A slide show about questions and issues that a writer needs to take into account when writing the text that accompanies papers. The show is designed for PhD students that are undertaking a PhD by publication.

1. The “exegesis” in PhD
by publication
Pat Thomson
2019

2. A choice – monograph or papers
• What kinds of questions and projects are more suited to
monographs?
• What kind of questions and projects are more suited to a papers
approach?
• What disciplinary conventions sit behind the value given to each
PhD form?
• What advantage might there be for the PhDer in each form (e.g.
career, learning a text genre important for future work)

3. Each form has a text form
PhD by publication has an Exegesis in addition to the papers
This is a critical explanation of the papers, not a summary or
synthesis (the term exegesis is derived from scriptural practice)
The text is known as Kappa in Nordic countries

4. The PhD is
• A demonstration that the candidate knows
how to conduct research
• An original contribution to knowledge

5. The PhD by publication
• is an original contribution to knowledge
- the contribution - the papers must add up to
something able to be understood as the
contribution
- original – it is the candidate’s own work – so it
must be possible for the examiner to
see/track/audit what the candidate has done
- it is original in relation to the field of study – it
must be well- grounded in scholarly literatures
(this might also include ‘grey’ literatures)

6. The PhD by monograph
• The PhD er demonstrates, through an elaborated
explanation of methods, that they can
– devise a researchable question and project
– design a research project which will generate data which affords
an ‘answer;
– justify their choice of approach, sample, method etc, that is,
show they have an understanding of other methodological
options and thus also know the advantages and limitations of
their choices
– analyse data rigorously and with reflexivity
– understand and abide by ethical practices
– communicate their decisions logically and clearly and in
appropriate scholarly written form

7. The PhD by publication must also
• elaborate a research question, linked, sub or cumulative
research questions
• design a research project or projects which will generate data
which affords an ‘answer’
• justify their choice of approach, sample, method etc,
understanding other options and limitations of their choices
• analyse data rigorously and with reflexivity
• understand and use ethical practices
• communicate their decisions logically and clearly and in
appropriate scholarly form

8. Some issues for the PhDer to consider

9. A contribution
• A monograph has a clear warrant for its project
found in policy, practice or extant knowledge
(gap, niche, problematisation, puzzle)
• Papers establish separate warrants - a warrant
for the particular, not the overall project
• The exegesis needs to establish the warrant for
the overall project/agenda/approach

10. Locating the original contribution
• Monographs typically show an extended survey
of the literatures, locate the overall study and the
potential contribution and discuss what the
particular research uses/debates/problematises
• Papers typically require only a short minimal
literature review
• If the examiner is to be assured that the
candidate knows their field, the exegesis must
demonstrate that a critical survey of the
literature has been undertaken.

11. Methodology and methods
• Typically even the most methodologically inclined
journal articles are light on method compared to
what would be elaborated in a monograph.
• Establishing to doctoral examiners - who have a
different job to journal referees- that the
candidate knows how to conduct research to
scholarly standards may require more detail than
is in published papers.
• The exegesis needs in part to focus on the
scholarship - the ‘process’ requirement.

12. Contribution in PhD by publication
• A monograph articulates its contribution in
the conclusion
• So the question for the exergesis is, What do
the papers add up to?
• There must be a summary and synthesis of the
overall contribution
• The exegesis must establish that the sum is
greater than/different from each of the parts

13. A trap for the exegesis writer
• Inadequate explanation of the papers and what
each of them contributes to the overall project
• Th examiner needs to see that the papers are
related and they make sense as a ‘set’
• The candidate must provide a commentary for
the examiner on inter-relationships between
papers, and how flow and coherence was
established

14. So What?
• The examiner must be left in no doubt about the
contribution and its implications for further research
and in education, generally policy and/or practice. The
‘conclusion’ requirement is the same for both
monograph and by publication.
• The PhD by publication might also go back to the
question of choice of papers and discuss what further
papers might be written from their research.
• Limitations of the research – the PhDer might also
consider what is gained and lost through choice of
papers

15. ‘original’ contribution in PhD by
publication
• The candidate’s own work – how much is the
supervisor’s work
– – a pedagogical question for supervisors about
how much they decide on content and write
actual texts of papers.
– An ethical question for supervisors – should they
first author? second author? What criteria to use
for not appearing as an author?
• The final text must show the examiner what
the candidate actually did

16. Some related institutional concerns
• How are co-authored papers to be counted in
audit regimes? As the work of the supervisor? Or
the doctoral candidate? ( If doctoral candidates
are also counted as employees then this is
perhaps not an issue?)
• What if the supervisor only publishes papers co-
written with doctoral researchers?