Full Ebook of Writing A Watertight Thesis Structure Demystification and Defence 2Nd Edition Mike Bottery Online PDF All Chapter

Writing a Watertight Thesis: Structure,
Demystification and Defence 2nd

Edition Mike Bottery
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/writing-a-watertight-thesis-structure-demystification-a
nd-defence-2nd-edition-mike-bottery/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Writing a Watertight Thesis A Guide to Successful

Structure and Defence 1st Edition Mike Bottery
https://ebookmeta.com/product/writing-a-watertight-thesis-a-
guide-to-successful-structure-and-defence-1st-edition-mike-
bottery/
Writing a Watertight Thesis a guide to successful

structure and defence 1st Edition Mike Bottery
https://ebookmeta.com/product/writing-a-watertight-thesis-a-
guide-to-successful-structure-and-defence-1st-edition-mike-
bottery-2/
Educational Leadership for a More Sustainable World 1st

Edition Mike Bottery
https://ebookmeta.com/product/educational-leadership-for-a-more-
sustainable-world-1st-edition-mike-bottery/
Thesis and Dissertation Writing in a Second Language

2nd Edition Brian Paltridge & Sue Starfield
https://ebookmeta.com/product/thesis-and-dissertation-writing-in-
a-second-language-2nd-edition-brian-paltridge-sue-starfield/
A Concise Guide to Writing a Thesis or Dissertation 2nd
Edition Halyna M. Kornuta
https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-concise-guide-to-writing-a-
thesis-or-dissertation-2nd-edition-halyna-m-kornuta/
Writing A Postgraduate Thesis Or Dissertation Tools For

Success 1st Edition Michael Hammond
https://ebookmeta.com/product/writing-a-postgraduate-thesis-or-
dissertation-tools-for-success-1st-edition-michael-hammond/
Primary Mathematics 3A Hoerst
https://ebookmeta.com/product/primary-mathematics-3a-hoerst/
50 Things to Think About When Writing a Thesis: Paving

Your Own Path to Submission 1st Edition Donna Starks
https://ebookmeta.com/product/50-things-to-think-about-when-
writing-a-thesis-paving-your-own-path-to-submission-1st-edition-
donna-starks/
Critical Reading and Writing for Postgraduates Student

Success Fourth Edition Mike Wallace
https://ebookmeta.com/product/critical-reading-and-writing-for-
postgraduates-student-success-fourth-edition-mike-wallace/
Writing a
Watertight
Thesis
ii
ALSO AVAILABLE FROM BLOOMSBURY
Taking Control of Writing Your Thesis, Kay Guccione and Jerry

Wellington
Successful Dissertations, edited by Caron Carter
Reflective Teaching in Higher Education, Paul Ashwin with David
Boud, Susanna Calkins, Kelly Coate, Fiona Hallett, Gregory Light,
Kathy Luckett, Jan McArthur, Iain McLaren, Monica McLean,
Velda McCune, Katarina Mårtensson and Michelle Tooher
Writing the Research Paper, Philip M. McCarthy and Khawlah Ahmed
Using Questions to Think, Nathan Eric Dickman
Narrative Inquiry, Vera Caine, D. Jean Clandinin and Sean Lessard
Embodied Inquiry, Jennifer Leigh and Nicole Brown
Diary Method, Ruth Bartlett and Christine Milligan
Community Studies, Graham Crow
Inclusive Research, Melanie Nind
Quantitative Longitudinal Data Analysis, Vernon Gayle and Paul
Lambert
Rhythmanalysis, Dawn Lyon
Qualitative Longitudinal Research, Bren Neale
Writing a
Watertight
Thesis
Structure,
Demystification and
Defence
MIKE BOTTERY,
NIGEL WRIGHT AND
MARK A. FABRIZI
iv
BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC
Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK
1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA
29 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland
BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks

of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
First published in Great Britain 2019
This edition published 2023
Copyright © Mike Bottery, Nigel Wright and Mark A. Fabrizi, 2023
Mike Bottery, Nigel Wright and Mark A. Fabrizi have asserted their right under the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work.
Cover design: Grace Ridge
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior
permission in writing from the publishers.
Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for,
any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given
in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher
regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased
to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
ISBN: HB: 978-1-3502-6060-3

PB: 978-1-3502-6059-7
ePDF: 978-1-3502-6061-0
eBook: 978-1-3502-6062-7
Typeset by Newgen KnowledgeWorks Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, India
To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com
and sign up for our newsletters.
CONTENTS
List of Figures vii

List of Tables viii
Preface to the Second Edition ix
PART ONE Getting Ready
1 The Need for a Watertight Thesis 3
2 Demystifying the Doctoral Process 21
3 What Does It Take to Complete a Doctorate? 33
4 Making Sure Your Doctorate Is Original 53
5 Structuring Your Research Proposal 75
PART TWO Moving into the Doctorate
6 The Supervisory Relationship: Roles, Models and

Mystification 101
7 Change and Problem-Solving in the Supervisory
Relationship 119
8 Structuring in the Early Stages 137
9 Focusing on the Major Research Question 151
10 Creating Your Research Sub-questions 165

vi
vi Contents
PART THREE Moving through the Doctorate

11 Linking the Research Sub-questions to the Thesis
Chapters 181
12 Making the Early Chapters Watertight 199
13 Judging the Doctoral Quality of Your Work 213
14 Making the Middle Chapters Watertight 239
15 Making the Later Chapters Watertight 253
PART FOUR Moving Out of the Doctorate
16 The Examiners’ Need for Structural Clarity 269
17 Preparing for the Summative Viva 279
18 Structuring and Publishing Your First Articles 295
References 309
Index 315
FIGURES
1.1 Stages for constructing the watertight ship and thesis 6

4.1 Establishing originality 58
4.2 Types of originality 61
4.3 The emergence of originality 72
6.1 Different possible approaches to a supervisory
relationship 108
7.1 Potential supervisor–supervisee interactions 124
8.1 Tasks at different ‘periods’ of an empirical doctoral
thesis 140
11.1 Linking RSQs to thesis structure 188
11.2 Linking RSQs to relevant chapters 189
11.3 Applying linkages to your own thesis 190
14.1 A research methods continuum 240
14.2 Issues on a research methods continuum 241
14.3 A spectrum of opinions on the nature of knowledge, reality
and researcher involvement 245
viii
TABLES
3.1 Belbin team roles and doctoral task transferability 37

5.1 Categorizing verbs 93
13.1 Applying doctoral criteria to stages of development 218
15.1 Cataloguing and justifying your recommendations 262
17.1 Viva roulette questions 283
17.2 A table for organizing thesis amendments 292
PREFACE TO THE
SECOND EDITION
Writing a doctoral thesis1 can be an arduous, confusing and

mystifying process, and particularly at the start, when students may
understand that they need to produce a strong structure for the
entire work, but don’t quite know what a doctorate is, nor how
to create its structure in a clear, rational and convincing manner.
Indeed, the meaning and the process of a doctorate, more than any
other degree, is sometimes more obscure, jargonized and difficult
than it needs to be. This second edition of Writing a Watertight
Thesis not only shows the beginner how to structure a doctorate
but also helps to demystify the nature and processes involved in
the study, both of which will ultimately make it more watertight
and defensible. Not only does this edition of the book provide clear
guidance on structuring, but the additional chapters also show the
student how a doctorate differs from other degrees and help them
to decide whether they have what it takes to do one, whether their
ideas are sufficiently original, what kind of relationship they need to
develop with their supervisors2 and whether their work is achieving
doctoral quality. Much doctoral mystification is then removed.
1
Throughout this second edition we will be using the terms ‘Thesis’ and ‘Dissertation’
interchangeably to reflect the fact that different countries use these terms for
essentially the same purpose – to describe the major written output of the doctoral
student. In some countries – and in some kinds of doctoral degrees – this written
output is accompanied by coursework, the marking of which contributes to the
achievement of the degree; in other countries, the written output is the sole criterion
by which the degree is judged to be achieved or failed.
2
In a similar manner, the academic individual overseeing a student’s thesis may
be given a number of different titles, the two most used being ‘supervisor’ and
‘advisor’, and whilst we shall use the term ‘supervisor’ more often than ‘advisor’
x
x Preface to the Second Edition
As with the first edition of the book, the second edition demon
strates that an essential part of making a thesis watertight lies in
working out which central research question the student is going to ask
and what are the research sub-questions which together collectively
answer this main one. If they do this well, they can be confident that
they will have a thesis which can be successfully defended against
criticism on structural grounds, which is a major part of the battle.
Moreover, this book not only provides examples of how actual
successful theses have been made watertight but also provides students
with exercises to do the same thing with their own thesis. This edition
not only provides greater clarity to the doctoral journey but also
crucially makes the entire thesis more enjoyable and defendable.
We then think that there are a number of key features and
benefits for doctoral students in this second edition:
1. It provides a well-tested successful approach to the

structuring of a doctoral thesis and dissertation.
2. It makes explicit many of the tacit and mystifying
assumptions of doctoral work.
3. It covers both of these issues in a highly accessible and
readable way.
4. It helps the prospective student to explore not only whether
they have what it takes to complete a doctorate but also
whether they can reach the required standard as they start
to write.
5. It deconstructs the notion of ‘originality’ to make it clear
that whilst this term has many different meanings, the
standard of originality required in a doctorate is not nearly
as daunting as some students may fear.
6. It supplies real-life examples of experiences and structures
from successful students and supervisors to illuminate the
text and the advice and arguments made.
7. It explores the different kinds of supervisory relationship
which exist and suggests ways in dealing with the types of
problems which this relationship may encounter.
when discussion about locations where the term is more often used, we will use this
term as well.
Preface to the Second Edition xi
8. It provides strong support for students who want to apply

these arguments and processes to their own work, by
providing exercises which do precisely this.
9. By beginning before a student starts their doctoral degree,
and then taking them right through to its successful
completion, and then demonstrating how their thesis
can be used to further their research or career, this book
provides the student with a very strong understanding of
the entire doctoral process.
10. By the argument, examples and exercises provided in the
book, it helps the student to submit a structurally robust
piece of work, and one which can be defended in a viva.3
Finally, but not insignificantly, this edition also acts as an essential

primer for the new supervisor, and for those new to doctoral
examining. Too often it can be assumed that if you have gained
a doctorate, you can supervise. Yet we hope that few would want
to argue that because someone has been to school they are then
qualified to teach, or to examine others beginning this journey.
There are many tacit issues of doctoral work – of roles, pedagogy,
structure and judgment – which need time, training and reflection
if they are to become conscious strategies in the art of doctoral
supervision. This book clarifies much of this for the beginning
supervisor.
We are now ready to move into Chapter 1, where we will
consider a number of important issues, including the nature of a
watertight thesis, the importance of a thesis having a watertight
structure and how this approach works not only with different
kinds of doctorates but also with different academic disciplines and
with changing doctoral purposes.
The viva, or oral defence of the thesis, is a key feature of doctoral examinations in
3
many, though not all parts of the world.

xii
xii
PART ONE
Getting Ready
2
2
CHAPTER ONE
The Need for a
Watertight Thesis
Introduction
Students for doctorates arrive at their university from varied
backgrounds. Some have just completed an undergraduate degree
and progress to a doctorate. In other cases, they arrive as mid-career
professionals, either sponsored by their government or self-funded,
with some registering for full-time study, some for part-time study.
Whichever way they arrive, they need to ‘hit the ground running’.
Indeed, whether for those who embark on a concurrent ‘modules +
dissertation’ doctoral degree, or a doctorate which contains a large
initial taught element, and then a thesis/dissertation, the processes we
describe still apply to them. A generation ago, in many countries, it
was normally received wisdom that a doctoral student would arrive
at a university and spend the first few months reading around a
topic or a first year taking taught modules, both of which permitted
them some time to reflect upon what the thesis might be about. Most
of us – students and supervisors alike – no longer live in such an
age. Supervisors, irrespective of national location, want students to
finish on time with a quality piece of work which launches them
along their chosen career, but they increasingly live with heightened
work pressures and external expectations of students to complete
punctually. Students also normally have career and financial reasons
for wanting to finish on time, either because they are paying for
4
4 Writing a Watertight Thesis
this study themselves, or they have a funding body which expects

completion within the allotted time period. Both student and
supervisor then have very good reasons for wanting to waste as little
time as possible, and therefore they need to establish fairly early on
in the study the focus of the topic, how this can be framed to suit
the length and topic of a thesis, then developed during the period of
study and answered in the concluding chapters.
Yet our experience over the years has been that many doctoral
students begin their studies with little precise understanding of
what is expected of them, or what a good doctorate looks like, what
level they need to achieve, how to structure their efforts and how
to spend their time on study most profitably. They may then find
it very difficult at the beginning of their thesis to understand what
needs to be done. This book will set them up at the start of their
programme with these understandings. It will help demystify many
covert expectations and much of the process, and in so doing help
them to set up an initial thesis structure in a convincing and clear
way, to maintain and develop this throughout their programme and
to satisfactorily proceed to the end. To do this, they need to make
their thesis watertight. In this chapter, then, we want to explain how
‘watertight’ theses have major strengths that other theses may lack.
Finally, and as already noted in the this section, this book is written
for students in the first place, but is also likely to be useful to supervisors
new to the role and for those beginning to examine doctorates. To start,
then, we want to explain how ‘watertight’ theses have major strengths
that other theses may lack. We also need to reassure you that what is
recommended is not a parochial approach but is applicable beyond
doctoral practice in two particular Western cultures.
So, What Is a ‘Watertight’ Thesis?

A ‘watertight’ thesis is fundamentally one demonstrating such
sound structural integrity that it is nearly impossible to demolish its
main argument. It means that if your thesis is structured in the way
we recommend, then an examiner will find it enormously difficult
to fail it on structural grounds, a critical aspect of doctoral quality.
The suggestion of needing to be ‘watertight’ is borrowed from
shipbuilding, where the builders of river and sea-going vessels need
at all costs to keep the water out, that is, to ensure that the internal
The Need for a Watertight Thesis 5
parts of the ship and the people on board, along with any cargo,
remain dry and afloat. To do this, shipbuilders need to adhere to a
number of principles. In particular, they need to ensure
● that the ship is properly designed;

● that the right materials are selected for their given
purposes; and
● that there is such a synergy between design and materials in the
ship’s construction that no water can seep in.
These need to be tested, and not just before the ship puts out to sea.
The building of the ship needs to be tested throughout a process which
includes sea trials to ensure the ship’s watertightness. Now, if you look
at Figure 1.1, you’ll see that the early stages of thesis construction are
very similar. The stages here should include determining the general
area of research, designing appropriately focused key questions,
stipulating the range of contextual information required and deciding
on the appropriate thesis structure to generate the answers to these
key questions. The ‘materials’ necessarily include determining the
data that are needed to answer the key questions and deciding on
the modes of investigation by which the data will be accessed and
collected. The actual construction of the research must be reflected
by an appropriately structured thesis, which ensures the necessary
synergy between questions, context, data and analysis, and thus
provides defensible answers to critical questioning. When talking
about testing, we avoid using the term ‘finally’, as this may suggest that
this only needs doing at the end of the process. In fact, any thesis needs
to be tested by initial questions and comments from your supervisors,
and later on by means of formative assessments, where your work is
scrutinized in critical detail. This suggests that any doctoral writing
needs to be examined iteratively, as the student moves back and forth
in its examination, and to adjust earlier drafts as necessary.
Does ‘Watertightness’ Work for

Different Kinds of Doctoral Studies?
The traditional way of gaining a doctorate has been to study for
a PhD or a DPhil, the key output being a thesis or dissertation
6
FIGURE 1.1 Stages for constructing the watertight ship and

thesis.
Ship Thesis
Design Determining the kind of Determining the general

uses for which the ship area of research, designing
will be used, the kinds of appropriately focused key
environments the ship will questions, the range of
inhabit, designing appropriate contextual information
internal and external physical required and the appropriate
structures to avoid leakages thesis structure to ‘deliver’
the answers
Materials Appropriate materials Determining the data that

selected to ensure are needed to answer key
watertightness and the questions and the modes of
manner of application in investigation by which the
building the ship data will be accessed and
gathered
Construction Good construction ensures An appropriately structured

that the synergy of design thesis ensures synergy of
and materials guarantees questions, context, data
watertightness and analysis and provides
defensible answers to critical
questioning
Testing Tested throughout the Tested in an iterative

building process to ensure manner throughout the
the ship’s watertightness, research process to ensure
before finally embarking on the creation of defensible
sea trials answers by moving back to
earlier stages for adjustment
as necessary
of up to 100,000 words, examined by a number of examiners,

some internal and some external to the university at which it is
written. Many universities also conduct an oral examination of the
candidate (a viva voce). Over recent years, however, doctorates have
changed considerably, and are now characterized by a paradoxical
mixture of standardization and variety: the standardization of
increasing internationalization of similar regulations, accompanied
by a greater marketized diversity of programmes. Universities have

then broadened the choice of ways in which candidates can pursue
doctoral research. In the process, many countries have developed
a range of ‘professional’ doctorates, which can look quite similar
to the US PhD, which can include taught and/or performance
elements. Professional doctorates, however, are aimed at meeting
the needs of mid-career professionals, who may study on a part-time
basis. These include the DBA (Doctor of Business Administration),
DPsych (Doctor of Psychology), the EdD (Doctor of Education)
and the DProf (Professional Doctorate). All, however, still require
a research-based thesis, though understandably these tend to be
shorter than those that are largely focused on the production of a
lengthy PhD/DPhil.
In addition to PhDs and professional doctorates, there are also
‘doctorates by publication’. For these, candidates are required, as
part of their submission, to present a number of already published
academic articles on a central topic in peer-refereed journals.
Chapter 18 of this book deals with the writing of such articles.
A crucial element here is the requirement to write a ‘connective
piece’, normally of between 10,000 and 20,000 words, which
shows how the published papers link together to generate a new
and original contribution to disciplinary knowledge.
Whatever the format adopted, coherence and structure are
universally required, and therefore the watertightness of the thesis
is essential for them all. This is not to say that the demands on a
student in these different formats do not vary. For example, any
temptation to think that the shorter ‘professional’ thesis is in some
way ‘easier’ than a PhD focused primarily on a lengthy thesis is
in our view seriously misleading: it may be even more demanding
in a shorter form to focus a main question down to a precise and
researchable issue when there are less words to play with. Similarly,
the articles chosen for a doctorate by publication are not necessarily
written with a systematic doctorate in mind, and therefore the
writing of the argument of any connecting piece will be at least
as demanding as in a ‘normal’ doctorate. So, whatever the format
undertaken, whether one primarily focused on the production of
a lengthy thesis, one with a strong taught element as well as thesis
or one by published work, the concept of watertightness remains
central to its achievement.
8
Does a Watertight Thesis Approach

Work with Changing Doctoral
Purposes?
Historically, the doctorate has principally been seen as the
training ground for those who would remain within the academic
community and who would be the ‘stewards of their discipline’
(Golde and Walker, 2006). As this was seen as the major
requirement, the numbers applying could be limited largely to
those who wished to take on such a role, and with little variation
required in the manner in which this was achieved. But such focus
has been radically challenged over the past few decades, largely
due to the growth of the market and competition at tertiary
educational levels, as reflected in Slaughter and Leslie’s (1997)
book Academic Capitalism. In the process, there has then been
a proliferation of types of doctorates as an essential part of a
strategy for developing expertise and numbers for an expanding
knowledge economy. The overall result has then been, as Kehm
(2006), Bao et al. (2018), Yudkevich et al. (2020) and Ayenachew
et al. (2020) have argued, a number of distinct changes in the
orientation of much doctoral research. One has been a movement
away from the kind of curiosity-driven disciplinary stewardship
described above, and more towards forms of research which
are results-driven and have relevance and impact upon more
professionally and business-oriented sectors of society. This
has resulted in a further move away from individually driven
doctoral interests to studies being located within larger team-
driven programmes of research, and from uni-disciplinary to
multidisciplinary research, accompanied by a changed means
of funding, with public or university funding increasingly
supplemented by finance from other sources.
In such circumstances, it is perhaps unsurprising that there
has been a movement in power and responsibility with respect to
doctoral work from the individual and at the departmental level
to the institutional and national levels, as many universities have
seen the need to create a strong reputation in an increasingly
consumerist and competitive market place, even as, a little
paradoxically, they have recognized a simultaneous increase in
national and international policy pressures. Such pressures have

increasingly been focused on the quality of supervision and
teaching, as countries have come to see postgraduate work as an
essential tool in developing a competitive advantage in a global
knowledge economy. In Europe, the Bologna Declaration and
the Lisbon Strategy both had their origins in concerns for the
quality and saleability of their degrees, and so in the quality of
research training (Kehm, 2006). In China, similar concerns have
been seen as essential in launching a knowledge economy and
creating tertiary institutions which could compete with the best
in the Western world (Bao et al., 2016). Similarly, in the United
States, universities follow the regulations of the National Council
of Graduate Education (Austin and Miller, 2020; Yudkevich et al.,
2020). Whilst there still remains considerable variation between,
and sometimes within, countries, the direction of change for all is
very largely a shared one.
One can see such sharing in the move towards the development
and adoption of ‘qualifications frameworks’ worldwide over the
past two to three decades. A report in 2013 for the Asia-Europe
Meeting (ASEM) Ministers’ Conference indicated that 142 countries
and territories were now involved in developing qualifications
frameworks (Bjornavold, 2013). Initially many of these have been
nationally based (National Qualifications Frameworks, or NQFs),
but these have also been drawn together into Regional Qualifications
Frameworks (RQFs). The most prominent of these regional
frameworks is probably the European Qualifications Framework
(EQF, 2005), but there are others such as that of the Association
of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN, 2007). These qualifications
frameworks provide a series of descriptors for different levels of
learning outcomes for school and post-school education. From such
developments, it seems clear that in many countries there has been
a growing consensus about the desired outcomes of the doctoral-
level study, even as in some cases the descriptors have been revised
and updated. The present UK descriptors, current since 2014, have
indicated the need for the following:
● The creation and interpretation of new knowledge, through

original research or other advanced scholarship, of a quality to
satisfy peer review, extend the forefront of the discipline and
merit publication.
10
● A systematic acquisition and understanding of a substantial

body of knowledge which is at the forefront of an academic
discipline or area of professional practice.
● The general ability to conceptualize, design and implement a
project for the generation of new knowledge, applications or
understanding at the forefront of the discipline, and to adjust
the project design in light of the unforeseen problems.
● A detailed understanding of applicable techniques for research
and advanced academic enquiry (QAA, 2014).
The Hong Kong Qualifications Framework (HKQF) in 2017

similarly asked the students to do the following:
● Demonstrate and work with a critical overview of a subject or

discipline, including an evaluative understanding of principal
theories and concepts, and of its broad relationships with other
disciplines
● Identify, conceptualise and offer original and creative insights
into new, complex and abstract ideas and information
● Deal with very complex and/or new issues and make informed
judgments in the absence of complete or consistent data/
information
● Make a significant and original contribution to a specialized
field of enquiry, or to broader interdisciplinary relationships
These descriptors were updated in 2018, but the descriptors retain

much of the same thrust.
The descriptors for Canada were issued in 2007, and at the time
of writing have remained unchanged, and the following example
demonstrates that the essence of the requirements asks that:
● Holders of the doctoral degree must have demonstrated a high

degree of intellectual autonomy, an ability to conceptualise,
design and implement projects for the generation of significant
new knowledge and/or understanding, and an ability to
create and interpret knowledge that extends the forefront of a
discipline, usually through original research or creative activity
(Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, 2007).
In the United States, where the autonomy of individual universities

is strongly embedded in the education system, both individual
universities and subject associations issue statements which outline
what the respective essences are for doctoral-level qualifications. So, for
example, the American Psychological Association (APA) requires that
doctoral programmes in psychology should meet a comprehensive list
of requirements. Some of these relate to the obligations laid upon the
institution to provide specific facilities, and others outline intellectual
demands to be placed upon students (APA, 2018).
This is similar to the UK descriptor, which asks for an ‘understanding
of a substantial body of knowledge which is at the forefront of an
academic discipline or area of professional practice’ (QAA, 2014), as
well as the Canadian requirement for
the generation of significant new knowledge and/or understanding

… that extends the forefront of a discipline. (Council of Ministers
of Education, Canada, 2007)
We can also see such commonality through the examination of

a successful Czech doctorate by Michal Simane (2015), which
demonstrates that similar criteria are recognized and adhered to
elsewhere. The major research question (MRQ) of the thesis was as
follows:
What were the everyday and major challenges encountered in

Czech minority schools in Usti nad Labem during the first Czech
Republic, and how successfully were these challenges dealt with?
Michal recognized the need to ask questions about the context of his
study by looking at the social, political and economic backgrounds
during this period, to ask more specific questions about how
these schools were set up and run and how well they managed
to cooperate with other non-Czech schools. He also recognized
the need to ask questions about the best possible methods for
examining the daily life and challenges of these schools. These led
to his triangulated approach,1 which included archival resources,
1
‘Triangulation’ is an odd term, which one might reasonably expect to simply mean
an approach which uses three different types of research techniques, or where three
types of data are gathered for comparison. In actual fact, in research terms, it means
12
legislation, historical periodicals, period photographs and memoirs

of students at these schools. His conclusions allowed him to produce
new understandings for the region he explored. In terms of the UK
criteria, then,
● he created new knowledge, through original research, which

satisfied peer review, and which extended the forefront of his
area of study discipline, parts of which were published;
● he systematically acquired and came to understand a body
of contextual and focused knowledge which was unique and
therefore at the forefront of his academic area; and
● using his triangulated approach, he demonstrated a detailed
understanding of applicable techniques for his research, and
thus was able to conceptualize, design and implement a project
generating new knowledge and understanding in his area
(QAA, 2014).
Both the frameworks and the doctoral example above highlight the
importance and centrality of appropriate questions, as it is these
which orientate research from what is believed to be known into
what is currently unknown, because at the end of the journey, one
of the results will be the production or creation of insights and
materials which were not known or recognized before the research
was undertaken.
Doctoral Purposes and the

Watertight Thesis
Now for some doctoral students such discussion may seem a little
distant from their concerns, but globally the nature of the modules
they must take in addition to the writing of their thesis increasingly
reflect such changes, and whilst as argued earlier, there is considerable
similarity in the criteria for doctoral thinking and writing, it would
be unsurprising if the kind of changes described above were not
where more than one approach or one type of data are used. So ‘triangulation’ can
mean not only three, but also two, five (as in Michal’s PhD) or a dozen research
techniques or types of data. Odd, to say the least.
increasingly incorporated into existing national standards. These

may then have an impact on the kinds of questions to be posed in
Chapter 3, concerning the personal qualities needed to undertake
and complete a doctorate; and for lecturers new to supervision and
examination, an understanding of such changes will be essential
if they are to understand what these imply for the selection of
doctoral students, and in helping their students to negotiate a
changing doctoral journey. If such changes are not understood, then
some of the academic and administrative demands following from
such changes may be poorly negotiated. From a structuring point
of view, however, such changes will continue to demand watertight
qualities, the most important being the following:
● All forms will require a description, explanation and

justification of a central research question, which requires
answering in the thesis.
● All forms will need a description and justification of a thesis
structure which demonstrates how the central research question
will be answered.
● All will need to explain and justify how the research makes an
original contribution within a discipline, or across a number.
● They will all need to describe and critique the relevant
literature(s) pertaining to their study.
● They will all need to explain and justify the methods which will
be used to gather data in order to answer their central question.
Watertight structuring, of the kind recommended in this book, is

then viable for doctorates with ‘traditional’ purposes and for those
changing to meet extra-academic demands.
Does ‘Watertightness’ Work for

Doctoral Studies in Different
Disciplines?
The same kind of argument applies to this question of application
within different disciplines, because theses in different disciplines
have many of the things listed above in common, and therefore
14
need to be watertight in the same kinds of way: the doctoral student

in any discipline needs to develop a thesis structure providing a
watertight way of answering a central research question. The same
student needs to show how literature reviews are more than just
reviews of appropriate literature, but strategic explorations of
thinking and research in their field to better frame and justify the
originality of their research question. They also need to demonstrate
how they have selected research methods in empirical theses which
appropriately answer the main research question. These issues,
and their proper structuring into your thesis, will go a long way in
making the thesis defensible and watertight, whichever discipline
you are working within.
Nevertheless, there are some differences between disciplines in
their attitude to doctoral thought and practice which may affect the
way in which content and structuring are approached. Disciplines
can then differ in the following five ways.
Using Hypotheses Rather Than Central

Research Questions
Some disciplines, most notably scientific disciplines, talk in terms
of hypotheses rather than key research questions (Kerlinger, 1969;
Bryman, 2015). They do this, arguing that the scientific method
is based upon the idea that one begins with a theory, extracts a
prediction from that theory and then finds the evidence to test
whether that prediction is true or false. If the prediction is validated,
then the theory is strengthened. If the prediction is falsified, then
the theory is invalidated. Whilst one can question the finality of
any such invalidation (see Chalmers, 2005), the important point
here is that such a thesis begins with a prediction rather than a
question, and the prediction is then tested. However, by seeking
to either confirm or falsify hypotheses, this approach imposes
restrictions on the type of answer one can gain, for the hypothesis
can only be either accepted or rejected. Some may then think that
because predictions focus tightly and testably upon one aspect of a
theory, it is then better to adopt an approach where more nuanced
questions and answers are possible. Questions, properly framed,
can perform the same function, and this depends, unsurprisingly,
on the tightness and focus of the questions being asked. Take the
fairly general prediction given by Cohen, Manion and Morrison

(1994, p. 18):
Social class background determines academic achievement.
It is a simple matter to turn this into a key research question for

a thesis – what will subsequently be called its MRQ – which then
becomes
Does social class background determine academic achievement?
The prediction requires evidence to see if it is validated; the question

similarly requires evidence for it to be answered. However, if this
question is differently phrased, it also admits the possibility of a
range of ‘answers’ such as the following:
To what extent does social class background determine academic

achievement?
The reverse – going from question to prediction – is also possible.

Here we take Simane’s (2015) doctorate referred to earlier. Michal
agreed that its MRQ was,
What was the everyday life and the major challenges encountered
in Czech minority schools in Usti nad Labem during the first
Czech Republic, and how successfully were these challenges
dealt with?
One hypothesis coming from this, requiring evidence for its

validation or invalidation, would be
Everyday and major challenges encountered in Czech minority

schools in Usti nad Labem during the first Czech Republic were
dealt with successfully.
Of the two approaches, we prefer the first ‘MRQ’ approach, because,

as noted earlier, the answers in this approach lend themselves to
more nuanced answers than those using a ‘hypothesis approach’.
It may be the case, after all, that some challenges to the schools
were dealt with very successfully, some only partially dealt with and
16
some never resolved. Being directed by a hypothesis into positive

or negative conclusions may miss some of the subtlety and nuance
encountered in life. Conclusions to theses should be determined
more by the nature of the problem than by the nature of the method
chosen. As this book progresses, a variety of examples will be used
to show how the deconstruction of an MRQ as a way of structuring
a thesis can work as well – or better – than ‘hypothesis’ approaches.
Different Views of the Status of Knowledge

Some disciplines believe that because of the methods adopted, the
data gained from a thesis can be viewed as ‘objective’, standing
beyond the influence or interpretation of any personal views. This
view contrasts with disciplines which believe that any ‘knowledge’
gained is necessarily much more ‘subjective’ than this, as it is
gathered by fallible and selective human beings, irrespective of the
methods adopted. In disciplines where data are viewed as more
‘objective’, discussion of epistemology is in practice likely to be
more limited in the methodology chapter of a thesis than where
greater subjectivity is accepted.
Different Views of Reality

Such views of the ‘objective’ status of ‘knowledge’ gained are
ultimately based – or convince people of – the existence of a
single unitary ‘reality’, and that research, therefore, can help in
providing a ‘more accurate’ picture of this one reality. Such a
‘realist ontology’ needs contrasting with other disciplines which
tend to believe that, because of the status of knowledge they
believe is possible, there are necessarily multiple views of any
such reality, and therefore a more limited ‘interpretivist’ view of
research is more appropriate (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000). These
contrasting views are likely to affect the degree to which such
issues of ‘ontology’ are represented in the methodology chapter
of a thesis. Both of these issues – the status of epistemology and
ontology – will be considered in more detail in later chapters of
the book, and particularly in Chapter 14 when we discuss the
structuring of methodology chapters.
Differences in the Importance of Context

Given the above, it will not be surprising to find that disciplines can
differ in the degree to which they believe that different contexts –
historical, cultural or professional – can affect and impact on the
nature of a research problem and the results gained. Where methods
and results are seen as capable of being context-free, this may be
an issue receiving little consideration in the content or structuring
of the thesis. In virtually all disciplines, however, one context is
nearly always important to the study, and that is the history of the
research into the topic being investigated Where contexts are seen
as much more capable of impacting on methods and data, a lot
more attention needs to be paid to them, particularly those theses
involving studies of human beings, as they are likely to be affected
by different personal, institutional or cultural perspectives.
Differences in the Importance of Positionality

Unsurprisingly, then, theses can also differ in the degree to which
they believe that a researcher’s experience, views, attitudes, values
and perceptions – their ‘positionality’ – can impact on the conduct
of the study, and therefore on the results. Where a study is believed
to be very largely immune to such effects, discussion of such
issues of ‘positionality’ may be seen as largely unnecessary. Where,
however, they are believed to ‘frame’ the way a problem is viewed,
and therefore researched, such positionality is likely to be seen as
needing considered thought and discussion in the thesis.
The ways in which disciplines may see doctoral work differently
raises the question of whether discussion of positionality issues
needs inclusion or exclusion in a thesis. We think that a book such as
this, whilst being a practical aid to doctoral researchers, also needs
to ask doctoral students to reflect upon these kinds of questions,
because they go to the heart of the doctoral exercise; in particular,
how human beings gain knowledge, and the extent to which they
can have confidence in that knowledge. As with the thinking behind
all good doctoral theses, students then need to think about why
different positions are taken, whether they can be justified, how
they would be justified and whether attempts at such justification
should be part of the structuring and argument of their own thesis.
18
Why Not Use an ‘Aims and

Objectives’ Approach?
Finally, an often-used approach to thesis writing and structuring
has been to employ an ‘aims and objectives’ approach. Whilst
superficially attractive, we believe that there are a number of
inherent weaknesses in it. A first problem is that of vagueness in
stating the aims. Aims are usually the statement of fairly general
intentions, and may refer to things like ‘Investigating practice
and policy in Texan laboratories’ or ‘Exploring mentoring in the
Finnish police force’, and may then fail to state explicitly the central
focus of the thesis. Much the same problem comes with objectives;
they can all too easily become a wish list of a range of potentially
tangential issues which the researcher would like to explore, rather
than explicitly stating what are the essential questions which need
to be asked if the central research question of the thesis is to be
properly addressed.
This leads to the central concern with using an ‘aims and
objectives’ approach: there is often no necessary and explicit logical
connection between them, and it can then be really rather difficult
to demonstrate how one relates to the other. With an ‘MRQ’
approach – where aims are replaced by a major research question and
objectives are replaced by research sub-questions – the link is both
logical and watertight. As will be described in detail in this book,
the research sub-questions are devised by examining and extracting
the significant elements from the ‘major research question’. Not
only are they then derived from the MRQ, their actual number is
also determined by the significant elements within the MRQ. And
to add to this essential symbiosis, if the researcher looks at the
research sub-questions, and comes to the conclusion that another is
needed to fully explain what needs doing in the research, then the
MRQ will need adjusting to embrace this extra element. The MRQ
and the research sub-questions are then intimately and inextricably
joined by the fact that the research sub-questions can only be derived
from the MRQ, and the MRQ is devised from the essential elements
of the research. There can then be no vagueness in the expression
of the main research question, and there can then be no additional
research sub-questions beyond those encapsulated by the MRQ.
The links are therefore logical, symbiotic and watertight. This, we
think, gives the ‘MRQ’ approach distinct advantages over an ‘aims

and objectives’ approach, and as we shall see, this is particularly the
case when it comes to the structuring of the thesis.
So having described the benefits of a watertight thesis, we
are now ready to move on to Chapter 2, which discusses the
notions of mystification and demystification, and particularly the
mystification problems that new doctoral students encounter, and
how such problems can be demystified. We will therefore describe
a number of different kinds of doctoral mystification, suggest
ways of demystifying these and indicate where in the book their
demystification may be further explained and discussed.
20
20
CHAPTER TWO
Demystifying the Doctoral
Process
Introduction – the Mysteries of

Construction
In the previous chapter, we discussed the meaning of and need
for a watertight thesis and suggested that there were some strong
similarities between the four stages of constructing a watertight
ship and those of a watertight thesis – the design, the materials, the
actual construction and the testing of the ship or the thesis. All of
these stages can present problems, particularly to those who have
never built a ship before, or engaged in researching and writing a
thesis. If you cast your eyes down the ‘ship’ column of Figure 1.1 in
the previous chapter, you can imagine how difficult such production
would be for someone new to shipbuilding. There is a very strong
likelihood that they would make a mess of all four stages, and if
they tried to launch the ship, it would probably sink in very short
order. The same would apply to the stages for thesis construction.
There will be times in both when the novice will scratch their head
and wonder how on earth they are supposed to deal with these
issues. Some may be solved relatively simply: one can, for example,
go on the internet to find the size and quality of nails needed for
a particular job, and what is the maximum length of a thesis at a
particular university. There are other problems, however, which are
much more complex, ones that may well leave the beginner mystified
22
in a much deeper way. They then need to come to recognize that

two actions, in particular, are needed if the demystification of these
problems is to be achieved.
The first is to seek out an experienced ‘old hand’ at the task
and ask them to provide advice and guidance as they begin, with
constant critiques on how they are doing. This applies not only to
ship but also to thesis construction and is a central element of the
role of a doctoral supervisor (see Chapters 6 and 7 for more on
this role).
But being given and then implementing such advice can only go
so far, for it is possible to construct a ship or a thesis by following
such guidance and advice, and yet never really understand the ‘deep
structure’ of ship or thesis construction. To achieve the status of
a ‘real’ ship or doctoral constructor, the novice needs to resolve
any areas of mystification by really understanding these deeper
problems. As will be mentioned more than once in this book,
probably the worst answer a doctoral student can give to a doctoral
examiner when they are asked to justify why they chose a particular
topic, or selected a particular methodology, or interpreted their
results in a particular way, is to say ‘because my supervisor told
me to’. This is such a damaging reply because the examiner will
immediately know that the student has not reached the level of
understanding required to be allocated ‘constructor’ status and
awarded the doctoral degree. It is then imperative that the doctoral
student comes to understand the nature of mystification problems
and how to deal with them. This is the subject of this chapter.
Now it’s important to point out from the start that ‘mystification’
can have active and passive meanings. When used in an active sense,
it normally means that someone is deliberately trying to mystify
someone else. This has been a long-standing complaint against
many professions, as such actions, or the use of impenetrable
terminology, have deliberately been used to prevent non-members
from understanding what is actually happening, and in so doing
have provided professional members with greater power and
remuneration. This doesn’t happen as often as it used to, but it still
exists.
However, ‘mystification’ can also have a wider passive meaning,
where someone is ‘mystified’ because they don’t understand things
about the nature of the work they must undertake. In doctoral
terms, this may translate into concerns over whether an individual
Demystifying the Doctoral Process 23
has what it takes to engage in a doctorate or how original their

research must be. And such problems tend to be deep ones which
don’t have simple answers, but which need to be constantly worked
at, and are sometimes ones which are never completely resolved.
It is also important to note that apparently simple problems
can have elements of mystification to them. As will be seen in later
chapters, the question of choosing a suitable area of study, for
instance, is not a simple task of deciding to study an area because
you are interested in it. Instead, it needs to be a more gradual process
of identifying an area in which you have interest and some initial
expertise, and by reading and reflecting on the literature in that area,
coming to recognize that there are some issues here which have not
been fully explored, or where the resolution of a disagreement has
not yet been made, or where current explanations seem limited or
inadequate. These kinds of deeper questions may then provide you
with the required motivation – and justification – to keep focusing
on this issue at the doctoral level over a number of years.
Even then, these may still sound rather like initial tasks which
once resolved can then form a permanent base for the thesis. But
the fact is that things happen during a thesis: you may come across
new literature which suggests you need to re-focus your study; you
may change jobs or move elsewhere and may then not have access
to the kinds of data you wanted to use in order to explore your area
of research; and you may come to believe that what you thought
at the start was the primary focus of the study is now not precisely
what you really want to explore.
As noted throughout this book, these kinds of issues can make
the doctoral process a very iterative one – one where you may
find yourself moving backwards and forwards in the thesis as you
realize you need to adjust the earlier parts in light of what you
have discovered as you have progressed through to the later stages.
Doctorates then are very seldom straightforward in the manner in
which they evolve. You are very unlikely to start at the beginning,
and then stage by stage go through the thesis, writing each chapter
in a linear sequence until you get to the end, where you stop and
present it for examination. Instead, its iterative nature and the
unexpected changes that go with this can lead some students to feel
that they are not really in control of the process and are increasingly
uncertain about what the thesis will actually look like at the
end. Yet this is the nature of the creation of many new doctoral
24
understandings and insights: many times you don’t know what will
eventually be produced, and so you will need a quality, surprising
to many beginners, which the poet John Keats talked about – that
of ‘negative capability’: the ability to remain comfortable with
uncertainty, rather than succumbing to the urge to try and provide
final and definitive answers very quickly.
This requirement also highlights an essential aspect of a strong
supervisory relationship in its earlier stages – that your supervisor,
being sufficiently acquainted with your work, knows that the
process is going pretty well, even if you the student do not yet see
this. Such experienced support can then provide you the student
with greater confidence to continue with the thesis in its current
direction. Of course, a good supervisor or advisor also needs the
quality of advising you when they believe you are not heading in
the right direction!
So questions which may seem relatively straightforward can
contain issues of mystification. Questions like
● What are the purposes of writing literature reviews?

● How do I go about choosing the right methods to investigate
the main questions of my thesis?
● How do I report my data?
● How should I write the conclusions to my thesis?
Their answers are all very likely to involve degrees of iteration, of

needing to feel comfortable with uncertainty rather than feeling
the need to move quickly to final conclusions and of recognizing
that new understandings can often be surprising in their nature
and in their impact on the doctorate. They then can rise above just
being practical concerns requiring only practical advice. So whilst
a book like Single’s (2010) Demystifying Dissertation Writing
is a very useful practical book on the writing skills needed for a
doctorate, it also contains a useful discussion of the kind of issues
described above.
However, besides the existence of issues with some elements of
mystification to them, there are other issues where mystification is
much more central, more complex and more problematic. These are
not so easily understood and not so easily resolvable, and to introduce
them to you, we ask you to engage in the following exercise.
‘I Wish I Knew’
First, then, please read the following twelve statements. You can do
this on your own, though it can be both enjoyable and educational to
do this with someone else who is reading for or has already gained a
doctorate, because by comparing their concerns with your own, you
may find interesting similarities and differences – and perhaps new
insights as well. You might even try to persuade your supervisor(s) to
participate – they were students themselves once upon a time! So as
you read these statements, ask yourself which of them you were most
concerned about before you began your study, and/or which have
given the most concern as you have moved through your doctorate.
To each one of these statements then allocate a mark out of 10,
with 0 meaning that it is not or has never been a concern, whilst 10
represents your highest level of concern:
1. I wish I knew what my examiners think is most important

in judging whether my doctorate is good enough to pass.
2. I wish I knew whether my thesis is original or not.
3. I wish I knew how to make my thesis original.
4. I wish I knew what role my supervisor is supposed to play
in my gaining this doctorate.
5. I wish I knew why many academic writers use ten difficult
words when three simple ones would seem to do.
6. I wish I knew whether or not I have what it takes to do a
doctorate.
7. I wish I knew why when I read some academic writing,
I have to translate it into normal language before I can
understand what it is saying.
8. I wish I knew how to best use my supervisor/advisor.
9. I wish I knew what the difference was between achieving a
master’s degree and a doctoral degree.
10. I wish I knew what kinds of abilities I need for me to
perform well on a doctorate.
11. I wish I knew whether, in the doctorate, I need to discuss
the nature of reality and of what human beings can know
about this.
26
12. I wish I knew whether my writing is good enough for a

doctorate.
Now, these are all statements about issues of mystification, and they
are representative of six central areas of doctoral mystification. So
once you have scored each statement, have them next to you as you
read about these six areas.
Capability Mystification
‘Capability mystification’ is represented by Statements 6 and 10 in
our list:
I wish I knew whether or not I have what it takes to do a

doctorate.
I wish I knew what kinds of abilities I need for me to perform
well on a doctorate.
Capability mystification occurs when students do not know if they

have the kinds of abilities necessary to gain a doctorate. These
concerns are usually encountered by students either when they start
to think about applying for a doctorate or when they first start one.
This may be a highly important issue for many students, as a lack of
understanding here may lead them to make wrong judgments and
decisions during the early stages of a doctorate. This is why we deal
with this issue in the very next chapter. Some students may think
that this concern boils down to the simple question: ‘Am I clever
enough to do a doctorate?’ However, Chapter 3 will argue that
this is but one aspect of any proper evaluation of personal ability,
because doctorates require different capabilities, just as different
kinds of personal capacities can bolster or diminish chances of
ultimate success. There is also a great need for a student pursuing
a doctorate to develop the long-term resilience of a marathon
runner rather than the high-energy, short-term efforts of a sprinter.
Marathon runners know there is a long way to go, they structure
their race by determining how quickly they need to run over the
length of the course, which parts will be particularly challenging,
and they try to save some energy for the final run-in. This is no bad
description of the doctoral candidate, who similarly needs to be
aware of the length of their race, of the challenges they will face on
the way, of the pace they need to maintain and of the spare capacity
they need to try to create and reserve, not just for the end, but for
dealing with the unexpected during their ‘race’. A better way of
phrasing this doubt may then be to ask ‘Do I have what it takes to
complete a doctorate?’ – which is the subject of the next chapter.
Finally, there is the need for the student to think of the doctorate
in the context of their life, and particularly how they are going
to maintain a sustainable work–life balance during the doctoral
process. Capability demystification then comes from realizing and
reflecting upon a series of questions rather than just one. Chapter 3
will then help the student to identify these areas and to assess the
strength of the qualities they bring to this area of concern and how
they might increase such strengths and develop others.
Doctoral Nature Mystification

The second area of mystification comes from concerns about the
very nature of doctoral study. Unsurprisingly, we have called this
‘doctoral nature mystification’. It is represented by Statements 9
and 11:
I wish I knew what the difference was between achieving a

master’s degree and a doctoral degree.
I wish I knew whether, in the doctorate, I need to discuss
the nature of reality and of what human beings can know
about this.
Like capability mystification, doctoral nature mystification is

not a single concern, but a number of them. For some students,
it includes trying to understand what distinguishes a doctorate
from other levels of study; for others, how the values, knowledge
and experience of a student (often called ‘positionality’ in the
research literature) can affect their approach to the study; and
for others whether philosophical concerns about what human
beings can know should have a significant part to play in the
argument of their doctorate. All of these concerns are covered in
this second edition, but there are two areas of doctoral nature
mystification – originality and assessment mystification – which
28
tend to be so concerning that we have allotted separate chapters

for their discussion.
Supervisory Mystification
The third area of mystification is what we call supervisory (or
advisory) mystification, and it is represented by Statements 4 and 8:
I wish I knew what role my supervisor is supposed to play in my

gaining this doctorate.
I wish I knew how to best use my supervisor/advisor.
‘Supervisory mystification’ might well be called by some ‘relation

ship mystification’, because one of the unknowns for many students
when they begin their doctoral programme is the nature of their
relationship with their supervisor, and what might be gained
from it. However, as explained more fully in Chapters 6 and 7,
the mystification involved in supervision can come from at least
four different issues. The first stems from the mystery found in all
relationships, as one may never quite know what the other or others
in a relationship are thinking or intending, nor indeed whether one
has been successful in communicating what is needed or intended
to another. The second mystification comes from the fact that
supervisory relationships have a number of specific purposes –
what we will argue in Chapter 6 are academic, administrative and
pastoral functions. How these are interpreted and then negotiated
by the different parties involved can be another source of student
mystification. Third, the purposes of such functions are often
directed by and then interpreted by supervisors from higher-level
directives, and such interpretations may never be entirely clear to
the students involved. Finally, as these later chapters argue, the
nature of the supervisory relationship needs to change during the
doctoral process, and in particular towards the student’s greater
independence. It is a change to which both must contribute, and yet
this may never be voiced, remaining a tacit assumption which can
then add another layer of mystification to the supervisory process.
So whilst the success of this relationship is highly important to
gaining a doctorate, understanding it and negotiating it can at times
be a highly difficult and mystifying process.
Discourse Mystification
The fourth area of mystification is what we call ‘discourse
mystification’, and is represented by Statements 5 and 7:
I wish I knew why many academic writers use ten difficult words
when three simple ones would seem to do.
I wish I knew why when I read some academic writing, I have
to translate it into normal language before I can understand
what it is saying.
Discourse mystification tends to be seen when students read highly

esoteric and technical articles and books, often written in long
sentences. A genuine example of this is the virtually impenetrable
139-word sentence in Chapter 16 on p. 271. Sometimes these are
actions meant to deliberately confuse another in order to reserve
understanding, power and practice to those who have access to
such a discourse and to exclude those who don’t (see Poole, 2007,
for a highly incisive and readable discussion on the use of terms to
aid such mystification). Students can then find themselves feeling
not only mystified by what has been written but also that the writer
is trying to bar them from the club they want to join. As noted,
such deliberate discourse mystification has been a long-standing
criticism of many areas of professional practice, particularly if
the meanings and processes of an activity are then obscured by
such jargon. Certainly, the intentional concealment of meaning to
exert greater power and control has been one of the reasons for
distrust in many areas of professional practice, and for a variety
of consequent reforms over the past few decades. However,
whilst some of these practices can be deliberate attempts to exert
and maintain power within an area of practice, the intentions
can often be much less sinister. Words and phrases like neo-
endogenous growth theory, quantitative easing, positionality and
ethnomethodology can all be simply shorthand for summarizing an
idea when communicating with others who have a similar level of
knowledge and expertise. For a doctorate, discourse mystification
can apply with respect to doctoral requirements, to the nature of
the processes involved, to the arguments used in the literature and
to the assessment of the final work. Now in doctoral terms, there
30
probably still are some academic practitioners who continue to

use terms in this way, though our experience suggests that there
are many more who believe that an important part of the role of
the doctoral supervisor is to eliminate discourse mystification by
helping their students to better understand the nature and practice
of a doctorate and its particular language. This is also a central
purpose of this book.
Assessment Mystification
The fifth area of mystification is that of ‘assessment mystification’ –
of students not understanding how they should judge the quality
of their writing and argument. It is represented by Statements 1
and 12:
I wish I knew what my examiners think is most important in

judging whether my doctorate is good enough to pass.
I wish I knew whether my writing is good enough for a
doctorate.
Assessment mystification is a highly important area, for if a student’s

writing and argument do not possess the same qualities that their
supervisors/advisors, and ultimately their examiners, believe to be
important, then they will likely fail to gain their doctorate. This
concern continues to be discussed in these early chapters, and
Chapters 13 and 16 deepen the discussion by examining the quality
of doctoral work, as well as how supervisors and external examiners
make judgments on a student’s piece of work.
Originality Mystification
Finally, many beginning students are often concerned by the fact
that they have been told that there is another highly important
area of assessment they need to satisfy, and this is of producing a
doctorate which is ‘original’. However, they may not know what
this actually means, nor how they are supposed to achieve it. Such
‘originality mystification’ is then the final area of mystification to
be examined, and is represented by Statements 2 and 3, which make
the point that students are concerned not only about whether their
thesis is original, but how they can make it more so:
I wish I knew whether my thesis is original or not.

I wish I knew how to make my thesis original.
This then means it is also a source of ‘capability mystification’,

but it is usually seen by the beginning doctoral student as such an
issue that we give it its own category, and discuss it in depth in
Chapter 4, where it is argued that demystification is attained by
better recognizing the purposes that originality plays in a doctoral
study, and of the different kinds of ‘originality’ that can be used to
justify the originality of a thesis.
Having now identified and discussed six major kinds of
mystification, we suggest that if you have not already done so,
you now add up the scores you attached to each statement, and
adding together the scores for the two statements for each form of
mystification reflects on how you have ranked these. It would be a
good idea to discuss with another person why you have concerns
about some forms of mystification and little concern for others.
This book will discuss each form of mystification in depth in later
chapters, and you may want to move immediately to the chapter or
chapters focused on the particular type(s) which your scores suggest
concern you the most. In the next chapter, we examine in detail
probably the first of these doctoral mystifications which students
are concerned about, that of ability mystification, and the kinds
of abilities students need if they are to embark upon and achieve a
doctoral qualification.
32
32
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
sinne tunkeutumaan? Teille se ei onnistunut, mutta se on aivan eri
asia, sillä helpompi on tukkia tie suurelta armeijalta kuin minun
joukkoni kaltaiselta, helposti piiloon pujahtavalta joukolta. Usein olen
ollut viidakossa piilossa ja Douglas on kulkenut aivan vierestäni ohi
mitään huomaamatta. Douglas lähtee varmasti seuraamaan teitä ja
jättää minulle tien vapaaksi.
— Olette, kuulemma, pitänyt häntä lujilla! — sanoi Wolodyjowski

tyytyväisenä.
— Niin, tuota lurjusta! — lisäsi Zagloba. — Hän kuuluu hikoilleen

niin, että muutti joka päivä paitaa. Te olette hoidellut häntä yhtä hyvin
kuin Chowanskia, ja minun täytyy sanoa, että en itsekään olisi tätä
paremmin tehnyt, vaikka jo herra Koniecpolski sanoi, että
sissisodassa ei kukaan vedä vertoja Zagloballe.
— Minusta näyttää mahdolliselta, — sanoi Wolodyjowski

Kmicicille, — että jos Douglas palaa takaisin, niin hän jättää
Boguslawin tänne sotimaan teitä vastaan.
— Suokoon Jumala sen! Itsekin olen sitä toivonut, — vastasi

Kmicic vilkkaasti. — Jos minä etsin häntä ja hän minua, niin kai me
löydämme toisemme. Kolmatta kertaa hän ei enää saane syöstyksi
minua satulasta, mutta jos hän sen tekee, niin en minä enää nouse
maasta. Muistan hyvin opettamanne temput ja kaikki lyönnit.
Harjoittelen joka päivä Sorokan kanssa, että käteni ei kangistuisi.
— Mitäpä sotajuonet toimittavatkaan! — huudahti Wolodyjowski.

— Sapeli, se on poikaa!
Tämä lausuma loukkasi hiukan Zaglobaa. Hän vastasi heti:

— Jokainen tuulimylly luulee, että pääasia on siivillä huiskiminen,
ja tiedättekö miksi, herra Michal? Koska sillä on akanoita katon alla,
toisin sanoen päässä. Sotataidon perusteena ovat sotajuonet,
muutenhan Roch Kowalski voisi olla suurhetmani ja te täysi
kenttämarsalkka.
— Mitä herra Kowalski hommailee? — kysyi Kmicic.
— Herra Kowalski? Nyt hänellä jo on rautakypärä päässä, ja

sehän on paikallaan, sillä pitäähän kaalinpään päällä olla padan
kansi. Hän kahmaisi paljon saalista Varsovasta ja on siirtynyt
ruhtinas Polubinskin husaarijoukkoon. Hän tulee joka päivä
luoksemme telttaan ja katselee syrjäsilmällä, näkyisikö jostakin
olkien seasta pullon kaula. En saa paranemaan tuota poikaa
juoppoudesta. Hyvä esimerkki ei vaikuta mitään. Olen hänelle
ennustanut, että hän saa vielä katua eroamistaan laudalaisesta
rykmentistä. Lurjus! Kiittämätön! Palkaksi monista hyvistä töistäni,
jotka olen häntä kohtaan tehnyt, hän on minut tuolla tavoin hylännyt.
— Te haukutte aina Kowalskia, — sanoi Wolodyjowski, — mutta

hän on kuitenkin silmäteränne.
— Pidän hänestä enemmän kuin teistä, herra Michal, koska en

milloinkaan ole voinut sietää rakastuneita narreja, jotka heti, kun
näkevät jonkin tytön hameen häilähtävän, alkavat kieppua kuin
väkkärä.
— Taikka niinkuin ne Kazanowskien apinat, joitten kanssa

taistelitte!
— Naurakaa, naurakaa, saatte ensikerralla itse valloittaa

Varsovan!
— Tekö muka sen valloititte?
— Kuka Krakovan portin expugnavit? Kuka sai toimeen, että

kenraalit otettiin vangiksi? Ne istuvat nyt vedellä ja leivällä
Zamośćiessa, ja kun Wittenberg katsoo Wrangeliin, niin hän sanoo:
"Zagloba on pannut meidät tänne!" — ja sitten he molemmat itkeä
vetistelevät. Jos herra Sapieha ei olisi sairas ja olisi täällä läsnä, min
hän sanoisi teille, kuka ensimmäisenä puisteli irti ruotsalaisen luteen
varsovalaisnahalta.
— Hyvät ystävät! — huudahti Kmicic. — Tehkää minulle se

palvelus, että lähetätte minulle tiedon tuosta taistelusta, joka on
tulossa Varsovan edustalla. Lasken sormillani öitä ja päiviä enkä saa
rauhaa, ennenkuin saan tietää jotakin varmaa.
Zagloba pani sormen otsalleen.
— Kuulkaa nyt minun politiikkaani, — sanoi hän, — sillä se, mitä

nyt sanon, toteutuu yhtä varmasti… kuin että tuo pikari seisoo
edessäni… Eikö se seiso?
— Kyllä, kyllä! Puhukaa!
— Tuossa päätaistelussa me joko joudumme tappiolle tahi

voitamme…
— Sen tietää jokainen! — keskeytti Wolodyjowski.
— Parempi olisi, että olisitte vaiti ja oppisitte, herra Michal!

Otaksukaamme, että joudumme tässä taistelussa tappiolle.
Tiedättekö, miten silloin käy? Kas, ettepä tiedäkään, sillä jopa
pyörittelette pikku viiksiänne kuin jänis. Mutta minäpä sanon teille: ei
käy mitenkään!
Kmicic, joka oli hyvin tulinen mies, nousi seisomaan, iski pikarinsa
pöytään ja huusi:
— Te puhelette pötyä!
— Sanon teille, että ei käy mitenkään! — lausui Zagloba. — Te

nuoret ette ymmärrä, että niinkuin asiat nyt ovat, kuninkaamme,
rakas isänmaamme, sotajoukkomme voivat joutua tappiolle
viidessäkymmenessä taistelussa perätysten… ja sota jatkuu vain
entiseen tapaan, aateli lähtee taisteluun, ja sen esimerkkiä
seuraavat alemmat säädyt… Jos yhdellä kertaa ei onnistuta, niin
onnistutaan toisella, tahi seuraavalla, siihen asti kunnes vihollinen
uupuu. Mutta kun ruotsalaiset joutuvat tappiolle yhdessäkin
suuremmassa taistelussa, niin piru heidät perii auttamattomasti ja
vaaliruhtinaan vielä kaupanpäällisiksi.
Zagloba innostui, tyhjensi pikarinsa, iski sen pöytään ja jatkoi:
— Kuunnelkaa nyt tarkoin, sillä ette te kenen suusta tahansa kuule

tämmöistä, koska kaikki eivät kykene näkemään suurpiirteisesti!
Moni ajattelee: mikä vielä tulee kohtaloksemme? Paljonko taisteluita,
paljonko tappioita, jommoisia Caroluksen kanssa sotiessa aina on
odotettavissa, paljonko kyyneleitä, verenvuodatusta ja
koettelemuksia tulee vielä osallemme? Ja moni on epätoivoissaan,
moni herjaa laupiasta Jumalaa ja Pyhää Neitsyttä… Mutta minä
sanon teille: tiedättekö, mikä odottaa noita vandaalimaisia
vihollisiamme? Tuho! Tiedättekö, mikä odottaa meitä? Voitto! Kenties
he lyövät meidät vielä sata kertaa… hyvä! Mutta me lyömme heidät
sadannella yhdennellä kerralla, ja silloin on juttu lopussa.
Tämän sanottuaan Zagloba sulki hetkeksi silmänsä, mutta avasi

ne sitten äkkiä, katsoi säihkyvin katsein eteensä ja huudahti äkkiä
täyttä kurkkua:
— Voitto! Voitto! Kmicic punastui riemusta.
— Jumal'auta, hän on oikeassa! Se siitä tulee lopuksi!
— Täytyy tunnustaa, että teillä on järkeä päässä! — sanoi

Wolodyjowski. — Vihollinen voi valloittaa Puolan, mutta ei pitää sitä
vallassaan, vaan loppujen lopuksi hänen on mentävä tiehensä.
— Ahaa, onko järkeä päässäni! — sanoi Zagloba ilostuneena

kehumisesta. — Koska niin on, niin ennustan teille vielä lisää…
Jumala auttaa oikeamielisiä! Te (hän kääntyi Kmicicin puoleen)
voitatte Radziwill-petturin, menette Taurogiin, vapautatte tytön, otatte
hänet vaimoksenne, saatte paljon lapsia… Kuivukoon kieleni, jos ei
käy niinkuin sanon… Herran tähden! Älkää kuristako minua
kuoliaaksi!
Varoitus oli paikallaan, sillä Kmicic oli ottanut Zagloban syliinsä,

kohottanut ilmaan ja alkanut häntä niin puristaa, että ukon silmät jo
mulkoilivat. Mutta tuskin hän oli päässyt taas jaloilleen ja vetänyt
hiukan henkeä, kun jo Wolodyjowski innostuneena tarttui hänen
käsivarteensa.
— Nyt on minun vuoroni! Sanokaa, mikä minua odottaa?
— Jumala siunaa teitä, herra Michal! Oma tylleröisenne lahjoittaa

teille koko parven… älkää pelätkö! — Uh!
— Vivat — huudahti Wolodyjowski.
— Mutta ensin teemme selvän ruotsalaisista!

— Teemme! Teemme! — huudahtivat molemmat nuoret everstit
kalistaen sapeleitaan.
— Vivat! Voitto!
KYMMENES LUKU.
Viikkoa myöhemmin saapui Kmicic vaaliruhtinaan Preussin rajalle

Rajgrodiiin. Hän oli päässyt sinne verraten helposti, sillä vahan
ennen hetmanin lähtöä hän oli painautunut metsiin ja ollut niin
piilossa, että Douglas luuli hänen tataarilaistensakin lähteneen koko
divisioonan mukana Varsovaan, minkä vuoksi hän oli jättänyt vain
vähäisiä joukkoja näitä seutuja suojelemaan.
Douglas itse lähti seuraamaan Gosiewskin jäljessä, ja hänen

mukanaan olivat Radziejowski ja Radziwill.
Kmicic sai tietää tästä jo ennenkuin meni rajan yli ja oli hyvin
harmissaan, kun ei saanut kohdata silmästä silmään verivihollistaan,
joka kenties saisi rangaistuksensa jonkun toisen kädestä,
luultavimmin Wolodyjowskin, joka niinikään oli vannonut kostavansa
hänelle.
Kun hän ei siis voinut kostaa petturille isänmaan kärsimiä

onnettomuuksia ja niitä vääryyksiä, jotka häntä itseään olivat
kohdanneet, min hän kohdisti kostonsa sitä kauheampana
vaaliruhtinaan alueisiin.
298
Jo samana yönä kuin tataarilaiset sivuuttivat rajapyykin, kajasti
taivas tulipaloista ja kuului sodan jalkoihin joutuneitten ihmisten
valitus. Ken osasi puolankielellä pyytää armahdusta, sai päällikön
käskystä armon, mutta saksalaiset uudisasutukset, siirtolat, kylät ja
kauppalat muuttuivat tuhkaläjiksi, ja kauhistuneet asukkaat joutuivat
miekan uhreiksi.
Ei öljy leviä niin nopeasti meren pinnalla, kun purjehtijat sitä

kaatavat siihen asetellakseen aaltoja, kuin levisi tataarilaisten ja
vapaaehtoisten joukko yli siihen asti rauhallisten ja turvallisten
seutujen. Oli kuin jokainen tataarilainen olisi osannut jakaantua
kahtia tahi kolmia ennättääkseen useampaan paikkaan yht'aikaa
polttamaan ja ryöstämään. Ei säästetty edes viljapeltoja eikä
puutarhojen puita.
Kmicic oli niin kauan hillinnyt tataarilaisiaan, että kun hän vihdoin
päästi ne valloilleen kuin petolinnut, niin he aivan hekumoivat
surmatessaan ja hävittäessään kaiken. Toinen pyrki olemaan
toistaan etevämpi, ja kun he eivät voineet ottaa vankeja, niin he
aamusta iltaan suorastaan uivat ihmisveressä.
Itse Kmicic, jonka sydämessä oli paljon viileyttä, päästi sen

täydellisesti valloilleen, ja vaikka häh itse ei tahrinut käsiään
aseettomien verellä, niin hän mielellään kuitenkin näki sen
virtailevan. Hänen mielensä oli rauhallinen, eikä omatunto häntä
soimannut, sillä tuohan oli muukalaisten ja lisäksi vielä kerettiläisten
verta. Luulipa hän vielä tekevänsä Jumalalle ja varsinkin Pyhälle
Neitsyelle otollisen teon.
Olihan vaaliruhtinas, tuo Puolan vasalli, joka eli Puolan armoilla,

ensimmäisenä nostanut kätensä hallitsijaansa vastaan. Hän oli siis
rangaistuksen ansainnut, ja Kmicic oli ainoastaan Jumalan vihan
välikappale.
Senvuoksi hän iltaisin rauhallisena sormieli rukousnauhaansa

palavien saksalaisten kylien tulen valossa, ja kun ahdistettujen
huudot sotkivat hänen laskunsa, aloitti hän alusta, jotta ei olisi
huolimaton hartaudenharjoituksessa.
Mutta ei vain vihaa ja murhanhimoa ollut hänen sydämessään,

vaan siinä liikkui hurskaitten tunteitten ohella muitakin, jotka liittyivät
entisaikain muistoihin. Usein johtui hänen mieleensä se aika, jolloin
hän ahdisti Chowanskia saaden siitä niin paljon kunniaa, ja hänen
entiset toverinsa astuivat ilmi elävinä hänen silmiensä eteen. Kaikki
ne kituivat nyt helvetissä, mutta jos ne nyt voisivat olla täällä, niin
saisivatpa ne kahlata veressä tekemättä syntiä ja olla valtakunnalle
hyödyksi!
Ja herra Andrzej huokasi ajatellessaan, miten turmiollista on

hillitön omavaltaisuus, se kun jo aikaisessa nuoruudessa sulkee tien
hyviin tekoihin ainaiseksi.
Enimmän hän kuitenkin muisteli Oleńkaa. Mitä syvemmälle

Preussiin hän tunkeutui, sitä enemmän kirveli sydämen haavoja,
aivan kuin ne tulipalot, jotka levisivät hänen ympärillään, myös
olisivat voimistuttaneet sydämen paloa. Joka päivä hän puhui
sydämessään tytölle:
— Kyyhkyläiseni armas, kenties olet minut jo unhottanut, tahi jos

minua muistat, niin vain viha täyttää sydämesi. Mutta kaukana ja
lähellä, yöllä ja päivällä, työssä isänmaan hyväksi ja vaarojen
keskellä minä aina ajattelen sinua, ja sieluni lentää luoksesi yli
metsien ja vuorten kuin lintu laskeutuakseen väsyneenä sinun
jalkoihisi. Isänmaan ja sinun tähtesi olen valmis vuodattamaan
kaiken vereni, mutta voi minua, jos ainaiseksi olet karkoittanut minut
sydämestäsi!
Näissä mietteissä hän kulki rajalinjaa yhä korkeammalle pohjoista

kohti, poltti ja hävitti ketään säästämättä. Ääretön ikävä valtasi
hänet. Hän olisi tahtonut jo seuraavana päivänä olla Taurogissa,
mutta edessä oli vielä pitkä ja vaikea matka, sillä kaikki kirkonkellot
Preussissa soivat hälyyttäen kansaa kokoon.
Ken kynnelle kykeni, tarttui aseihin kauheata vihollista vastaan.

Apujoukkoja tuli hyvin kaukaisiltakin seuduilta, renkipojistakin
muodostui taistelujoukkoja, ja pian oli jokaista tataarilaista kohti
kaksikymmentä talonpoikaa.
Kmicic iski noihin joukkoihin kuin salama, hakkasi maahan, hajoitti

ja hirtti, pujahti pois ja ilmestyi yht'äkkiä taas tulenliekkien
ympäröimänä, mutta ei voinut enää edetä yhtä nopeasti kuin ennen.
Usein täytyi hänen miehineen tataarilaiseen tapaan piileksiä
viikkokausia viidakoissa tahi järvenrantain kaislikoissa. Kansa ajoi
häntä kuin sutta, ja hän purikin kuin susi, mutta ei tyytynyt vain
puolustautumaan, vaan myös ahdisti.
Koska hän oli toimissaan perinpohjainen, niin hän saattoi viipyä

samalla seudulla niin kauan, kunnes se oli tyystin hävitetty tulella ja
miekalla usean penikulman laajuudelta. Jollakin tavoin oli väestö
saanut tietää hänen nimensä, ja sitä nyt mainitsivat peloissaan
kaikki, ja sen maine kulki Itämereen saakka.
Babinicz olisi kylläkin voinut taas palata Puolan alueelle ja

ruotsalaisista joukoista huolimatta rientää Taurogiin, mutta hän ei
tahtonut tehdä sitä, sillä hän tahtoi ennen kaikkea palvella —
isänmaata. Mutta tuli sanomia, jotka innostuttivat väestöä jatkamaan
puolustusta ja kostamaan, kun ne taas täyttivät Babiniczin sydämen
suurella surulla. Huhuttiin Varsovan luona tapahtuneen suuren
taistelun ja Puolan kuninkaan joutuneen siinä tappiolle. "Kaarle
Kustaa ja vaaliruhtinas ovat lyöneet kaikki Kasimirin joukot", sanottiin
Preussissa iloiten. "Varsova on uudelleen valloitettu, tämä on suurin
voitto koko sodassa, ja nyt on Puola lopullisesti mennyttä."
Kaikki, jotka saatiin, vangeiksi ja jotka tataarilaiset asettivat

hehkuville hiilille kuulustelussa, toistivat samaa. Liikkeellä oli, kuten
sodan aikana on tavallista, paljon liioiteltuja ja epävarmoja tietoja.
Muun muassa kerrottiin, että Jan Kasimirin armeija oli täydellisesti
tuhottu, hetmanit kaatuneet ja kuningas joutunut vangiksi.
Oliko kaikki siis lopussa? Uudelleen eloon herännyt ja voittoisa

Puola oli siis ollut vain harhanäky? Niin suuri voima, niin suuri
sotajoukko, niin monet suuret miehet ja kuuluisat soturit: hetmanit,
kuningas, Czarniecki voittamattomine divisioonineen, kaikki oli
mennyttä, kaikki oli haihtunut kuin savu. Tällä onnettomalla maalla ei
siis enää ollut muita puolustajia kuin yksityiset vapaaehtoiset joukot,
jotka saatuaan tiedon tappiosta varmaankin hajaantuvat kaikkiin
ilmansuuntiin.
Kmicic repi tukkaansa ja väänteli käsiään, otti käsiinsä kosteata

multaa ja painoi sitä polttavaa päätään vastaan.
— Minäkin kaadun, — sanoi hän itsekseen, — mutta sitä ennen

hukkuu tämä maa vereen!
Hän alkoi taistella epätoivon vimmalla, ei pysytellyt enää piilossa

viidakoissa ja metsissä, etsi kuolemaa, syöksyi kuin mielipuoli kolme
kertaa voimakkaampaa vihollisjoukkoa vastaan ja hajoitti sen. Hänen
tataarilaisistaan hävisivät viimeisetkin inhimilliset tunteet, ja he
muuttuivat laumaksi villipetoja. Nämä barbaarit, jotka olivat
taitavampia ryöstämään ja yllättämällä hyökkäämään kuin
suoriutumaan avoimessa taistelussa, olivat monissa taisteluissa nyt
kehittyneet sellaisiksi sotureiksi, että he kykenivät vastustamaan
maailman etevintä ratsuväkeä ja hajoittamaan ruotsalaisten
taalalaisjoukotkin. Kahakassa asestetun preussilaisen
talonpoikaisväestön kanssa tataarilaiset helposti voittivat kaksisataa
tahi kolmesataa raskasaseista, rotevaa, musketeilla varustettua
talonpoikaa.
Kmicic totutti heidät pois siitä tavasta, että he vastuksikseen

kokosivat saalista. He ottivat nyt vain rahaa, etupäässä kultaa, ja
ompelivat sen satulaansa. Kun joku heistä kaatui, niin toiset
taistelivat hurjasti saadakseen hänen hevosensa ja satulansa.
Kokoamalla vain tämmöistä rikkautta he eivät menettäneet kykyään
liikkua miltei yliluonnollisen nopeasti ja notkeasti. Huomattuaan, että
he eivät minkään muun johtajan johdolla voisi saada niin runsaita
saaliita, he kiintyivät Babinicziin ja seurasivat häntä kuin koirat
metsästäjää. Todellisella muhamettilaisella uskollisuudella he
taistelujen jälkeen luovuttivat Sorokalle ja Kiemliczeille suurimman
osan saaliista, joka oli tuleva päällikölle. — Allah! — puhui Akbah-
Ulan — Vähän heitä palaa takaisin Baktshi-Saraihin, mutta niistä,
jotka palaavat, tulee jokaisesta ruhtinas.
Babinicz, joka aina oli osannut koota sotasaalista, rikastui nyt

kovin.
Mutta kuolemaa, jota hän haki halukkaammin kuin kultaa, hän ei
löytänyt.
Kului taasen kuukausi uskomattomissa vaivoissa ja vaaroissa.
Vaikka hevoset olivat saaneet syödä hyviä kauroja Preussissa,
tarvitsivat ne kuitenkin edes parin päivän levähdyksen. Kmicic
vetäytyi senvuoksi takaisin Puolan alueelle, jossa hänellä myös oli
tarkoitus täyttää joukkoonsa syntyneet aukot uusilla vapaaehtoisilla
sekä saada tarkempia tietoja asiain kulusta.
Uutisia tulikin pian, ja ne olivat niin ilahduttavia, että Kmicic oli tulla
mielettömäksi ilosta. Osoittautui kylläkin todeksi, että
kolmipäiväisessä taistelussa Varsovan luona Jan Kasimir oli joutunut
tappiolle, mutta mistä syystä?
Suurin osa nostoväkeä oli jo ennen taistelua mennyt kotiinsa, eikä

jäljellejäänyt osa siitä taistellut sillä innolla kuin Varsovaa
valloitettaessa, vaan lähti kolmantena päivänä pakoon. Mutta
kahtena eepillisenä päivänä sen sijaan voitto oli kallistumassa
puolalaisten puolelle. Säännölliset joukot osoittivat suuressa
taistelussa Euroopan parhaiten harjoitettuja sotilaita vastaan
sellaista taitoa ja kestävyyttä, että ruotsalaiset ja brandenburgilaiset
kenraalit sitä ihmettelivät.
Jan Kasimir oli saavuttanut kuolemattoman kunnian. Sanottiin, että

hän oli osoittanut olevansa Kaarle Kustaan veroinen sotapäällikkö, ja
jos kaikkia hänen määräyksiään olisi noudatettu, olisi vihollinen
joutunut päätaistelussa tappiolle ja sota olisi ollut lopussa.
Nämä tiedot Kmicic sai silminnäkijöiltä. Hän tapasi nimittäin

aatelismiehiä, jotka itse olivat ottaneet osaa taisteluun. Yksi heistä
kertoi kuuluisasta husaarien hyökkäyksestä, jossa Carolus, kunhan
kenraaliensa kehoituksista huolimatta ei tahtonut peräytyä, oli
vähällä menettää henkensä. Kaikki vakuuttivat, että armeija ei ollut
tuhoutunut eivätkä hetmanit kaatuneet. Koko sotajoukko,
lukuunottamatta nostoväkeä, oli hyvässä kunnossa ja hyvässä
järjestyksessä peräytynyt kauemmaksi sisämaahan.
Varsovan silta oli murtunut, mutta siinä menetettiin vain tykit,

"henki siirtyi Veikselin yli". Sotamiehet vannoivat kuin yhdestä
suusta, että sellaisen päällikön johdolla kuin Jan Kasimir he ensi
taistelussa voittavat Kaarle Kustaan, vaaliruhtinaan ja kenet tahansa,
sillä tuo äskeinen taistelu oli ollut vain koe, joka tosin ei ollut
onnistunut, mutta joka lupasi hyvää.
Kmicic mietiskeli, mistä oli mahtanut johtua, että ensimmäiset

tiedot olivat olleet niin peloittavia. Hänelle selitettiin, että Kaarle
Kustaa tahallaan oli levityttänyt liioiteltuja tietoja, mutta että hän itse
asiassa oli sangen neuvoton. Ruotsalaiset upseerit, jotka Kmicic
viikkoa myöhemmin sai vangiksi, vahvistivat tämän todeksi.
Näiltä hän sai myös tietää, että varsinkin vaaliruhtinas oli hyvin
levoton ja alkoi yhä enemmän miettiä oman nahkansa pelastamista.
Hänen miehiään oli paljon kaatunut Varsovan edustalla, ja
jäljellejääneitten keskuudessa raivosi tauteja, joihin kuoli enemmän
miehiä kuin taisteluun. Samaan aikaan suurpuolalaiset, kostaakseen
Ujscien luona kokemansa häpeän ja kaikki kärsimänsä vääryydet,
olivat hyökänneet Brandenburgiin ja hävittivät sitä julmasti.
Ruotsalaisten upseerien käsityksen mukaan oli jo lähellä se hetki,
jolloin vaaliruhtinas luopuu ruotsalaisista ja liittyy mahtavampiin.
— Täytyy näin ollen pitää häntä kuumana, että hän tekisi sen sitä
pikemmin, — ajatteli Kmicic.
Ja koska hevoset nyt olivat levänneet ja aukot riveissä täytetyt,

meni hän taas rajan yli ja hyökkäsi kuin hävityksen henki saksalaisen
asutuksen kimppuun.
Monet "puolueet" seurasivat hänen esimerkkiään. Hän kohtasi nyt
heikompaa vastarintaa ja teki sitä perusteellisemmin hävitystyötään.
Tuli yhä iloisempia uutisia, niin iloisia, että niitä oli vaikea uskoa.
Ensiksikin alettiin huhuilla, että Kaarle Kustaa, joka Varsovan

taistelun jälkeen oli edennyt Radomiin asti, peräytyi nyt suin päin
Preussia kohti. Mitä oli tapahtunut? Miksi hän peräytyi? Näihin
kysymyksiin ei aluksi kukaan voinut vastata, mutta sitten kaikui taas
yli koko valtakunnan Czarnieckin nimi. Hän voitti vihollisen Lipan
luona, voitti Strzemesznyn luona, hakkasi Rawan luona maahan
peräytyvän Kaarle Kustaan koko jälkijoukon, minkä jälkeen hän,
saatuaan kuulla, että kaksituhatta ratsumiestä oli palaamassa
Krakovasta, hyökkäsi niiden kimppuun ja tuhosi ne viimeiseen
mieheen. Eversti Forgell, kenraalin veli, neljä muuta everstiä, kolme
majuria, kolmetoista ratsumestaria ja kaksikymmentä luutnanttia
otettiin vangiksi. Jotkut mainitsivat tämän lukumäärän
kaksinkertaisena, toiset vakuuttivat jo innoissaan, että Jan Kasimir ei
ollut kärsinytkin tappiota Varsovan luona, vaan voittanut, ja että
hänen vetäytymisensä syvemmälle maahan oli vain sotajuoni
vihollisen pään menoksi.
Kmicic itsekin alkoi ajatella näin, sillä nuoruudestaan asti sotaa

käyneenä miehenä hän ymmärsi sota-asioita eikä ollut vielä koskaan
kuullut sellaisesta voitosta, joka oli voittajalle vahingoksi. Mutta
ruotsalaisten asiat ilmeisesti huononivat nimenomaan Varsovan
taistelun jälkeen.
Silloin herra Andrzej muisti, mitä Zagloba heidän viimeksi

tavatessaan oli sanonut, nimittäin että mitkään voitot eivät enää voi
korjata ruotsalaisten asioita, mutta yksi suuri tappio heidät tuhoaa.
— Sillä miehellä on valtiomiehen pää! — ajatteli Kmicic. — Hän
lukee tulevaisuuden kuin avoimesta kirjasta.
Ja nyt hän muisti, mitä Zagloba vielä lisäksi oli ennustanut,

nimittäin että hän, Kmicic, alias Babinicz, pääsee Taurogiin, löytää
Oleńkansa, saa häneltä anteeksi, menee hänen kanssaan naimisiin
ja saa lapsia isänmaan hyödyksi. Kun hän muisti tämän, tunsi hän
kuin tulta olisi ollut hänen suonissaan. Hän ei tahtonut enää hukata
hetkeäkään, vaan päätti jättää Preussin ja rientää Taurogiin.
Juuri kun hän oli lähdössä, saapui hänen luokseen Wolodyjowskin

rykmentissä palveleva laudalainen aatelismies tuoden kirjeen
pieneltä ritarilta.
"Olemme menossa Liettuan hetmanin johdolla Boguslawia ja

Waldeckia vastaan", kirjoitti herra Michal. "Yhtykää meihin, sillä nyt
tarjoutuu tilaisuus kostoon, ja preussilaisetkin saavat maksaa pahat
tekonsa."
Herra Andrzej ei ollut uskoa silmiään ja ajatteli ensin, että

aatelismiehen oli joku preussilainen tahi ruotsalainen päällikkö
tahallaan lähettänyt saadakseen hänet joukkoineen satimeen.
Lähtisikö Gosiewski todellakin toistamiseen Preussia vastaan? Hän
ei kuitenkaan voinut olla uskomatta. Käsiala oli Wolodyjowskin,
vaakuna niinikään Wolodyjowskin, ja aatelismiehenkin Kmicic muisti
nähneensä. Hän ryhtyi senvuoksi tältä kyselemään, missä herra
Gosiewski oli ja minne hän aikoi mennä.
Aatelismies näytti olevan verraten typerä. Mistäpä hän tiesi, mihin

herra hetmani aikoi mennä? Sen hän vain tiesi, että hetmani oli
liettualais-tataarilaisen divisioonansa kanssa kahden päivän matkan
päässä ja että hänellä oli mukanaan myös laudalainen rykmentti.
Sitä oli herra Czarniecki joksikin aikaa lainannut, mutta nyt se oli
hetmanin johdossa.
— Sanotaan, — lopetti aatelismies, — että menemme Preussiin,

ja sotamiehet ovat siitä suuresti iloissaan… Mutta meidän
asiammehan on vain totella ja taistella.
Kuultuaan hänen kertomuksensa Kmicic ei kauan arvellut, käänsi

joukkonsa ympäri ja lähti kiiruhtamaan hetmanin luo. Kahden päivän
kuluttua hän myöhään illalla syleili Wolodyjowskia, joka heti
tervehdittyään sanoi:
— Kreivi Waldeck ja ruhtinas Boguslaw ovat Prostkissa ja

rakentavat valleja leirinsä lujittamiseksi. Me menemme heitä
vastaan.
— Tänäänkö? — kysyi Kmicic.
— Huomenna, toisin sanoen parin kolmen tunnin kuluttua.
Ja he syleilivät taas toisiaan.
— Minulla on se tunne, että Jumala antaa hänet käsiimme! —

huudahti
Kmicic liikutettuna.
— Niin minäkin luulen.
— Olen tehnyt lupauksen, että perinpohjaisesti paastoan sinä

päivänä, jolloin kohtaan hänet.
— Jumala ei jätä suojelustaan antamatta! — vastasi herra Michal.

— Minä en kadehdi, jos arpa lankeaa teille, sillä te olette kärsinyt
suuremman vääryyden.
— Herra Michal! En ole tavannut jalompaa ritaria kuin te!
— Antakaahan kun katselen teitä! Olette paahtunut aivan mustaksi

ulkoilmassa. Mutta hyvin olette hoitanut asianne. Suurella
myötätunnolla on koko divisioona seurannut työtänne. Vain raunioita
ja ruumiita! Olette synnynnäinen soturi. Itse Zaglobankin, jos hän
olisi täällä, olisi vaikea keksiä, mitä vielä suurenmoisempaa hän
sanoisi tehneensä.
— Hyväinen aika! Missä herra Zagloba on?
— Hän jäi herra Sapiehan luo, sillä hänen kasvonsa ovat aivan
turvoksissa itkusta ja epätoivosta Roch Kowalskin kaaduttua.
— Onko siis herra Kowalski kaatunut? Wolodyjowski puristi

huulensa yhteen.
— Tiedättekö, kuka hänet surmasi?
— Kuinka minä voisin sen tietää? Kertokaa!
— Ruhtinas Boguslaw!
Kmicic vavahti kuin häntä olisi tikarilla pistetty ja alkoi haukkoa

ilmaa. Viimein hän kiristi hampaitaan, vaipui penkille ja peitti
kasvonsa käsiinsä.
Wolodyjowski löi yhteen kämmeniään ja käski palvelijan tuoda

juotavaa.
Sitten hän istuutui Kmicicin viereen, täytti pikarit ja alkoi puhua.
— Roch Kowalski kuoli sellaisen sankarikuoleman, että suokoon
Jumala meille samanlaisen. Riittää, kun sanon, että taistelun
päätyttyä Carolus itse piti huolta hänen hautaamisestaan, ja
kokonainen kaartinrykmentti ampui hänen haudallaan
kunnialaukaukset.
— Kunhan hän vain ei olisi kaatunut tuon pirullisen miehen käden

kautta! — huudahti Kmicic.
— Niin, se oli Boguslawin käden kautta, kuulin sen husaareilta,

jotka omin silmin näkivät tuon surullisen tapauksen.
— Te siis ette ollut siellä?
— Taistelussa ei valita paikkaa, vaan seisotaan siinä, mihin on

saanut käskyn asettua. Jos minä olisin ollut siellä, niin joko nyt en
olisi tässä tahi Boguslaw ei laittaisi valleja Protskissa.
— Kertokaa, miten kaikki tapahtui. Se lisää vain katkeruutta.
Wolodyjowski tyhjensi pikarin, kuivasi keltaisia viiksiään ja alkoi:
— Varmaankin olette kuullut riittävästi kertomuksia Varsovan

taistelusta, sillä kaikki puhuvat siitä, enkä minä tahdo tarpeettoman
kauan siinä viivähtää. Armollinen kuninkaamme — suokoon Jumala
hänelle terveyttä ja pitkän iän, sillä jonkun muun ollessa hallitsijana
olisi isänmaa sortunut onnettomuuksien alle — osoittautui
oivalliseksi sotapäälliköksi. Jos kuuliaisuus olisi ollut yhtä hyvä kuin
johtaja, jos me olisimme olleet hänen arvoisensa, olisi aikakirjoihin
merkitty uusi puolalaisten voitto Varsovan luona. Lyhyesti sanoen,
ensimmäisenä päivänä me löimme ruotsalaiset. Toisena päivänä
alkoi voitto vaappua vuoroin puolelle ja vuoroin toiselle, mutta
yleensä me olimme voitolla. liettualaiset husaarit, joita johti suuri
soturi, ruhtinas Polubinski, ja joiden joukossa myös Roch palveli,
tekivät hyökkäyksen. Näin heidän lähtönsä yhtä selvästi kuin nyt
teidät, sillä seisoin laudalaisineni eräällä kummulla vallien edustalla.
Heitä oli tuhatkaksisataa miestä, niin komeata joukkoa, että maailma
ei ole nähnyt sen veroista. He kulkivat noin sadan sylen päässä
ohitsemme, ja maa vapisi heidän allaan. Näimme
brandenburgilaisen jalkaväen iskevän keihäät maahan torjuakseen
ensimmäisen hyökkäyksen. Toiset ampuivat musketeilla niin, että
peittyivät kokonaan savuun. Näimme husaarien syöksyvän täyttä
laukkaa päin. Jumalani, millainen hyökkäys! He syöksyivät savun
keskelle ja hävisivät näkyvistä. Sotamieheni alkoivat huutaa:
"Murtautuvat! Murtautuvat!" Vähään aikaan ei näkynyt mitään. Mutta
sitten alkoi kuulua kalkutusta aivan kuin tuhat seppää olisi takonut
vasaroillaan. Katsomme savuun. Jeesus, Maria! Vaaliruhtinaan
miehet makaavat maassa kuin vilja, jonka yli myrsky on kulkenut.
Mutta husaarit ovat jo sivuuttaneet heidät ja ovat jo kaukana. He
ryntäävät ruotsalaisia vastaan. Hyökkäävät ratsuväkeä vastaan ja
lyövät sen. Hyökkäsivät toista rykmenttiä vastaan ja löivät senkin.
Kuuluu pauketta, tykit jyrisevät… me näemme heidät, kun tuuli
haihduttaa savun. He murtavat ruotsalaisen jalkaväen rivit. Kaikki
horjuu, kaikki kaatuu heidän edessään, he kulkevat kuin katua… he
ovat raivanneet itselleen tien melkein koko armeijan läpi. He
hyökkäävät kaartinrykmenttiä vastaan, jonka keskellä on itse
Carolus… ja kaarti hajoaa kuin tuuleen…
Tässä Wolodyjowski keskeytti kertomuksensa, sillä Kmicic peitti

kasvonsa käsiinsä ja alkoi huutaa:
— Oi, Pyhä Jumalan Äiti! Saada kerran nähdä tuollaista ja sitten

kuolla!

Full Ebook of Writing A Watertight Thesis Structure Demystification and Defence 2Nd Edition Mike Bottery Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Ebook of Writing A Watertight Thesis Structure Demystification and Defence 2Nd Edition Mike Bottery Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Writing a Watertight Thesis: Structure,

Demystification and Defence 2nd

Writing a Watertight Thesis A Guide to Successful

Writing a Watertight Thesis a guide to successful

Educational Leadership for a More Sustainable World 1st

Thesis and Dissertation Writing in a Second Language

Writing A Postgraduate Thesis Or Dissertation Tools For

Primary Mathematics 3A Hoerst

50 Things to Think About When Writing a Thesis: Paving

Critical Reading and Writing for Postgraduates Student

ALSO AVAILABLE FROM BLOOMSBURY

Taking Control of Writing Your Thesis, Kay Guccione and Jerry

BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks

First published in Great Britain 2019

This edition published 2023

Copyright © Mike Bottery, Nigel Wright and Mark A. Fabrizi, 2023

Cover design: Grace Ridge

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted

ISBN: HB: 978-1-3502-6060-3

Typeset by Newgen KnowledgeWorks Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, India

List of Figures vii

PART ONE Getting Ready

1 The Need for a Watertight Thesis 3

2 Demystifying the Doctoral Process 21

3 What Does It Take to Complete a Doctorate? 33

4 Making Sure Your Doctorate Is Original 53

5 Structuring Your Research Proposal 75

PART TWO Moving into the Doctorate

6 The Supervisory Relationship: Roles, Models and

9 Focusing on the Major Research Question 151

10 Creating Your Research Sub-questions 165

PART THREE Moving through the Doctorate

13 Judging the Doctoral Quality of Your Work 213

14 Making the Middle Chapters Watertight 239

15 Making the Later Chapters Watertight 253

PART FOUR Moving Out of the Doctorate

16 The Examiners’ Need for Structural Clarity 269

17 Preparing for the Summative Viva 279

18 Structuring and Publishing Your First Articles 295

1.1 Stages for constructing the watertight ship and thesis 6

3.1 Belbin team roles and doctoral task transferability 37

Writing a doctoral thesis1 can be an arduous, confusing and

x Preface to the Second Edition

1. It provides a well-tested successful approach to the

8. It provides strong support for students who want to apply

Finally, but not insignificantly, this edition also acts as an essential

many, though not all parts of the world.

4 Writing a Watertight Thesis

this study themselves, or they have a funding body which expects

So, What Is a ‘Watertight’ Thesis?

● that the ship is properly designed;

Does ‘Watertightness’ Work for

6 Writing a Watertight Thesis

FIGURE 1.1 Stages for constructing the watertight ship and

Design Determining the kind of Determining the general

Materials Appropriate materials Determining the data that

Construction Good construction ensures An appropriately structured

Testing Tested throughout the Tested in an iterative

of up to 100,000 words, examined by a number of examiners,

by a greater marketized diversity of programmes. Universities have

8 Writing a Watertight Thesis

Does a Watertight Thesis Approach

national and international policy pressures. Such pressures have

‘Supervisory mystification’ might well be called by some ‘relation