN APPENDIX (AND DROP OUT OF THE WORD COUNT)
6. Most theses contain extensive passages which repeat the arguments of others. Try to avoid straight description. Learn to slant your reproduction of the thought of others analytically (and in accordance with you own overall argument).
POINT SIX: DON’T JUST DESCRIBE. INTEGRATE ANY DESCRIPTION AS FAR AS POSSIBLE INTO YOUR ARGUMENT.
C. FAITH, REASON AND YOUR THESIS
1. Faith and reasoning are not the same thing. In a PhD you are being tested on your powers of reasoning, not on faith commitments. Do not expect any doctoral examiner to be unclear about that. Theologians often want to argue from within traditions, with respect to their authoritative sources. That’s fine. But note that this is still argument: you may be questioned on your use of those sources as to whether they are reasonable, sophisticated and reliable. Do not under any circumstances think that the use of the authoritative sources of tradition exempts you from the need to give an account for how you interpret things!
2. Everyone wants to be a theologian: that is why you are doing the thesis in the first place. But do not jump the gun. Theology is a hugely difficult subject (which again is why we want to do it). The best theology is constructive theology but this is the most difficult kind of theology to do. It requires originality. It takes a life time to learn to learn originality and two life times to learn to control it well. Keep your constructive theology to the last therefore. Do not let it become ‘load-bearing’ in the sense that too many questions there will jeopardise the thesis as a whole.
POINT SEVEN: DO NOT THINK THAT THEOLOGICAL AFFIRMATIONS CAN DO THE WORK OF THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS. BEWARE TOO MUCH SPECULATION. YOU ARE ADVISED TO BASE YOUR WORK AS FAR AS POSSIBLE ON THE ADVANCED ANALYSIS OF OTHER THEOLOGIANS. PURE CONSTRUCTIVE THEOLOGY IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DO WELL, AND IF YOU WANT TO DO IT IN A THESIS, RESERVE IT FOR THE FINAL CHAPTER/S PERHAPS.
(AHRC PG TRAINING CONFERENCE SEPT 18-19TH 2007)
© Oliver Davies
Professor of Christian Doctrine
King’s College London
22/10/2007
1. What kind of text is a thesis?
It is important to understand the genre within which you are working when writing a doctoral thesis. It is not like a novel, for instance, in that it can be entirely successful even when boring. It can be pretty pedestrian (not like a poem then). It can be very long (and so not an essay). Is it an academic book therefore? Most successful PhDs are turned down as books and sent back to be rewritten. The critical difference is that an academic book, though peer-reviewed, is regarded as the work of an established scholar. A thesis on the other hand is the attempt by an individual to be accepted as an established scholar. When we write a thesis therefore, it is for an examination and it is imperative that the text produced offers itself for examination (i.e. it should be easy to examine). When we write an academic book, we can take shortcuts without necessarily raising suspicions of incompetence (though we almost certainly will be caught out if we are being incompetent). Academic books do not have to labour to make themselves transparent to the examiners; successful theses do.
2. Hermeneutics: for whom is a thesis written? Mum and Dad? (dedicated to them perhaps but not written for them). The supervisor? (surely not). The examiners? - yes (although not appointed until late on - so not examiners specifically, rather written in order to be examined.
3. What do examiners want to be able to see in what they examine? They are looking for original research, a clear grasp of the field, high-level analytical capacities and powers of rational argument. Examiners want to be able to read this text and see easily that the person who wrote it has these qualities of mind….
4. To repeat: Academic books are about brilliant insight of established scholars (with proven track record), decisively saying something new about a field they have mastered. Theses are about proving that one has the qualities of an established scholar. To write a thesis as if it were an academic book is to risk failing in both genres, but more painfully in the thesis one.
5. The structure of the thesis therefore allows a graduate student to visibly display these qualities of mind to his or her two examiners. There is an element of the ‘clunky’ about many fine theses. Nothing should be left to guess work. Do not give suspicious examiners the opportunity to unpick it (‘I was enjoying this thesis until I came to Chapter Five - the bit at the top of page 178…’) . You must allow the structure of the thesis (generally Introduction, intervening chapters and Conclusion) to further your case that you have understood what is required to get the degree and that you have delivered it.
B. CHARACTERISTIC PROBLEMS OF THE GENRE
1. The Abstract: first and foremost we need to grasp the point of the thesis: what is it arguing: what is the original and informed contribution to the field? It should be summarised in 250 words. If you can’t do that, there is likely to be a problem somewhere.
POINT ONE: ABILITY TO SUMMARISE YOUR ARGUMENT. If you can’t summarise it, then don’t expect that your examiners will be able to either.
2. You will need to give information (possibly a first chapter or in a first chapter) as to what the current state of the question is: thus showing breadth and why your argument is relevant and a contribution to knowledge:
POINT TWO: YOU NEED TO SHOW THE CONTEXT IN WHICH YOUR ARGUMENT IS ORIGINAL AND MEANINGFUL. (This is radically different from your undergraduate work). It may take the form of a survey of literature or what is called Rezeptiongeschichte.
3. What do I put in my initial chapters? Announce your argument but don’t go straight into it. You will need to clear the ground, establish principles, clarify your own point of departure.
POINT THREE: DO NOT ASSUME A POINT OF DEPARTURE, OR JUST USE SOMEONE ELSE’S. THE EARLY CHAPTERS ALLOW YOU TO DEFINE FOR YOURSELF YOUR OWN POINT OF DEPARTURE. Bear in mind that the examiners cannot hold you to account for not doing ‘something else’ if you have already set out why you have not done that thesis but this one. Be prepared to defend sustained frontal attacks on why you have written this thesis and not some other one. If you have simply picked up on someone else’s point of departure, without thoroughly making it your own, then you will struggle to do this.
4. Your first priority is to set out your argument: step by step. Summarise findings and announce intentions at the beginning and end of chapters. Give repeated signposts for the examiner - but always add some nuance, or recontextualise in some way. That is a higher skill and is greatly to your advantage.
POINT FOUR: CONSTANTLY REMIND THE EXAMINERS OF YOUR ARGUMENT AND WHERE YOU HAVE GOT TO IN IT, BUT DO SO WITH VARIATION.
5. At what level do I insert this or that piece of information? How do I display the kind of broad reading and understanding which I need to show, and which the author of a book can assume or make implicit. What particular weight or balance must I give to any one item? The particular weight that you want to give any one item will constantly change as you write the thesis: what might seem to have been a central Chapter Title becomes an extended discussion within a chapter, and then a briefer one, and then a mention in the text, and then a footnote. Footnotes become mentions in the text, reasonable discussion in a chapter, proper discussion and then central to the argument of the thesis as a whole.
POINT FIVE: NEVER GET TOO ATTACHED TO THE FORM OF YOUR THESIS AT ANY ONE TIME (EXCEPT PERHAPS AT SUBMISSION). YOUR THINKING SHOULD BE DYNAMIC. ALSO TRY TO MAKE USE OF AS MUCH KNOWLEDGE AND REASONED INSIGHT YOU CAN BUT WHERE AND HOW WILL CONSTANTLY CHANGE. SOME DISCRETE AREAS OF KNOWLEDGE CAN BECOME AN APPENDIX (AND DROP OUT OF THE WORD COUNT)
6. Most theses contain extensive passages which repeat the arguments of others. Try to avoid straight description. Learn to slant your reproduction of the thought of others analytically (and in accordance with you own overall argument).
POINT SIX: DON’T JUST DESCRIBE. INTEGRATE ANY DESCRIPTION AS FAR AS POSSIBLE INTO YOUR ARGUMENT.
C. FAITH, REASON AND YOUR THESIS
1. Faith and reasoning are not the same thing. In a PhD you are being tested on your powers of reasoning, not on faith commitments. Do not expect any doctoral examiner to be unclear about that. Theologians often want to argue from within traditions, with respect to their authoritative sources. That’s fine. But note that this is still argument: you may be questioned on your use of those sources as to whether they are reasonable, sophisticated and reliable. Do not under any circumstances think that the use of the authoritative sources of tradition exempts you from the need to give an account for how you interpret things!
2. Everyone wants to be a theologian: that is why you are doing the thesis in the first place. But do not jump the gun. Theology is a hugely difficult subject (which again is why we want to do it). The best theology is constructive theology but this is the most difficult kind of theology to do. It requires originality. It takes a life time to learn to learn originality and two life times to learn to control it well. Keep your constructive theology to the last therefore. Do not let it become ‘load-bearing’ in the sense that too many questions there will jeopardise the thesis as a whole.
POINT SEVEN: DO NOT THINK THAT THEOLOGICAL AFFIRMATIONS CAN DO THE WORK OF THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS. BEWARE TOO MUCH SPECULATION. YOU ARE ADVISED TO BASE YOUR WORK AS FAR AS POSSIBLE ON THE ADVANCED ANALYSIS OF OTHER THEOLOGIANS. PURE CONSTRUCTIVE THEOLOGY IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DO WELL, AND IF YOU WANT TO DO IT IN A THESIS, RESERVE IT FOR THE FINAL CHAPTER/S PERHAPS.
(AHRC PG TRAINING CONFERENCE SEPT 18-19TH 2007)
© Oliver Davies
Professor of Christian Doctrine
King’s College London
22/10/2007