Authoring a PhD

Model of PhD
Supervision
Thesis 
Found in
requirement
Classical
Either one or 
Big book 
British-
model
two supervisors 
thesis:
an
influenced
focuses on 
(UK); or a small 
integrated set
and European-
thesis writing 
supervisory
of chapters 
influenced
throughout,
committee
usually
university systems,
with only
(Europe)
around 
and more
preliminary
80,000 to
text-based
training
100,000 words 
disciplines
or coursework
long
Taught PhD 
Main adviser, 
Papers model
American-
model
plus minor
dissertation:
influenced
The first stage
adviser, plus
four or five 
university systems,
involves rest 
of
publishable
and 
more 
coursework
dissertation
quality papers,
technical
assessed by a 
committee
around 60,000
social sciences
general
words
elsewhere
examination.
The second stage
is a dissertation

---

need to develop authoring skills will vary somewhat across each
of these models, as well as across different humanities and
social sciences disciplines to some extent. There are two main
types of PhD education: the ‘classical’ model associated closely
with a ‘big book’ type of thesis; and the more modern ‘taught
PhD model’, normally associated with a shorter ‘papers model
dissertation’. I show how the advice given here and in the rest
of this book can be adjusted to match the model of doctorate
that you are completing.
The classical model of PhD
developed over centuries in Europe
and is still dominant in university systems influenced by
European and British or Commonwealth practices across most
of the humanities and social sciences. The most traditional ver-
sion of this approach conforms closely to the ‘sorcerer’s appren-
tice’ tradition where students come to sit at the feet of an
individual supervisor, a great man or woman in their field who
long ago wrote a big book. Now the supervisor will inculcate
the right spirit in the doctoral candidate in a hand-crafted way,
passing on the accumulated wisdom of the discipline orally,
and commenting at length on the student’s successive writing
efforts, so as to help her work them up over several years into 
a big book of her own. Socialization into the discipline used to
be very informal in this approach. The relationship between
supervisor and supervisee is a very strong bond, and one that is
critical for the student’s progress. In the British and Common-
wealth model the supervisor is concerned only with developing
the doctorate and assisting the doctoral candidate, and 
not
with
examining the final thesis. This separate task is usually under-
taken by two (sometimes three) people not previously involved
with the student’s work. The examiners have a brief to maintain
a consistent professional standard for awarding the doctorate
across all universities (see Chapter 8).
However, in many places and disciplines coursework now
plays a much more important role even in the classical model
of PhD education. In Europe the single supervisor is also often
replaced by a three- or four-person supervising committee,
backed up by more active departmental tutelage of all their PhD
students as a group. Here socialization into the discipline is
semi-formalized and more collectively organized. And learning
6
◆
A U T H O R I N G A P H D

---

how to become a professional author is somewhat more a
matter of sitting in repeated research seminars, interacting with
lots of different staff members, getting reactions to trial papers
from seminar colleagues, and again receiving oral and written
comments on draft chapters from the supervisory committee.
Normally in European universities the several supervisors are
also examiners in its final stages, with the job of deciding
whether the student’s final thesis should be accepted as a doc-
torate. They thus have an advisory/supportive role but also a
regulatory/evaluative role. It can be hard for them to reconcile
and manage the two roles together.
The different versions of the classical doctorate model work
fine when everything aligns the right way, but badly if they do
not. In the older, individualized version the transmission of
ideas can take place speedily and smoothly if the supervisor and
her student get along well at a personal level, sharing pretty
much the same interests amicably. But things can often go
wrong. Relations between the two can degenerate, with the
supervisor becoming neurotic about a younger rival encroach-
ing on her terrain, or the student discovering that her supervi-
sor has feet of clay. Or they can become too close, with the
supervisor being so dominant in the relationship that the stu-
dent becomes a mere disciple, repeating or replicating rather
than creating anew. Or student and supervisor can fail to con-
nect, with the student’s focus and interests diverging from the
supervisor’s expertise, while changing supervisors is difficult.
Often busy supervisors are distracted by many other academic
obligations, and may well be wholly absent on sabbatical or
research leave at crucial times. Periods with ‘fill-in’ supervisors
are often problematic.
The newer, more collective supervision variant of the classi-
cal model is generally more flexible and resilient, and so has
tended to become more common over time, even in British or
Commonwealth university systems. Having multiple supervi-
sors and more formalized PhD training provided by depart-
ments means that students have their eggs in several baskets,
some of which will tend to work well much of the time.
Students are less dependent on their personal relations with
just one person. If relations with one member of their commit-
tee go awry, they can often compensate by developing more
B E C O M I N G A N A U T H O R
◆
7

---

reliance on their most sympathetic supervisor. Students are also
usually better covered for absences by one of their supervisors.
But a supervisory committee can cause other problems. Students
may well get conflicting advice from different advisers, between
which they have to pick a difficult path for their own work.
They may also have to invest quite a few personal resources in
steering their supervisors towards some agreement and consen-
sus on the way forward. And where senior people play roles in
both supervising and examining the thesis, students may find it
harder to handle their relationship with them.
However supervision is organized, the classical model of PhD
always culminates in the production of a ‘big book’ thesis, usu-
ally limited to a length of 100,000 words. It must be presented
in a conventional book format, with a succession of linked
chapters and an integrated overall argument. A very high level
of authoring skills is needed to produce and to structure this
amount of closely ordered text. There is often a considerable
mismatch between the way that authoring skills are developed
in both versions of the classical model sketched above and the
level of proficiency in producing and developing text that is
needed for a big book thesis. Some parts of this book, such as
Chapter 2, are very tailored to students producing this kind of
thesis, and every chapter will be relevant for them.