1
Activity 1:
Look at the extracts. In each case, consider:
•
What is the writer’s stance towards the literature being discussed?
•
How has that stance been communicated in writing?
•
How does it convince?
•
How might it differ from what is acceptable in a thesis/probationary report?
•
How does the expression of criticality here differ, if it does, from practices in your
discipline?
Extract A
In discussing literature there are, fundamentally, two views. The first is that there are absolute
standards of quality or goodness; these are generally undefined (and undefinable) but may be
perceived by the cultured, the elite or the gifted: whether you regard the priesthood who elect
themselves to make these decisions as part of the divine order, as the preservers of cultural
continuity, or as oppressive ego maniacs (canonising the dead white males) is, of course, up to you.
The alternative view (oddly called “relativist” by the first group – to whom everything is relative to
their own standards) is to value everything as fit for purpose; thus you can’t compare, say, apples
and oranges, because although they are both fruits, what is good about either is intrinsic to the
species. Mozart wrote good music of its kind, the Beatles wrote good music of its kind; War and
Peace is good of its kind, We’re Going on a Bear Hunt is good of its kind.
Therefore, to say that one form (children’s books) is, by definition, inferior to another (adults’ books)
may be an interesting philosophical discussion, but it is a dangerous one in the context of children
and their books. The “inferior” form will not be taken or taught or analysed seriously (as was the
case not so long ago with “women’s writing”), and that can cause serious multiple confusions in the
education system. Shakespeare at school and Jackie Wilson at home should be seen as doing
different things, rather than one being “superior” to the other. Both are leading their readers into
different aspects of the culture, and to compare them directly is not a useful exercise.
Extract B
The Stages Heuristic is widely acknowledged to have been the first formal policy theory established
in the “new” field of policy science (Deleon, 1999; Sabaiter, 1999; McCool, 1995). Although it is no
longer in active use, I mention it here as an historical antecedent to later policy theories. Originally
conceptualised by Lasswell (1951), the stages approach was refined by Brewer (1974) and identified
six key stages: (1) policy initiation, (2) estimation, (3) selection, (4) implementation, (5) evaluation,
and (6) termination. The Stages Heuristic represents a delineated, sequential policy process
framework where some overlap between stages is possible, but where each stage has distinctive
2
characteristics. While much of the policy research since the 1970s has been shaped by this
framework, its critics now characterise the approach as disjointed, episodic and linear (Deleon, 1999;
Sabatier, 1999).
For all practical purposes this theory has become outdated and irrelevant in that it is no longer
studied by scholars. But the stages approach represents a point of departure for other theories and
more stringent and holistic models. It also served to open policy studies to a range of academic
disciplines and provided space for later ideas based on social norms and personal values (Deleon,
1999).
Extract C
Despite the numerous challenging developmental tasks they encounter, workload, stress, and health
among psychology doctoral students is deeply understudied. At the time of this writing, a PsycINFO
search for combinations of the terms “clinical” or “counseling,” and “doctoral students” or “graduate
students,” and “health,” “work,” or “satisfaction” returns very few published studies on the topic of
clinical or counseling psychology doctoral students’ health or well-being.
Myers and colleagues (2012) examined the impact of self-care practices on perceived stress in
clinical psychology graduate students. Perceived stress was measured using the Perceived Stress
Scale (PSS; Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983). No other psychological or physical health
symptoms were measured. The authors found that certain types of self-care (sleep hygiene, social
support, emotion regulation, and mindful acceptance) were significantly related to lower levels of
perceived stress. However, they did not provide mean data for the PSS scores, making the general
stress level for these students unknown…
Taken collectively, the findings of these studies suggest that clinical and counseling psychology
doctoral students likely experience significant amounts of stress and mental health symptoms;
however, they do not perceive themselves to have adequate coping resources available. Further,
because of impression management, fear of negative evaluation, and potential faculty bias, students
may not willingly disclose their level of distress to supervisors and faculty (Dearing, Maddux, &
Tangney, 2005; Willyard, 2012). However, a distressed student may be incapable of providing
adequate care to clients (Zemirah, 2000). As stated by Pope and Vasquez (2007), “few of us can
engage in [the process of being an ethical therapist] effectively if we are personally drained,
overwhelmed, or demoralized. Self-care is crucial” (p. 57). And, according to research data, self-care
does work when practiced regularly (Myers et al., 2012; Shapiro, Shapiro, & Schwartz, 2000).
Thus, it is necessary to gauge average levels of clinical and counseling psychology doctoral students’
psychological and physical distress...
3
Extract from a PhD literature review: subtopic – feedback on student writing in higher education
In some studies from an academic literacies perspective, academic teachers come across as paying
little heed to the affective and identity-related needs of students in relation to academic writing (e.g.
Hunt 2001; Young, 2000). Ivanič et al. (2000) draw on the feedback comments of five “subject
tutors” and four EAP teachers in order to critically explore “the messages conveyed to students” in
teachers’ written feedback and the effects on “the fledgling writers in their charge” (ibid.: 47). They
found that the overarching aim of most feedback was to justify the grade rather than
developmental, and that feedback designed to engage the student in dialogue was “surprisingly
rare” (ibid.: 57). Their interpretation of comments extends to a reading of teachers’ motivation – for
example, they suggest that negative feedback is perhaps “to ensure that the students know the
weaknesses of their work so that they do not challenge a relatively low grade” (ibid.: 55). The
conclusions reached here may be partly as a result of the authors’ choice to focus on feedback
“samples which include negative comments” (ibid.: 51); in keeping with the theoretical roots of the
study in critical approaches to education, they seek to expose abuses of the power which they see as
inherent in the role of academic teacher. Nevertheless, they also acknowledge that the meanings of
tutor comments cannot be “read off” in a simple way from the text (ibid.: 55), which arguably brings
into question their own analytic approach in the paper. This suggests scope for further work which
connects tutors’ written comments more closely with an exploration of their intentions, attitudes,
and values, as well as with the impact on students’ experience.
References
Hunt, P. 2012. Instruction or Delight? In J. Maybin and N. Watson, eds. Children’s Literature:
Approaches and Territories, pp 12-26. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan and The Open
University.
Ivanič, R., Clark, R. and Rimmershaw, R., 2000. "What am I supposed to make of this?" The messages
conveyed to students by Tutors' Written Comments. In: M.R. Lea and B. Stierer, eds, Student Writing
in Higher Education: New Contexts. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and
Open University: 48-63.
Kamler, B. and Thomson, P. 2006. Helping Doctoral Students Write: Pedagogies for Supervision.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Rummell, C.M. 2015 An Exploratory Study of Psychology Graduate Workload, Health and Program
Satisfaction. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 46 (6) 391-399
Tuck, J. 2013. An exploration of practice surrounding student writing in the disciplines in UK Higher
Education from the perspective of academic teachers. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Open University,
UK.