Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 2010 Owler 289 304

8/12/2019 Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 2010 Owler 289 304

1/17

http://ahh.sagepub.com/Education

Arts and Humanities in Higher

http://ahh.sagepub.com/content/9/3/289

Theonline version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/14740222093563302010 9: 289Arts and Humanities in Higher Education

Kathryn OwlerA 'problem' to be managed? : Completing a PhD in the Arts and Humanities

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Arts and Humanities in Higher EducationAdditional services and information for

http://ahh.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ahh.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ahh.sagepub.com/content/9/3/289.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Oct 18, 2010Version of Record>>

by Tobin Hart on November 18, 2011ahh.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ahh.sagepub.com/http://ahh.sagepub.com/http://ahh.sagepub.com/http://ahh.sagepub.com/content/9/3/289http://ahh.sagepub.com/content/9/3/289http://www.sagepublications.com/http://ahh.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ahh.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ahh.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ahh.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://ahh.sagepub.com/content/9/3/289.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ahh.sagepub.com/content/9/3/289.full.pdfhttp://ahh.sagepub.com/content/9/3/289.full.pdfhttp://ahh.sagepub.com/http://ahh.sagepub.com/http://ahh.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ahh.sagepub.com/content/9/3/289.full.pdfhttp://ahh.sagepub.com/content/9/3/289.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://ahh.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ahh.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://ahh.sagepub.com/content/9/3/289http://ahh.sagepub.com/


2/17

Arts & Humanities in Higher Education the author(s) 2010 repri nts and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalspermissions.nav

vol 9 (3)289304 Doi:10.1177/1474022209356330

[289]

A problem to be managed?Completing a PhD in the Arts and

Humanities

k a t h r y n o w l e rAUT University, Auckland, New Zealand

abstract

Driven largely by efficiency imperatives, many universities have come to adopt a

managerialist approach to research over the last several years. University admin-

istrators have become actively concerned with the traditionally long times taken

to complete a PhD and high attrition rates. Consequently, the PhD, and PhD

students experience of struggle when writing a PhD, is now often framed by

universities as a problem to be managed. This framing is problematic if we con-

sider that, for many students, the personally demanding nature of the PhD is

central to the research process. In the first part of this article I discuss the con-

temporary administrative response to the PhD. I then go on to discuss the lived

experience of writing a PhD, from the students point of view, drawing on myown and other students accounts. I utilize the writings of Maurice Blanchot in

my analysis, who views the personal ups and downs of writing as integral to

knowledge production.

k e y w o r d s academic writing, Blanchot, managerialism,

PhD experience, PhD research

i n t r o d u c t i o n

Over the last ten to fifteen years the administrative context for the

PhD has changed dramatically. As a result of a growing managerial approach,

universities have become actively concerned with the perceived problematic

nature of the PhD, including long times to complete a PhD and high attrition

rates. There has been much attention paid to why this occurs, and policies

have been put in place to turn apparently poor statistics around. Most of this

http://ahh.sagepub.com/http://ahh.sagepub.com/http://ahh.sagepub.com/http://ahh.sagepub.com/


3/17

concern and attention has occurred as a result of efficiency imperatives. One

advantage of this attention is the support that PhD students may now receive

that has never existed in the past. However, on the flipside, one of the dangers

is that the PhD degree and PhD students come to be seen primarily as a

problem to be managed.I began my PhD in Australia in the mid nineties at a time when changes

were starting to be made as a result of managerial directives. On a personal

level I was becoming aware that doing a PhD required a good deal of passion,

enthusiasm and commitment, as with any other significant attempt at knowl-

edge creation (Phipps et al., 2007:236). However, it seemed to me that much

of the attention paid to the PhD by university management (such as the

Faculty, Dean and Vice Chancellors Office) was purely administrative,

being concerned with such things as finishing times and completion rates.

As a way of making sense of my own PhD candidature and the changes

taking place around me, my own thesis therefore became a homage to the

actual, lived experience of doing a doctoral degree. In other words, I wrote a

PhD on the PhD degree.

My PhD focused primarily on the experiences of students in the Arts and

Humanities in Australia. This model of the PhD is similar to the European and

UK models and involves independent study towards the completion of a

dissertation. The research used a mixed-method approach which included

auto-ethnography, observations, interviews with other PhD students,1

otherresearch sources, PhD guidebooks (Frow, 1988; Giblett, 1992; Noble, 1994;

Peters, 1995; Phillips and Pugh, 1987; Powles, 1988; Pusey, 1993; Salmon,

1992) and critical philosophical and sociological texts. This allowed me to

critically explore the personal and cultural forces shaping a students invest-

ment in the doctoral process (Denzin, 1997; Fleming and Fullagar, 2007).

What I discovered was that, for many students in the Arts and Humanities,

writing a PhD was not always a smooth, efficient process. On the contrary, it

was one that they struggled to come to grips with and found demanding on apersonal level.

In the first part of this article I discuss the administrative response to the

PhD over the last fifteen years in Australasia and Europe. This response has

tended to view the personally difficult component of the PhD as problematic.

In contrast, in the second part I go on to discuss the PhD experience and argue

that the personally demanding nature of the PhD may, for many people, be an

essential part of the process. In order to provide a framework for this discus-

sion, I draw on Maurice Blanchots account of the writers life in The Space of

Literature (1989 [1955]). Blanchot was a French novelist and philosopher who

explored both the excitement and challenges of writing and claimed (as I and

Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 9(3)

[290]



4/17

many others have found when writing a PhD) that these may be an integral

part of the process of knowledge production.

t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e p h d

While the PhD may not have been regarded by the university administration

as problematic in the past, today there is a burgeoning administrative and

policy literature on doctoral research (Green, 2005). The PhD has become

the subject of universities attention for a variety of reasons. Since the 1990s

many universities have come to adopt a managerialist framework that assumes

research outputs can be managed toward strategic ends. Over this period,

universities have become concerned with the traditionally long times taken

to complete a PhD and with high attrition rates (Booth and Satchel, 1996; Leeand Green, 1995; Noble, 1994; Threadgold, 1995; Turpin and Curtis, 1995;

West,1998). As a result they have begun to investigate ways that PhD research

might be made more efficient. One consequence is that doctoral education has

become more formalized, resulting in more tightly defined expectations relat-

ing to submission rates (usually four years) (Park, 2007:17, 25).

Not all drivers for change to the PhD degree have been economic. Others

include a confusion over the purpose of the PhD and a concern as to whether

it adequately prepares individuals for the job market (academic and otherwise).

In some instances it has also become harder to attract students to doctoral

research, which has implications for universities wishing to foster a healthy,

robust research culture (Gilbert, 2004; Golde, 2005; Golde and Dore, 2001;

Nyquist, 2002; Nyquist and Wulff, 2003; Park,2007). Nevertheless, over the

last several years internal and external policy in relation to university funding

and research has, in general, become increasingly output driven (Park, 2007;

Phipps, 2009; Phipps et al., 2007).

One advantage of all the notice now paid to the doctoral degree is the

number of initiatives that have been put in place to support students withinmany universities. These include departmental programs, efforts to build com-

munities of thought, support groups, career envisioning initiatives, e-training

and support, counseling and training programs for students and support and

training for supervisors (Davis et al., 2006; Emilson and Johnsson, 2007;

Frame and Allen, 2002; Park, 2007; Wisker et al., 2007).

However, the danger of a managerialist agenda is that the PhD and PhD

students come to be seen as a problem to be managed. Students who expe-

rience the PhD degree as passionate and complicated are seen to be at fault,when they are actually experiencing the inevitably personal and often

demanding process of writing and knowledge production. In the rest of this

Owler: A problem to be managed?

[291]



5/17

section I discuss the impact of this administrative response on PhD students

and their supervisors who have themselves in many cases come to be viewed

as problems to be subsequently managed.

Prior to the nineties, there seem to have been two major views of the PhD

held by universities: one formal, the other informal (Noble, 1994:87). On theone hand, the doctorate was conceived as making pragmatic demands of the

candidate as an apprentice researcher. This was the approach taken in univer-

sity regulations which tended to stress formal and practical matters such as

entry requirements, standard completion and review times, presentation of

theses, the examination process, and so on. On the other hand, the PhD

has been understood to demand originality from the student (originality

being the defining characteristic of a PhD), of a kind which cannot simply

be taught. In this guise the PhD became a mysterious rite of passage. The

student was involved in a journey from student to academic, in search of ahigher self, coping with the attendant pain, anxiety and ecstasy that such a

process of destruction and re-production inevitably involves (Deegan and Hill,

1991; Frow,1988). While this personal aspect of dissertation writing has not

been formally recognized by the university institution, it is possible to argue

that this kind of struggle has nevertheless been an unwritten requirement of

the doctorate. The PhD has needed to be hard-won, to legitimize the acqui-

sition of higher knowledge and transition to an academic or other professional

role. How could someone realistically earn the title of Doctor, for instance,without having earned their stripes?

While in the past the PhD struggle may have been seen as a badge of

honor, under managerialism it has come to be viewed as the result of mis-

management. McWilliam and Hatcher (1999: 212) expressed a concern that,

under managerial imperatives, what they call the PhD trauma, while no longer

ignored, was being refigured as a skill deficit on the part of supervisors and/or

students. Rather than being viewed as the result of postgraduate pedagogical

relations in a particular sort of academy, the PhD experience was viewed as

what they astringently referred to as evidence of low emotionalintelligence. McWilliam and Hatcher refer here to theories of emotional

intelligence (EQ) popular in the late 1990s and adopted by human resource

practitioners. They argue that, to overcome the difficulties of the doctoral

process, students and supervisors were now being trained to handle their

emotions more appropriately. They point, for instance, to the process

provided by human resource managers, staff developers and consulting psy-

chologists whose job it is to re-inscribe academics and academic managers as

active, enterprising human resources. Importantly, McWilliams and Hatcherpoint out that emotions and the personal activity of knowledge production

were no longer ignored in this process. The call was no longer merely to


[292]



6/17

rationality, they claim, but rather to the right sort of [responsible] irrationality

(1999: 212).

If one believes that the emotional and personal side of the PhD experience

can be properly managed, those individuals who have not yet succeeded in

this process come to be regarded as emotionally limited, or even immature.More recently, Kearns et al. (2008) describe a successful program which they

have developed at Flinders University, Australia, to support and aid PhD

students towards timely completion. While the program has appeared to

help many people, the focus of this kind of program makes the PhD student

themselves the party responsible for a problematic candidature. What is

it,they ask, that makes a PhD such a difficult process, and prevents candidates

from completing on time? It seems that self-sabotaging behaviors, including

overcommitting, procrastination and perfectionism have a key role to play

(Kearns et al., 2008: 77).

The article starts off with a slightly comedic portrait of a typical day in the

life of a typical PhD candidate, who finds constant ways to procrastinate. This

sort of story, Kearns et al. explain, is in our experience, typical of some PhD

students. Theyre busy, but at the end of some days, they dont seem to have

made much progress on their PhD (2008: 78). The aim is to generally

improve students psychological hardiness and resilience through the

development of self-management skills such as time management and seeking

regular feedback from their supervisor on written work:

[T]his study appears to support what most supervisors probably experience that it is

the hardy who flourish when completing a PhD. Hopefully, we now have some

small insight into building hardiness in those who do not naturally possess it so that

the secret and painful life of a PhD student can be brought to an end! (Kearns et al.,

2008:87)

In this model the deeply personal component of knowledge production,

particularly if it involves difficult emotions, is reframed merely as a lack of

self-management skills. There is no acknowledgement here that trials andhardships may have traditionally been required of the doctoral candidate.

Nor is there any recognition that knowledge production is often, if not

always, a passionate process.

Amongst the growing body of research into PhD education, there are some

thoughtful accounts that privilege and explore the unique PhD experience

and what it means to candidates themselves (see, for instance, Barnacle, 2005;

Green 2005; Lee and Williams, 1999; Leonard et al., 2005; McCormack,

2004; McCormack, 2005). This was not the case when I was writing myown dissertation on the PhD in the late 1990s. In one example

McCormack (2005: 234) argues that, while todays performance-driven


[293]



7/17

model of higher degree research has constructed student withdrawal or non-

completion as a failure, students can view withdrawal or non-completion

quite differently. She interviewed four women who have either withdrawn

from higher degree research or taken a long time to complete. Each had an

acute sense of mismatch between the institutions view of postgraduateresearch and their own. At least one woman experienced a tension in

todays higher education research context between research as a process of

personal transformation and research as a product with measurable outputs.

For me, this thesis is more than just [. . .] about fulfilling criteria . . . I dont

want to produce a piece of work thats just about jumping through hoops.

My research is a really personal process to me . . .I mean it is my work and it

is my lifes purpose. Its not just, Oh yes that would be an interesting

thing to research. Its just part of my life. She goes on to explain that her

passion was to make a difference (Grace, in McCormack, 2005:241). Nor do

students themselves necessarily see not completing or slow completion as a

failure on their part to develop self-management skills. McCormack (2005:

243) explains that [r]ather than stories of loss, failure and withdrawal . . .each

of the women wrote beyond this expected ending to reconstruct non-

completion/slow completion of their research as a beginning to a positive

re-storying of their lives. Their story ending was not one of closure but one

of beginning.

These accounts of doing postgraduate research suggest that the personal sideof thesis writing can be as important to postgraduates as gaining their degree.

They also highlight the fact that student motives for completing a PhD can

differ at times from university motives. The traditional model of thesis writing

involving independent study could be associated for many students with a

desire to pursue research for their own personal satisfaction (Leonard et al.,

2005). As the PhD changes in countries like Australia and the UK, becoming

more formalized within a strict time-frame (generally of four years) and

increasingly involving a focus on skills training, student expectations may ofcourse change, and so too might the experience of writing a doctorate. My

own research (Owler, 1998) certainly suggested that the motives a particular

student had for doing a PhD influenced their experience. Some students who

viewed the PhD process strategically (as a means to an academic job)

completed the process quickly, and at least one did not describe the PhD as

particularly demanding on a personal level. However, most students, even

those who were clearly focused on an academic career, experienced a good

deal of challenge and growth as a result of PhD dissertation writing. In the

next section I will be discussing the experience of writing a PhD in more

detail, drawing for assistance on the work of Maurice Blanchot.


[294]



8/17

t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f w r i t i n g a p h d

The central point of the work is the work as origin, the point which cannot be reached,

yet the only one which is worth reaching. . .Those who care only for brilliant success

are nevertheless in search of this point where nothing can succeed. And whoever writescaring only for truth has already entered the magnetic field of this point from which truth

is excluded. (Blanchot, 1989:545)

Blanchot was a French novelist and philosopher who was fascinated by the

process and experience of writing. He devoted an entire book to this subject

calledThe Space of Literature(1989[1955]). In this book he examined the expe-

rience had by writers of literature who had recorded their thoughts and feelings

in personal diaries and other sources. Blanchot derives his approach in part from

the work of existential philosophers, such as Hegel and Heidegger, who were

concerned in the broadest sense with the nature of being and its relationship to

knowledge. Blanchot believed that the process of writing was integrally con-

nected to a writers own subjective process. It is possible to read Blanchots

writing according to a post-structuralist framework that assumes that knowl-

edge, and also to some extent a subject or person themselves, is a process

endlessly undergoing change. This is the approach I take in this article.

The process of writing a PhD in the Arts and Humanities and the process of

writing literature are certainly different in many ways. They have different

goals and are intended for a different audience. However, there are alsoparallels between the two. These include the need to work on a project

over a long period of time and the often solo nature of writing work (in

contrast to the team work and camaraderie of the science laboratory, for

instance). One of the themes that emerged in my research on the PhD was

the personally demanding nature of thesis writing. This was also an experience

I found echoed in Blanchots account of the writers life. Blanchots writing is

often obscure. This is probably deliberate as he seems anxious to create an

impressionof the writing experience, rather than being concerned to spell outwhat he means in black and white. In my account of Blanchot below, I have

made an attempt to clarify his position, while still attempting to convey some-

thing of the subtlety of his approach.

In The Space of Literature, Blanchot suggests that, if we are to achieve any-

thing like a novel or piece of literature, we need to start with some kind of

question. This means that we inevitably start to some extent in the dark. We

are motivated to find an answer to that question, the truth of the matter,

emerging from the dark into the light in order that we can get something

written. We need this question or uncertainty because in seeking an answer it

enables or motivates us to move forward. However, just because we find an


[295]



9/17

answer and can finally write, we dont necessarily put an end to uncertainty.

Often we find the question comes back in another way, or perhaps a whole

new set of questions emerges. This can once again throw us back into the

dark. In Blanchots account there is a frequent oscillation between confusion

and clarity in writing. In my examination of the PhD experience I foundsomething similar, manifest for many students in a constant swinging between

anxiety and excitement as they engaged in the writing process.

Blanchot believes that the process of locating an answer or the truth in

writing is very much connected to the subjective process. In other words, as

we move forward in writing, we also change as people. And, when we are

stumped as writers, experiencing writers block or a confusing time in our

research, we experience a loss of self. Blanchots account suggests that it is

precisely as a result of the connection between writing and subjectivity that

writing can give us so much trouble, as we swing between arrival at a strongsense of self and the loss of self-certainty. The defining requirement of the

PhD degree is that the candidate is required to do original research on their

own. This appears to generate a unique experience of aloneness for PhD

students that is at times manifest as a positive experience of autonomy, and

at other times as a more difficult experience of loneliness. I will discuss this

experience of autonomy and loneliness below, before going on to discuss the

PhD students experience of excitement and anxiety.

Autonomy and loneliness

I think the strength [of the PhD degree] is that you get to be by yourself, but thats

probably part of my peculiarity (laugh), some others might find that a weakness, but I

like being at home by myself with the cat . . . I didnt find it lonely (Jennifer).

Youre on you own intellectually and in a sense physically . . .its very lonely and I think

quite isolating (Peter).2

One of the requirements of the PhD is that the student learns how to carry out

research on their own, through the act of doing so. In the words of the 2005University of New South Wales calendar, the thesis must consist of an

account of the candidates own research [except in rare cases]. The traditional

PhD is definitely not a collaborative project. This requirement of independent

research entails a specific kind of aloneness or isolation for the doctoral student

that can be experienced at times positively as autonomy and at other more

difficult times as loneliness.

Blanchot makes reference to a unique kind of solitude that accompanies

writing. This is not only the absence of an other who might recognize andaffirm the writers self. It is also an acute experience of theabsenceof a self who

might be recognized. In Blanchots account, the writer herself feels she never


[296]



10/17

belongs solely to the realm of clarity. Rather, in turning towards the absence

or darkness touched on earlier, where she aims to find an answer, she can face

confusion, disorder and even a kind of death (Blanchot, 1989: 23).

The self that speaks to the writer is what Blanchot describes as the third

person substitute for the I, solitude; the I isnt anyone any more: The thirdperson is myself become no one, my interlocutor turned alien; it is my no

longer being able, where I am, to address myself (1989:28). Blanchot suggests

that our solitude as writers means that what happens to me happens to no

one (1989: 33). Given the need to pose a question and face uncertainty in

writing, the writer can no longer lay claim to his or her experience or to any

sense of self-certainty. The self the writer thought he knew so well becomes

suddenly experienced as alien. This is pertinent to the PhD experience.

Undergraduate students may certainly look up to PhD candidates and imagine

them to be knowledgeable. However, during the process of writing a

dissertation the PhD student frequently wonders whether they now know

less than what they began with. Often the PhD student experiences confusion

over what she is actually writing about. The reasons for her writing are no

longer clear, even to herself. At such times the student somehow does not

know herself, including her very own motivations and passions. All she knows

is that something, somehow keeps her writing. It is as if she has no choice but

to keep attending to and working at her doctorate, so that perhaps she may

come to know herself again.Blanchot goes on to examine the claim that is often made of the writers of

fiction: that they try to escape from the demands of the world by creating a

fantasy world for themselves in their writing (1989: 52). When I was

completing my PhD I was often asked the question, when are you going

to get a job in the real world? and was put in a position where I was required

to defend myself and my decision to study. Blanchot argues that such com-

ments fail to recognize the risk the writer takes. He contends that in the

work, the artist protects himself. . .

against the requirement that draws himoutof the world (1989:53) and therefore also out of himself.

For Blanchot, there can be enjoyment and struggle in the solitude that

writing requires. During a PhD it is intimate and comforting to be with

oneself and ones books, especially when things are going well. This is the

pleasure of being alone which the candidate quoted above experienced, at

home by myself with the cat. At the same time this intimacy can just as easily

abandon the student when he is confused, frustrated and suffering from a lack

of direction and purpose. In such cases the writer does

not feel free of the world, but, rather, deprived of it;. . .[the writer] does not feel that he

is master of himself, but rather that he is absent from himself and exposed to demands


[297]



11/17

which, casting him out of life and of living, open him to that moment at which he

cannot do anything and is no longer himself. (Blanchot, 1989:53)

At such times an individual feels absented from the regular world and social

life, which he views only externally, perhaps outside the window.

In a similar experience the PhD student poses a question for analysis whichengages him in a direct confrontation with that which he does not know. He

often works on that question, quite alone, for many years. Consequently, he

can experience an acute sense of insecurity. However, the student who persists

inevitably returns to a point at which he can achieve some clarity. For

Blanchot this is because the work is pure circle where, even as he writes

the work, the author dangerously exposes himself to, but also protects himself

against, the pressure that demands that he write (1989: 52). In other words, by

writing in an attempt to answer a question we are to an extent protectingourselves from that question. If the writer keeps writing, he is sure to find

intimacy (and clarity) once again, even if only fleetingly. Perhaps this occurs

during a breakthrough in writing, or the completion of a chapter or when

coming across a new and inspiring idea, for instance.

Excitement and anxiety

The PhD process is frequently described as an anxious one, an intense

oscillation between excitement and fear. As one student explained, [the

PhD means] lots of research and discipline, yes, its fantastic as well. Its full

of ups and downs. I think thats the main defining feature of the PhD process

for me. . .pleasure and pain (Annabella). Some accounts link anxiety during a

PhD degree to a fear of failure, others to the ill-defined limbo which students

experience while writing a thesis (Wason in Phillips and Pugh, 1987: 10,

reprinted and amplified several times since). One popular university guide-

book argues that anxiety doesnt leave us when writing a PhD:

The most pervasive of all the psychological aspects of doing a PhD is the anxiety that

accompanies you through all the stages. At first it is very high and exemplified by such

concerns as am I clever enough?, will they realize what a fraud I am? And so on. As you

progress, you go through periods of higher or lower anxiety but you are never completely

free of it. . .one of the reasons for feeling that a great weight has been lifted from you once

you have successfully completed your PhD is that nagging anxiety that has been your

constant companion for so long has finally been lifted (Phillips and Pugh, 1987:70).

Freud (1958: 1213) wrote that anxiety involved a preparation in anticipation of

a perhaps unknown, yet disruptive event. If the PhD involves an endless antic-ipation, an on guard against some unspeakable and unnamable calamity, what

is it that the student both hopes for and dreads the loss of? One possible insight


[298]



12/17

into this question is offered in Blanchots reading of Mallarme, through which

he links anxiety to the writers fear and experience of death. While Mallarmes

fears are existential in nature, we can all relate to some extent to a fear of loss of

self, either in death or as a partial loss of self in relation to some other form of

crisis. For the PhD student these fears may be conscious or unconscious andmay include such things as the non-completion of a PhD, a supervisors critical

remarks, judgment by others, a lack of clear direction or loss of credibility.

Blanchot recalls Mallarmes quite touching experience of his writers anx-

iety: I felt the very disquieting symptoms caused by the sole act of writing

(Mallarme in Blanchot, 1989: 38). Through writing, Mallarme encounters

nothingness, or the absence of everything certain. Blanchot explains that:

Whoever goes deeply into poetry escapes from being as certitude, meets

with the absence of the gods . . . He cannot have truth for his horizon, or

the future as his element, for he has no right to hope (1989:38). Yet at what

point does hope take over from such despair? For Blanchot, hope and despair

make each other possible. If we did not hope for the happy clarity of certitude

in the form of a more complete truth we would never take the risk of writing

which might expose us to the loss of truth. Anxiety, on the other hand, is not

necessarily enough to make the writer (and the PhD student) cease to write.

Indeed, perhaps it is the very thing that keeps the writer writing and hoping.

Any writer hopes at some point that the anxiety over writing will stop. The

writers inability to place themselves, or the ill defined limbo the PhDstudent often finds themselves experiencing, generates a desire to arrive at a

stable and locatable identity, i.e. Dr Kathryn Owler. Strangely, then, it is the

anxiety which keeps a student creatively working at her project in order to

one day be done with such anxiety.

While we are immersed in the anxious process of writing, Blanchot claims

we can fail to look after ourselves, pushing ourselves to keep going, working

hard, yet lacking any clear understanding of why we are doing so. Blanchot

argues that we lose ourselves, shut ourselves in, can be cruel to ourselves,castigate ourselves and become a miserable creature, our only support an

incomprehensible torment. Why do we do this to ourselves? In view of a

grandiose work? In view of a completely insignificant work? He [the writer]

has no idea, nor does anyone know (1989:55).

This description for me is reminiscent of the doctoral experience. During

my PhD candidature I would often hear the exclamation by fellow doctoral

students: Why do I put myself through this process? One student who spoke

of this struggle explained:

Theres anxiety and then sometimes, theres a bit of depression I guess, especially when

you think well why exactly am I doing this and no-ones going to read it when all those


[299]



13/17

thoughts go round in your head No-ones going to read this, theres no job at the end

of it, why am I doing this, its a waste of time, I should be doing something else. But

then I come back to the, I am enjoying this. (Karena)

For Blanchot, as for this student, hope returns out of despair. This is because it

is our inability to ever truly find the absolute answer to our question whichmakes it possible to have hope and begin again afresh. Of course it is possible

to arrive at certain answers and get some writing done. The PhD student does

frequently effect completions in writing: a sentence, a draft, a PhD thesis.

However, in Blanchots schema such completions are unstable, fleeting and

partial. Very soon any sense of certainty that they offered us is undermined and

we realize that we have not yet arrived and we have more work to do. If one

did ever truly arrive at the absolute truth of the matter, the act of beginning

over, and therefore the act of creation, would no longer be necessary.

Each time we go through the process of deriving hope from despair, we do

seem to get closer to the completion of our PhD. Whether on completing a

project we actually complete our task as writers, however, is a specific and, I

believe, crucial question raised by Blanchot:

The writer goes back to work . . .Does he just desire a perfect product, and if he does

not cease to work at it, is it simply because perfection is never perfect enough? Does he

even write in expectation of a work? Does he bear it always in mind as that which would

put an end to his task, as the goal worthy of so much effort? Not at all. The work is never

that in anticipation of which one can write (in prospect of which one would relate to theprocess of writing as to the exercise of some power). The fact that the writers task ends

with his life hides another fact: that, through this task, his life slides into the distress of the

infinite. (1989: 256)

Here Blanchot claims that the writer, and perhaps also the individual in general,

never ceases to write because they always have questions (either literally have

questions or are driven by questions at a deeper level). The fact that I sit here,

ten years on, still finely tuned to the PhD experience makes me think that

Blanchot might well be right. Which of us after completing a PhD degree can

say we have finished with it, in the sense of being finally free of the experience?

After all, if Blanchot is correct, didnt writing a PhD help to make us who we

are and wasnt it our own desire for (self) knowledge that drove the process?

c o n c l u s i o n

The administrative context for the PhD often frames it, intentionally or not, as

a problem to be managed. However, writing a PhD is a unique research

process, one that many people experience as a passionate process one that isboth rewarding and personally demanding. The PhD is unique amongst

other degrees in that it requires the production of original knowledge. It is


[300]



14/17

a time-consuming project and, for the Arts and Humanities student, is con-

ducted largely alone. For this reason it replicates something of the complex

experience of writing that Blanchot describes. Moreover, for many people,

the experience of writing is integral to the knowledge produced. My own

thesis is a case in point. If I had not found the PhD process so challengingand the administrative context of the PhD so perplexing, I would never have

been moved to complete a thesis on a thesis.

I believe that developing an understanding of the unique experience of

writing a PhD can teach academics and universities a lot about the ways in

which knowledge is produced. This information can be useful in helping to

promote quality research and sustain a robust research culture. I certainly do

not promote struggle and suffering as routes to quality research. On the

contrary, I believe the supports and structures that have been made available

to PhD students over the last ten years are crucial and, in many cases, longoverdue. What I do suggest is that universities acknowledge and make space

for the inevitably subjective and often passionate process of knowledge

production. To bring home this point I want to conclude by paraphrasing

an experienced doctoral supervisor. Over the years Creme (2008) has repeat-

edly observed that doctoral students need sufficient space for play and for

meaningful and engaged learning before the requirement to be critical takes

over. This process of play allows the time for new and creative ideas to

germinate. It is these ideas that generate the kind of originality and goodquality research that universities seek. And, I argue, it might just be these

same ideas that do not have time to distill and germinate within a research

culture dominated by administrative concerns.

n o t e s

1. I conducted fifteen qualitative interviews with doctoral candidates (both past and present)

from the Arts and Social Sciences who attended four different Sydney universities, over a period

of approximately eight months. These interviews were conducted confidentially, in a friendly,fairly informal manner. I asked the students open questions, pertaining to major themes discussed

in my thesis. Students were encouraged to elaborate as much as they wished in relation to

questions that resonated with their experience. These interviews were taped and later transcribed.

2. The experiences of PhD candidates quoted are excerpts from the interviews I conducted

while completing my PhD. All names have been changed to ensure confidentiality.

a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s

I would like to pay tribute to the wonderful peers I interviewed while completing my own

PhD, who shared their insights and trials. Also more latterly to Dr Barbara Grant and AssociateProfessor Simone Fullagar for their kindness in reading this article in its various incarnations and

their constructive suggestions.


[301]



15/17

r e f e r e n c e s

Barnacle, R. (2005) Research education ontologies: exploring doctoral becoming, Higher

Education Research and Development24(2):17988.

Blanchot, M. (1989) The Space of Literature, trans. With Introduction by A. Smock. London:

University of Nebraska Press.Booth, A. and Satchell, S. (1996) British PhD completion rates: some evidence from the

1980s, Higher Education Review28(2): 4856.

Creme, P. (2008) A space for academic play: student learning journals as transitional writing,

Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 7(1):4964.

Davis, H., Evans, T. and Hickey, C. (2006) A knowledge based economy landscape: impli-

cations for tertiary education and research training in Australia, Journal of Higher Education

Policy and Management28(3):23144.

Deegan, M.J. and Hill, M.R. (1991) Doctoral dissertations as liminal journeys of the

self: betwixt and between in graduate sociology programs, Teaching Sociology 19(July):32232.

Denzin, N. (1997) Interpretive Ethnography: Ethnographic Practices for the21st Century. California:

SAGE.

Emilson, U. and Johnsson, E. (2007) Supervision of supervisors: on developing supervision in

post-graduate education, Higher Education Research and Development26(2):16379.

Fleming, C. and Fullagar, S. (2007) Reflexive methodologies: an autoethnography of

the gendered performance of sport/management, Annals of Leisure Research 10(34):

23856.

Frame, I. and Allen, L. (2002) A flexible approach to PhD research training, Quality Assurancein Education 10(2): 98103.

Freud, S. (1958 [1920]) Beyond the pleasure principle, in J. Strachey and A. Freud (trans. and

eds)The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, vol.12, pp.159

73. London: Hogarth Press.

Frow, J. (1988) Discipline and discipleship, Textual Practice2(3):30723.

Giblett, R. (1992) The desire for disciples, Paragraph15:13655.

Gilbert, R. (2004) A framework for evaluating the doctoral curriculum, Assessment &

Evaluation in Higher Education 29(3):299309.

Golde, C.M. (2005) The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student attrition:

lessons from four departments, Journal of Higher Education 76(6): 669700.

Golde, C.M. and Dore, T.M. (2001) At cross purposes: what the experiences of todays doctoral

students reveal about doctoral education, Madison. WI: University of Wisconsin.

Green, B. (2005) Unfinished business: subjectivity and supervision, Higher Education Research

and Development24(2):15163.

Kearns, H., Gardiner, M. and Marshall, K. (2008) Innovation in PhD completion: the hardy

shall succeed (and be happy!), Higher Education Research and Development27(2): 7789.

Lee, A. and Green, B. (1995) Introduction: postgraduate studies/postgraduate pedagogy, The

Australian Universities Review38(2):58.

Lee, A. and Williams, C. (1999) Forged in fire: narratives of trauma in PhD supervision

pedagogy, Southern Review21(1):626.


[302]



16/17

Leonard, D., Becker, R. and Coate, K. (2005) To prove myself at the highest

level: the benefits of doctoral study, Higher Education Research and Development 24(2):

13549.

McCormack, C. (2004) Tensions between students and institutional conceptions of postgrad-

uate research, Studies in Higher Education 29(3):31932.

McCormack, C. (2005) Is non-completion a failure or a new beginning? Research non-

completion from a students perspective, Higher Education Research and Development 24(3):

23347.

McWilliam, E. and Hatcher, C. (1999) The taming of trauma: or how to be properly emo-

tional, Southern Review32(2): 21219.

Noble, K. (1994) Changing Doctoral Degrees: An International Perspective. Buckingham: The

Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Nyquist, J. (2002) The PhD: a tapestry of change for the 21st century, Change Nov/Dec:

1220.

Nyquist, J. and Wulff, D.H. (2003) The Ph.D.: a tapestry of change for the 21st century.Recommendations from national studies on doctoral education. Available at www.grad.

washington.edu/envision/resources/tapestry_recom.html (accessed January 2010).

Owler, K. (1998) Subject to closure: meditating on the doctoral process, PhD thesis, The

University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Park, C. (2007) Redefining the Doctorate: Discussion Paper, Islington: The Higher Education

Academy.

Peters, R. (1995)Getting What You Came For: The Smart Students Guide to Earning a Masters or a

PhD. New York: The Noonday Press.

Phillips, E. and Pugh, D. (1987) How to Get a PhD: Managing the Peaks and Troughs of Research,Philadelphia. PA: Open University Press.

Phipps, A. (2009) Editorial: Violence and exploitation in the Humanities?, Arts and Humanities

in Higher Education 8(1): 57

Phipps, A., Parker, J. and Chambers, E. (2007) Editorial: Knowledge transfer in the Arts and

Humanities, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 6(3):2356.

Powles, M. (1988) Know your PhD Students and How to Help Them . Melbourne: Centre for the

Study of Higher Education.

Pusey, M. (1993) How to write a PhD and keep your sanity (but only just). Paper delivered

and distributed to sociology postgraduate students at the University of New South Wales,17

March 1993.

Salmon, P. (1992) Achieving a PhD Ten Students Experience, Staffordshire: Trentham Books.

Threadgold, T. (1995) Pedagogy, psychoanalysis, feminism, The Australian Universities Review

38(2): 468.

Turpin, T. and Curtis, S. (1995) Research training in Australia Policy, practice, and directions

in the 1990s, Research Training: Present and Future, Paris: OECD.

West, E. (1998) Learning for Life: Final Report: Review of Higher Education, Financing and Policy.

Canberra: Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Wisker, G., Robinson, G. and Shacham, M. (2007) Postgraduate research success: communi-

ties of practice involving cohorts, guardian supervisors and online communities, Innovations

in Education and Teaching International44(3):30120.


[303]



17/17

b i o g r a p h i c a l n o t e

kathryn owler is a Research Associate with the Faculty of Business, AUT University,

Auckland, New Zealand. She also runs her own research and training business. Kathryn com-

pleted her PhD in1998at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. Her research

interests lie in post-structuralist analysis of work and leisure. Kathryn has published in the areas

of postgraduate studies and disability support. Her current area of research attention is well-

being at work. She is presently conducting research on fun at work in the Australasian context.

Address: Management Department, Faculty of Business, AUT University, WF Building

(level 10), 42 Wakefield Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010, New Zealand. [email:

[email protected]]


[304]

Documents

Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 2010 Owler 289 304