Politics (19921 12(1) pp.3-8

PETER BURNHAM

Introduction Recent guidelines on the provision of research training for postgraduate students have stipulated that formal instruction in methodology should ‘account for up to 60% of the total time available to the research student over the 44 week periad of their first year’ (ESRC, 1991, p.4). Departments who ignore this recommendation do so at the risk of losing their ‘recognition status’ thereby becoming ineligible to admit students in receipt of ESRC awards. The laudable aim of the ‘60%’ provision is to extend the general range of skill and competence acquired by social science researchers, in addition to developing expertise in specialist disciplines. However, in the absence of a literature addressed to the method of actual political research as opposed to the myths of methodology texts, it is unlikely that Departments of Politics will be able to impart the general skills demanded by ESRC. This is particularly evident in three areas bhlighted as constituting foundational training. It is requested that student’s are instructed in how to formulate researchable problems and translate these into practicable research designs. Secondly, that student’s are trained in how to approach research and finally that they are introduced to the skills of writing and presentation. Writing a doctoral thesis is unlike any task a student will have performed or is likely to be asked to perform ever again. Although there is no master plan for producing a PhD, first hand accounts of the research process conveyed by recent recipients of the doctorate are of enormous benefit to new researchers. The aim of t h s paper is to encourage fellow academics to discard scientistic mystique and reveal %ow it was done’ through a discussion of the informal nature of the research process. The rationale for this is that if formal academic competence can be assumed amongst those who successfidly register for a research degree, then the role of graduate research training is to go beyond the textbook to help students sort the method from the myth in the practice of research. I will therefore consider the areas hghlighted by the ESRC as foundational (with additional remarks on the viva), presenting strategies found most useful in my own research.’The period of research on which I will draw took place between 19841987 producing the doctoral thesis, The British State and Capital Accumulation 194551’. The principal research method employed was archival analysis of primary sources in the Public Record Office (PRO) at Kew, Surrey.

Formulating a Project and Beginning Research The most pressing problem facing research students in their first year is translating a broad interest into a manageable hypothesis which can become a guiding thread for a thesis. Most standard methodology texts agree, and the Webb even suggest that researchers work with numerous ‘mutually inconsistent hypotheses’ (Webbs,

3

PETER BURNHAM

1932, p.61). Incoming researchers however face a major difficulty, since very few texts answer (or even ask) the more important question, how is a hypothesis generated? Rather than reiterating methodology text generalities I will approach the topic of hypothesis generation by considering how the central ideas of my thesis developed. In its hished form it addresses a central issue in political debate.'With reference to theories of state autonomy it explores the constraints that accumulation placed on government action in the postwar period. It criticises the view that Britain capitulated to American hegemony on issues of economic policy between 1945-51. A complete, well-structured thesis however invariably obscures the struggles which have occurred in formulating concepts and devising hypotheses. For, until approximately halfway through the research the overall problem which my thesis addressed remained vaguely formulated and elusive. My original proposal was to investigate the 197479 Labour government to study why policies had been abandoned in the face of international economic constraint. This was not viable for two reasons. First, although narrative accounts of the period exist, it would have been diEcult to discover the underlying constraints and policy motives since, under the 30 year rule, state papers would not be available until 2009. Secondly, the internationalisation of capital, gathering pace from the 1960s, made an understanding of the period difficult and meant that much time would be spent investigating issues in international political economy reliant on scarce, largely American, secondary literature. The prospect of producing an 'original contribution' seemed remote, if after these preliminaries, I was sti l l denied access to the relevant public records. For a few months I had a research area (the relation between social democratic politics and capitalist accumulation), but no clear research topic or hypothesis. ARer reading on British Labour party politics, Swedish and French social democratic movements, and theories of the state and uisis, I came to a conclusion. My initial proposal would have to be abandoned because an adequate explanation of statdcapital relations would necessarily be a theoretically informed historical study derived from primary sources to reveal the process of economic policy-making. This pushed my attention towards the immediate postwar government. It was an area within my research field, records were available and no account of accumulation policy had been published since the early 1960s. On a practical level, the viability of completing a PhD within three years depends fundamentally on ease of access to primary sources.

By the end of the second term of the first year I had focused on the Attlee governments. The research would deal with the state's management of the economy, but beyond this vague formulation I could say little. From here on however my writing habits changed. Instead of producing tenuously connected book reviews, I had a definite focus. Using secondary published material and newspaper articles I spent the rest of the first year writing five papers, each of approximately 6,000 words, on the economic strategies of the Chancellors of the 1945-51 Labour Governments. These papers produced a grounding in the politics of the era. They also generated a mass of material which served as a basis for critical discussion with my supe-r, highlighting many anomalies out of which the central ideas of the thesis developed. A particular turning point was the discovery of an article which claimed that Britain capitulated to American hegemony in this period with British economic development largely subordinate to the dictates of American policy. Sifting through the secondary material with this notion in mind, I found this interpretation underlay many orthodox accounts. Whilst superficially plausible, it seemed an inadequate interpretation given earlier studies I had made in international political economy. The only way to test its accuracy was to go to primary sources. My central hypothesis thus developed slowly out of the prior

4

METHOD AND MYTH IN POLITICAL RESEARCH

literature review and the accounts I had written derived from secondary sources, which were then interrogated in the hght of primary materials. Developing the central ideas of a thesis rests upon knowing what questions to ask As Kant pointed out, if a question is absurd in itself and calls for an answer where none is required this presents ‘the ludicrous spectacle of one man milking a he-goat and the other holding a sieve underneath’ (Kant, 1787). A researcher can only ask the right questions aRer an intensive review of secondary sources, which are filtered for information then analysed to disclose the author’s interpretation. Although at the beginning of research I did not have a clear idea of the alternative interpretation I subsequently developed, aRer analysing primary sources I would be in a position to write an exploratory first draR. This exposition of the research process stands in opposition to those textbook accounta which propose that research proceeds in stages, from theory to hypothesis to operationalisation to research design to data collection, and finally to analysis and hdings. The much vaunted ‘inevitability of conceptualisation’ (Popper, 19661, undermines such a schematic representation of the research procedure and points to the inextricable htertwinhg of theory and research practice. Contrary then to the PhD handbooks (Phillips and Pugh, 1987), it is simply not possible, nor useful, to talk of background, focal and data theory as separate entities or to suggest that the student h m the outset should be able to ‘spell out in great detail precisely what you are researching and why’ (ibid). Such pronouncements bear little relation to the actual process of research and simply mystify how the central ideas of a thesis are generated.

“he Writing Process Although many standard methodology texts and many of the newer ‘PhD handbooks‘ make clearcut distinctions between the ‘research stage’ and the ’writing-up stage’, the practice of postgraduate research belies the reality and the usefulness of this division. The fast, effective completion of a thesis demands that writing is a habitual process canied on &om the outset of research and is not to be stored until data has been consulted. In my own research I would re- from translating articles into longhand notes. Rather, aRer gathering either secondary or primary information on each chancellorship I would write a longhand drafk which would be revised, typed and submitted to the supervisor for discussion. This would often result in more research and clarification before a draft chapter would be retyped and submitted for comment. This procedure begun in the middle of the first year, was followed for each chapter, some requiring substantial revision and others needing only minor modification to retain their status as ’working drafts’. By the first term of the third year I had a series of rough chapters of sufficient empirical density to refute the ‘capitulation thesis’ interpretation of postwar reconstruction. There is a tendency at this point to believe that the PhD is complete. The time needed for the laborious task of preparing the thesis for submission should not however be underestimated. The diiliculty of reading the collection of draft chapters as a whole is compounded by the researcher’s close relationship to the material established over the previous two years. Editing the work was however made much easier a h - reading Becker (19861, which highlighted the importance of re-writing and indicated that social researchers ofken produce long pretentious sentences that need not present any problem aRer thorough editing. In 1805 Wordsworth stated that the principal object of writing was to choose incidents and situations and ‘relate or describe them throughout, as far as was possible, in a selection of language really used by men’ (Wordsworth, 1805, Preface). One reason why many flout Wordsworth’s injunction is that lack of clarity o h reflects unresolved problems of political theory. Researchers have diflicdty

5

PETER BURNHAM

specifying the cam, agents and consequences of action, so phraseology is left a m b i i o u s . In the early stages of research, I would use such phrase3 as ‘the political and economic exigencies’ instead of specifying exactly the conditions I had in mind. Often the reason for arabiity is that until quite late in the development of a thesis close specification of material is premature. Iwould even suggest that initially it is advisable to leave complicated sections in a vague style as this allows a number of interpretations to be developed which can be tightened up in later revision. One aspect of editing which calls for particular attention is the search for redundant expression. Inspecting first drafts, I found an abundance of unnecessary qualification and redundant phraseology. For instance I could shorten the sentence - ‘Such conaiderations have lent many subsequent theorists the opportunity to claim that the acceptance of the rearmament programme was the end product of the processes of subordination to the global strategy of the United States’, to ‘Many writers claim that rearmament was the end product etc’ - without any losing any meaning. This discipline produces a much clearer pattern of sentence construction and meaning which proves an aid to clearer thinking. A similar conclusion was reached by Winston Churchill who circulated memoranda on ‘Brevity’ to the Cabinet in 1940 and 1951 (PRO CAB 129/48), calling for an end to such phrases as ‘It is also of importance to bear in mind the following considerations ...’ or ‘consideration should be given to the possibility of canying into effect..’ on the grounds that such phrases were merely padding and could be left out altogether or replaced by a single word. In preparing a PhD for final submission Churchill’s call, let us not shrink from using the short expressive phrase, even ifit is conversational‘, could not be more apposite.

Preparing for the Viva To the incoming PhD student the whole research process appears both aimless and mysterious. As sources are identified, themes developed, and draft, chapters gain coherence a thesis is born. However, one great mystery remains, what is a viva, and how seriously should I take the stipulation that the award of a PhD is dependent on an oral examination which covers the thesis itself and the field of study in which the thesis has been written? Methodology texts provide no guidance, and it is less than reassuring to be told that there is no abstract criteria applied in template fashion to the process of assessment. Whilst it is true that examining practice varies, from those who strictly adhere to traditional criteria to more flexible examiners who see a thesis producing a new worker and new work and the PhD process being as much to do with professional socialisation as with meeting abstract university regulations, there are three aspects of the viva to which attention should be drawn. These are the common criteria used in assessment, the recommendations which can be made, and the level of preparation required by the student. Examiners tend to divide into two categories regarding the organisation of a viva. There are those influenced by the European model who see the defence of a thesis as an examination which must be successfully passed by the student. More common in Britain is the view that the viva is not critical to the award. It gives the researcher the chance to talk about their thesis and it establishes a relationship with the external who can offer advice on publicising and publishing the work. The model favoured will largely determine whether the candidate is told the decision of the examiners at the outset of the viva. The first set of criteria on which examiners commonly draw concerns the style and presentatim of the thesis. At the outset of study researchers are well advised to furnish themselves with a copy of their

6

METHOD AND MYTH IN POLITICAL RESEARCH

respective university regulations, a style manual (such as Turabian, 1987) and a writing handbook (such as Miller and Swift, 1989). The ESRC now suggests that PhD theses should not exceed 70,000 words inclusive of appendices, footnotes and bibliography. It is unlikely that a degree will not be awarded because of poor presentation or mfnngement of word limit. However, awareness of limits and early fostering of professional style reduce the likelihood of the recommendation that a revised the& be re-submitted. A second set of criteria is whether a thesis shows satisfactory understanding of primary and secondary sources and whether in the viva the candidate demonstrates adequate knowledge both of the specialist and cognate fields. The literature review is the most common stylistic device used to demonstrate knowledge of sounes, and its absence may well constitute a serious omission for many externals. For this reason the traditional PhD ‘sandwich’, consisting of literature review as theory followed by empirical study with theory revisited as the final chapter, may be unadventurous but it is a safe way of meeting requirements. Finally, there is the question: When is a PhD not an MPhil? In addition to its greater length (by approximately 20,000 words) the main qualitative indicator is that while an Mphil makes an original contribution, a PhD constitutes a substantial original contribution to knowledge. Few examiners in the social sciences (posbThomas Kuhn) are naive enough to believe that originality is a path- breaking contribution to the discipline. However, a PhD needs to show some degree of novelty whilst engaging with an existing body of knowledge. A frequent criterion which examiners apply here, is whether a thesis is publishable. If, in principle, the work is worthy of publication then it is likely a PhD will be awarded. There are three simple points to note when preparing for the viva. First, above all else a thesis should be coherent. In the final revision of the work, pay particular attention to highlighting the problem being addressed, linking the chapters, and pointing up the relevance of the conclusion to the discipline. In the viva you must be prepared to justdy your choice of problem, defend the adoption of your particular perspective, and clearly argue your central theme. As preparation ask some fellow postgraduates to conduct a practice viva. Secondly, become acquainted with the possible recommendations that can be made. These usually fall into five categories. Examiners can recommend to award the degree; to award subject to typographical correction (most common recommendation); to permit submission of a revised thesis within a prescribed period (possibly to correct error within a chapter); to approve the thesis for award of a lower degree; or simply that no degree should be awarded. Lastly, realise that the viva is an opportunity as well as a final hurdle. Your thesis will most likely be successful, and your external examiner will prove invaluable as a referee. Since a supine candidate will not impress an external, prepare a series of searching questions related both to your field and concerning how best to publicise and publish.

Conclusion The theme of this paper is that whilst pressure on research students has never been greater, and is intensified by the contraction of financial resources, the expedient of increasing formal research training to enhance completion rates fails to recognise the following important point. If we are to understand what constitutes ‘methodology’, and thereby help incoming researchers avoid the standard pitfalls of research, an equal emphasis must be placed on developing a reflexive analysis of the informal nature of the research process. Within Politics such a reflexive analysis is in its infancy. The task of remedying this methodological underdevelopment is an urgent necessity.

7

PETER BURNHAM

Notes 1. 2.

Referenoes Becker, H (1986) Writing fir social Scientists. London: University of Chicago. Burnham, P. (1990) The PditioalEamomy ofPostwar Rawnstruction. London: Macmillan. Burnham, P. (1991) The Cuse f i M e t h x i d q p d ' Glasnost. Warnrick Working Papem in Politics,

ESRC (1991) Postgmducrte lkuning G u i d d k . Swindon: ESRC. Kant, 'I. (1778) (N. Kemp translation, 1933) Critique o f h R e u s m . hndox Macmillan. Miller, C. and Swift, K (1989) The Handbook ofNim-Sexist Writing. hndon: Women's Press. Phillips, M. and Pugh, D. (1987) How to Get u PhD. Milton Keynes: OU". Popper, K (1966) The Open lb iety Md Its Enemies. hndox butledge. Turabian, K (1987)A Manual fir Writers. London: University of Chicago. Webb, S. and B. (1932)Methods of Social Study. London: Longmans, Green and Co. Wordsworth, W. and Coleridge, S. (1805)LyriCclr l3dZuds. London: Collins.

For a more mmprehensive amunt of this mearch process see Burnham (1991). A substantially modified vemion of the thesis has been published as Burnham (1990).

50.

8