An Exploratory Analysis of Doctoral Writing Using Legitimation Code Theory
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Enacting knowledge in dissertations: An exploratory analysis of doctoral writing using Legitimation Code Theory Kirstin Dianne Wilmot A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Sociology and Social Policy Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences The University of Sydney 2019 Statement of originality This is to certify that to the best of my knowledge, the content of this thesis is my own work. This thesis has not been submitted for any degree or other purposes. I certify that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work and that all the assistance received in preparing this thesis and sources have been acknowledged. KIRSTIN DIANNE WILMOT January 2019 ii ABSTRACT This thesis addresses the practical problem of developing effective writing pedagogy to support doctoral candidates. It does this by focusing on the ways knowledge is organised in dissertations and the strategies used to enact these practices in writing. In doing so, the thesis offers an alternative perspective on knowledge practices in doctoral dissertations that goes beyond distinguishing between knowledge ‘types’ and simple descriptive categories of disciplines (e.g. ‘hard’ vs. ‘soft’). The study shows how this alternative perspective can see knowledge, analyse knowledge and, importantly, reveal the organising principles of knowledge; and from this it develops tools and descriptions that uncover generalizable strategies for knowledge-building oriented toward doctoral-writing pedagogy. Drawing on Legitimation Code Theory the thesis explores 25 exemplary doctoral dissertations across a range of subject areas in the humanities and social sciences. Through analyses at multiple levels of granularity – from whole dissertations, to individual sections and fine- grained phases of writing – it develops a set of conceptual tools for analysing knowledge in writing and demonstrates how such tools can be used to unpack the knowledge work involved in dissertations. Through the dimension of Specialization, five ‘core components’ of dissertations are distinguished that reveal a set of strategies candidates use to foreground different kinds of knowledge. These strategies point to the bases of the claims being made, revealing one aspect of the ‘rules of the game’ underpinning dissertation writing. These ‘rules’ are not tied to any one discipline; rather, the strategies are organised according to the kind of knowledge-claim enacted. Drawing on the dimension of Semantics, key strategies for shifting the context- dependence and complexity of knowledge are explored that show how students construct findings in exemplary ways. To orient toward pedagogy, the strategies are then turned back onto the dissertations to demonstrate their utility for analysing texts to reveal key pedagogic insights. The framework developed in this thesis provides an entry point for developing theoretically sophisticated but empirically-grounded tools with pedagogic potential for analysing knowledge practices in doctoral writing. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND DEDICATION This PhD would not have been possible without the generous funding provided by a University of Sydney International Scholarship. I will always be deeply appreciative of the opportunity to move across continents to work with a profound scholar, teacher and mentor. My PhD journey is a result of a serendipitous sequence of events. It started with a conversation with Chrissie Boughey in South Africa in 2014, who, handing me a book called Knowledge and Knowers: Towards a realist sociology of education said, ‘You should read this’. This intellectual introduction was followed by a personal introduction to Karl by Sioux McKenna later that year, and the rest, as they say, is history. There is an African proverb that says, ‘It takes a village to raise a child’. In the same way, it takes a community to create a scholar. In this regard, I have been exceptionally fortunate. The LCT community at the University of Sydney has had a profound impact on my learning, growth and development as a scholar. Weekly S-Club meetings became a space I revered, where ideas were tested, broken and rebuilt. To the team – Karl, Yaegan, Elena, Pat, Saul, Mat, Mauricio and Jodie, thank you for all the advice, constructive criticism and support. The fortnightly LCT Roundtable series provided a space of intellectual inspiration and camaraderie. The warm and supportive greater Sydney (and international) LCT community is really something quite special. To the stalwart members of our LCT-OG reading and writing group, who saw me through the last 3.5 years of PhD work, expat living and general ups and downs that life throws our way – Elena, Pat and Sharon – I will always be truly grateful. Wining or whining, life was always better (and the PhD graft a little easier) because you were by my side. Thank you for everything. This PhD would not have been possible without my phenomenal supervisory team. To Yaegan, thank you for your hard work, attention to detail, willingness and patience to sit with me for hours working through tough analysis and for mediating feedback so wonderfully towards the end of 2018. It has been a real privilege to be your first PhD student. To Chrissie, thank you for introducing me to LCT, for all the support and feedback, particularly leading up to submission, and for being an incredible mentor from day one. You embody the type of scholar I hope to become one day, and I look forward to continuing to work together and learn from you at Rhodes University in years to come. To Karl, thank you for everything. For the hours upon hours of meetings where we discussed, debated, argued, negotiated, grappled, tested, developed and built knowledge together. Your unwavering expectation for only the best pushed me and forced me to grow and learn to an extent I didn’t think was possible. Your incredible supervisory style is something I hope to emulate in my own future supervision practice and your enthusiasm for learning and pushing iv intellectual boundaries is an ethos I hope to carry forward as I build a career in academia. Thank you for having me in Sydney and for making the time away from my beloved home so worthwhile. Last, but not least, thank you to my family. Doris, Daddio, Geoff and Robs, there are no adequate words to express my gratitude. Thank you for sharing the angst, tears and dark days and celebrating the small victories and doubling the joy on the good days. I would not have survived without you. Thank you for always believing in me. v For my parents – who gave me roots and wings. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ xii LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 2. A focus on dissertations ............................................................................................................... 1 3. A focus on knowledge in dissertations......................................................................................... 3 4. A need for conceptual tools ......................................................................................................... 5 5. Research questions ...................................................................................................................... 6 6. Structure of thesis ........................................................................................................................ 6 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................... 9 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 9 2. Mapping the field: Theoretical orientations to academic writing ............................................ 10 3. Understanding doctoral writing ................................................................................................ 13 3.1. Experiences of doctoral writing ............................................................................................ 14 3.2. Features of doctoral writing .................................................................................................. 15 3.3. Learning doctoral writing ..................................................................................................... 18 3.3.1. Supervising doctoral writing .......................................................................................... 18 3.3.2. Teaching doctoral writing.............................................................................................. 22 3.3.3. Peer-learning ................................................................................................................ 24 3.3.4. Self-learning .................................................................................................................. 26 3.4. Knowledge practices in doctoral writing ............................................................................... 28 4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................