next »

[newfac2007]

Ok. So I'm in the long stretch of finishing my dissertation. Now I'm doing the final writing. My advisor told me that I needed to rewrite chapter 2/literature review. When I defended my proposal, my committee had no problem with my chapter 2, so I don't really understand why it needs to be rewritten. Is this standard practice?

[mchap11]

I learned, allbeit quite painfully, that you will need to do whatever your advisor tells you is necessary.  Avoid arguing; it only prolongs the inevitable.  Even though I had a good relationship with my diss chair/advisor (we'd sometimes meet for drinks to discuss revsions and have quite a good time doing it), one day he told he wondered when I'd realize that I had to do exactly as he suggested.  Bite the proverbial bullet, get the damn thing written and signed off, pass your oral defense, and burn the damnable tome in celebration some moonlit night. 

Good luck and good humor.   

[newfac2007]

Oh, I wholly intend to do as hu says. I always have. But no one else I've spoken to has mentioned that they were expected to rewrite the lit review as part of the final writing process. So I was just wondering if this was standard or just maybe one of those things that specifically my advisor was into.

[mchap11]

Hmm . . . I do not know.

[case_insensitive]

Oh, I wholly intend to do as hu says. I always have. But no one else I've spoken to has mentioned that they were expected to rewrite the lit review as part of the final writing process. So I was just wondering if this was standard or just maybe one of those things that specifically my advisor was into.

Doesn't matter. Do whatever the advisor says and then you'll be done.

[adhoc]

In general, the lit review submitted with the proposal should support the proposal while the final lit review should support the finished document.  The same review often does both; but it is possible that your advisor feels that, for whatever reason, yours needs something more for the final version.  While I agree with the "do whatever s/he says" approach, I see nothing wrong with asking -- not arguing, just asking -- why s/he feels more needs to be done.

[edwidge]

I think the question for your chair is not why it needs to be done, but what exactly needs to be done. Does it need to be tightened up (so, don't cut any sources, but synthesize it more and shorten it), and/or do new sources need to be added? Does its organization need to be altered? What exactly does hu have in mind?

[case_insensitive]

I think the question for your chair is not why it needs to be done, but what exactly needs to be done. Does it need to be tightened up (so, don't cut any sources, but synthesize it more and shorten it), and/or do new sources need to be added? Does its organization need to be altered? What exactly does hu have in mind?

I agree, don't ask why, but ask what (and the why will probably be apparent in the answer).

[psychle]

I agree with adhoc--your current lit review may have fit well in your proposal, but it may be slightly disconnected from or not well-integrated with the rest of the finished dissertation. I concur with the suggestions to ask your advisor what changes are desired.

[newfac2007]

Thanks all.

We've already discussed what needs to be done, so I'm ok there. And I'm actually working on it now (well taking a break from it at the moment).

I was more interested in this not to get out of doing it because I don't mind doing it. But largely because I will be going the faculty somewhere soon and I will have advisees of my own. So I was interested in if this was something my advisor wanted to have done for whatever reason or if this was a standard kind of thing, so I know what kind of knowledge to transmit to my own grad students next academic year.

[edwidge]

I think one of the key things to teach to your future grad students about writing is that written works typically undergo many, many revisions; your experience illustrates this key point. One can be a strong, gifted writer but still need to humbly and routinely make revisions upon receiving feedback (from reviewers, faculty mentors, editors, etc.). This is the norm in academe.

[marcus_welby]

There can be a number of reasons that a supervisor might want a student to re-write the literature review chapter late in the process.

One relates to proportion.  If the case studies or chapters based on original research are of a certain length, the literature review chapter might now be, comparatively speaking, too long.  This issue is likely to come up if there is a maximum page length for the entire thesis.

A second reason is that some of the material in the literature review might now be somewhat irrelevant to the work.  This is more easily discovered after a complete manuscript is present.

Finally, most theses are intended to fill a gap in the existing literature.  You may be able to clarify, in greater detail, what exactly that gap is and how your work fills it, after the original research and findings are complete.
 

[infopri]

Rewriting Chapter 2 lit reviews at the final diss stage is pretty standard, in my experience.  marcus_welby mentions two of the common reasons (I must admit, I've never run into the "proportion" reason before).  Another big reason is the passage of time between the proposal defense and the completion of the final diss.  Usually, at least a year (and sometimes many years) have elapsed since the committee approved the proposal.  The final Chapter 2 must reflect the relevant literature that has been published in the interim, and you must situate your diss within the newer work.

marcus_welby pointed out that "some of the material in the literature review might now be somewhat irrelevant to the work."  Very true.  And so is the reverse:  Your original lit review may not have included some works that didn't seem relevant at proposal stage, but now clearly are.

In any case, as you're discovering, it's a pain, but it will improve your diss, and it gives you a head start on any articles you derive from it.  Journals want to see current cites in your articles' lit reviews.

Good luck!

[philoctetes]

I think one of the key things to teach to your future grad students about writing is that written works typically undergo many, many revisions; your experience illustrates this key point. One can be a strong, gifted writer but still need to humbly and routinely make revisions upon receiving feedback (from reviewers, faculty mentors, editors, etc.). This is the norm in academe.

This is good advice.

You have to develop thick skin. You will be constantly rejected from journals. If you do not accept this criticism well you will not publish, if you do not publish you will not get a job, or keep your job.

Remember the PhD is just another assignment, it is your last assignment. Write it. Make the changes you are told to.

Do not get too attached to it. It is not your magnum opus, that comes later. You will be embarrassed by much of it in the future.

Get it over with, and get on to new projects.

[tenured_feminist]

I tell my students to think of the Ph.D. thesis as a masterpiece in the medieval guild sense of the word: it's the work that you produce that teaches you how to do this sort of thing, so that you can do it independently without the help and guidance of a formal dissertation committee.  It's also a good parallel in that the production of a successful Ph.D. "masterpiece" shows the field that you have something independent and valuable to contribute to the guild and are worthy of entrance.

For the next piece you write for publication independently, you'll probably follow something like the same process of figuring out what literature is relevant at the outset, working through the project, and then at the end writing up how your research fits into the literature. But if you've had a good experience in getting your degree, you should be able to figure out for yourself how your initial conceptualization of where the gaps are and what you're contributing change between the idea and the actual research you produce. 

Congratulations on being so close to the end!