Three and a half years ago, started working on my PhD thesis. At that time, not long into my studies, I wrote this blog post where I asked myself what the difference was between writing a thesis, and writing ‘up’ a thesis. At the time I was unsure what the difference was, suspecting in fact that there was really no difference. Now that I am in my 4th year of PhD study – the so-called writing ‘up’ year – I can say that I am still none the wiser regarding the difference between writing a thesis and writing ‘up’ a thesis.
This is the way my thesis has progressed: I read some information; it gave me some ideas; I wrote down some of those ideas tried to structure it into some sort of argument; I read some more information; I improved my existing argument; I read some more information… After having written loose argument, with some diagrams and notes, and some sections which were perhaps a little bit rambling, or poorly referenced, or not exactly great, I moved on to a different chapter and repeated the process. Sometimes, I returned to old chapters to improve them a bit; other times I worked on a chapter from start to a reasonable state of completion.
A couple of months ago, I had a meeting with my supervisors,
in which we discussed how well my overall project was progressing. They seemed
happy enough with the level of my work, and the speed at which I was working.
We agreed that I would try – and should hopefully be able to – finish writing
my thesis by September this year. We agreed that I should return to my weaker
chapters, improve and update them, and that I will try to produce a full draft
of the entire thesis by the end of March. This is what I'm currently working on.
A couple of the chapters which I've returned to not particularly
well-argued, or are in need of scaffolding, or it reads like a string of
consciousness. I'm going through these chapters, deleting what is unnecessary and
improving what is weak. Is this the fabled writing ‘up’ which I've heard so
much about? To me, this is merely a continuation of what I have been doing all
along: write something; make it better; write something; make it better, until
you’re finally left with a brilliant piece of work.
I suspect that this is not the way most people work, however.
If most people worked this way then writing ‘up’ would not be a phrase at all.
Rather, the writing process would be seen as one long continuous process. Instead,
the fact that writing ‘up’ is apparently what people do in their final year suggests
to me that most people work differently in their final year of PhD study than
they do in their first few years. As if they are actively writing in a way in
which they were not writing previously. What they have been doing during their
first, second, and third years of PhD study time remains a mystery to me.
Perhaps they have only been reading? Perhaps they have been reading and making
notes? Perhaps they have been expressing their ideas in some way other than
writing?
I have tried to ask my peers about how they work and I'm
still none the wiser. People seem surprisingly cagey about discussing the way
in which they work. Perhaps they are embarrassed that they haven't written
anything? Perhaps they are embarrassed that they have written a lot? It seems
that a number of people can't really articulate the way in which they work; I
ask them what they have been doing on their thesis and they say something along
the lines of “oh you know, reading and stuff. Nothing really.”
I think, perhaps, people spend a number of years reading and
making notes, without structuring it into any coherent form, and they then
spend their final year writing out their argument. This would mean there was a
distinct difference between the writing of the first few years, and the writing
‘up’ of the final year. The writing of the first three years involves merely the
act of putting words on paper, without any focus on quality, whereas writing ‘up’
involves some sort of quality control.
But then again, I know that the University of Nottingham – and
other universities too I'm sure – has a robust procedure for supervision
meetings. Students must submit work and basically prove that they are meeting
the expectations of doctoral quality work. If people really were just reading
and not doing a great deal of visible, verifiable work, then they would be in
big trouble in their supervision meetings. They would be told that they are not
doing enough, surely, and yet, as far as I know, people are not routinely told
that. I can only assume that they must indeed be producing doctoral quality
work. If this is the case, then they are writing something. What then are they
doing in their final year which makes them say they are not merely writing, but
writing ‘up’? I feel that if I don't know by now, when I'm in my writing ‘up’ year,
I may never know.
I don't think I shall let it keep me ‘up’ at night though. I
work in a way which is great for me. And presumably, given that others are submitting
their theses and passing their vivas each year, they must be working in a way
which is great for them. What writing ‘up’ consists of remains a curiosity, but
I don't think, in all honesty, that it really matters.
