A Theory of Contemporary Rhetoric (22 page)

knowledge; that it
affords evidence of originality by the discovery of new “facts” and/or the exercise of independent critical power
; that it is
an integrated whole and presents a coherent argument
; that it describes the method of research and its findings; that it includes a discussion of those findings and how they advance the study of the subject; and that, in so doing, it demonstrates
a deep and synoptic understanding of the field of study & and a capacity for judgment in complex situations
. There are other criteria that are not so closely linked to rhetoric, argumentation, and criticality.

The commonalities between the students are best represented in terms of the structure of the six theses, outlined in
Table 8.2
.

There is a high degree of homogeneity in the structure of the theses. If we take structure or the classical
dispositio
(arrangement) to be one of the key rhetorical aspects of argumentation, we can see that the practice here is to undertake a seven or eight-part argument. All have an introduction and a conclusion. All have a literature review and a chapter on methodology. All move from the Introduction through the Literature review to the Methodology and on to the results or findings, before reaching the Conclusion. We could say that there is a clear genre within which all the students couch their thesis: in education and social science studies, this genre assumes that, at the highest level of academic achievement, the student is making a contribution to knowledge by reviewing existing research, telling us how she approached or undertook the new empirical research, presenting us with the results, discussing the overall outcomes, and framing the whole with an introduction and conclusion. The regulations, guidance, and criteria for the award of PhD at the two universities concerned do not specify such a genre—they are couched in more general terms.

There are variations between the students. Those with eight chapters rather than seven have needed the extra chapter to provide two chapters of literature review, or three chapters of results (the norm is two). In the case where there are nine chapters (Wengcheng Zhu), the five chapters that constitute the “results” are arranged in a thematic fashion, more like a book than a thesis. They provide the framework for a
discussion
of the topic from five different perspectives. One cannot say, however, that this is a particularly East Asian trait; it is just as much a convention in humanities and social policy work in Europe as in Asia. Indeed, the reason for the thematic arrangement is probably more to do with the fact that the thesis was supervised within a Faculty of Policy and Society than within a faculty that emphasized empirical and pedagogic aspects of education. Finally, all students incorporate discussion in their theses. For some this is embedded throughout; for others it appears in a separate chapter, after a more descriptive account of the data (and thus modeling the conventional scientific journal article, albeit in a scaled-up version).

Table 8.2
Structure of the Students' Theses

The differences between students are more evident in the research questions and methodologies. It is here that the argument sets out its starting point and works out
how
it will address the question. In each case the focus is on the main research question(s), outlined in
Table 8.3
.

Table 8.3
Research Questions and Methods Used

What are the differences between the approaches taken by the six students, and are they culturally influenced or informed?

The first point to make is that, in general, research questions are pivotal to doctoral research and theses because they not only encapsulate the sub-stance of the investigation, but also shape the methodological approach (Andrews 2003). For example, Frances Bodger's formulation of “
How
are children's transformations & best
understood?
” opens up the investigation to consider a number of ways in which such syntactic and textual trans-formations can be interpreted and appreciated, and which of these ways is the best. A further issue is raised by the technical term
transformations
, the definition of which will form part of the study. In another example, Hazel Chiu's
“How
is grammar teaching
perceived
and
practiced & “
allows the student to look at a number of ways in which such teaching is perceived and practiced—with the implication that there will be comparison between perception and practice. It should be noted that a number of the theses cited here (Watson, Tsaliki, Chiu) use teachers'
perceptions
as a focus of attention and research.

It is better to have a single research question, as the question provides (to change the metaphor slightly) the keystone of the study. This single question can be accompanied by subsidiary questions whose answer can precede or follow the answer to the main question, but the subsidiary questions should not determine the structure, nature, or argument of the thesis as a whole. It will be noticed that Watson, Tsaliki, Lai, and Zhu all ask more than one main question—and even Bodger and Chiu have a double aspect to each of their single questions (“syntactic and textual,” “perceived and practiced”). In rhetorical, argumentational, and critical terms, the single question is better because it is more focused and can be used to determine the structure and methodology of the thesis. There is no logical sense in which a single question can be complicated or diffused by another main question.

Second, in relation to the samples, methodologies, and methods used by the six students, three of them (Bodger, Watson, Chiu) use small samples and generate qualitative data and analysis. Tsaliki provides a medium-sized sample. Zhu has no sample at all, but proceeds via analysis of policy documents and textbooks. Lai provides a classic experimental study in combination with narrative discourse, stimulated recall, and audio and video taping (but no video analysis). In short, a variety of samples and methods is used.

There is no clear pattern that has emerged regarding Eastern as opposed to Western approaches to argumentation, rhetoric, and criticality. The three East Asian students perform just as well, and across a range of approaches to research question formation as well as to sampling and methodology. Deeper investigation, beyond structure, research questions, and method, is unlikely to reveal any further cultural difference. In four
of the six cases, the language used is a second language. Again, there are no differences in quality or approach. Perhaps we could say that in this particular small-scale and initial study, the sample itself was small (six), purposive, and opportunistic. One could also say that the fact that five of the six students are all working within the regulations and guidance of the Institute of Education at the University of London, and therefore it is no surprise that there is a degree of homogeneity in their productions. All that is true. Nevertheless, the hypotheses generated from such an initial study can be useful for further research: that there is no difference in rhetorical, argumentational, and critical preparedness in students from Eastern and Western backgrounds, and that the academic genre in which students are working, and the precise framework provided by university regulations, are more likely to influence the nature of the composition than any other factor.

There is clearly more research to do: first, in scaling up the study to include a larger sample of students. Second, in undertaking more in-depth and comparative studies of university regulations and the way in which they determine or influence the academic genres in which students write and are assessed; and the extent to which students and supervisors and examiners are on the same wavelength in terms of their understanding of the parameters of the genre in which they are working.

What are the implications for this study in pedagogical terms? As far as doctoral supervision goes, it is clear that for students from any back-ground, explicit consideration of the rhetorical and argumentational requirements of undertaking a thesis is essential, at an early stage of the process.

First, a look at the requirements as set out in the university's regulations and guidance is important so that the immediate assessment context of the study is clear. If such guidance or even the criteria for success specify that a “coherent argument” is required, the two elements of that term need to be discussed. An argument will require the student to present his or her work in a logical sequence—whatever the logic of the particular discipline requires. Conventionally, in the humanities, the sequence starts with an introduction and literature review, then moves through methodological considerations to the presentation and discussion of results, and then on to a conclusion. Behind this conventional sequence is the assumption that the work will contribute to an existing field through the presentation and analysis of new data and/or new theoretical configuration (and sometimes also by a contribution to methodology). Logic can
be suspended or resequenced if there are other paradigmatic forces at play, for example, if the work is presented as a website, or if it is being conducted in paradigm that challenges the conventional argumentational forms. For example, if the thesis is being undertaken in a digital and/or multimodal context, considerations of the particular nature of argument need to be addressed (see Andrews, Borg, Boyd Davis, Domingo, and England 2012).