My growth as a doctoral candidate

In this section, I reflect on my PhD journey, particularly on my growth as a doctoral candidate. As I reflect, I can say it was a journey of faith, because I knew what I ultimately wanted, even when I did not know exactly what I was getting into as I started. It is a journey that comes with challenges that are diverse and unique to each candidate, but the desire to accomplish renewed my strength each day that went by.

Undertaking the doctoral study has been a transformative act, in which my attitude towards myself changed from placing myself at the periphery of my study to centring myself with a conviction that I was able. I also came to realise that a doctorate was not just a qualification alone, but a package. In the package, there are struggles, triumphs and challenges, transform which not only the thought process, but the personality as well, to one different from what I

168

was when I started the journey. However, I will focus on how this journey enhanced my intellectual growth by highlighting developmental milestones in relation to academic writing, methodological challenges, academic interaction and finding my own voice.

9.4.1 Academic writing

What is academic writing? Murray (2005:10) refers to academic writing as a set of conventions seen in the thesis or published paper, implying that it becomes clearer to know what academic writing is, as one pays attention to the writing style in the thesis or by scrutinising the structure of published writing. Concurring with Murray’s view, Osmond (2016:10) suggests reading published papers beyond content as the best way of developing one’s own writing. Similarly, it is the paying of attention to the structure or style of the thesis during reading that enables the writer to discover the rules (conventions) of academic writing. Academic writing has rules because the writer is writing about potentially complex ideas that should be as simple as possible to make ideas clear (Osmond, 2016:10).

The feedback from the first draft of my proposal had a comment that related to academic writing. My supervisor raised a concern over clarity of what I intended to investigate, which I alone knew. As I reflected on the comment, I realised that the writing skills that I have been using in routine writing were not adequate for this academic exercise, and I needed to be aware of the fundamentals of academic writing. A remark by Phillips and Pugh (2010:138) that students must ensure that they are precisely aware of what is needed for the thesis to be written to the required standard compelled me to find the means. It was my responsibility to learn to be clear in my writing, as academic writing can be learned, as alluded to by Murray and Osmond, above.

In recognising that academic writing was not innate, I signed up for workshops facilitated by Stellenbosch University Library and Information Service staff and the Postgraduate Skills Development programme. Through these workshops, as also pointed out by Osmond (2016:135), I learned that academic writing should be simple, easy to read and to the point. I found this understanding of academic writing useful, because it emphasises conciseness and clarity, my points of weakness. I understood that by writing concisely and clearly, I was demonstrating to my audience that I had clarity of thought about my topic. As outlined by Murray (2005:4) in terms of ‘new writers’ errors’, the comment on clarity aligned with the errors of ‘not saying what I meant, thereby losing focus through indirect writing’. Therefore, I

169

found purpose in the workshops and acquired knowledge of the techniques of academic writing.

9.4.2 Methodological challenges

When I embarked on this research journey, I did not really know how to determine an appropriate research methodology for my study. My supervisor observed this problem in my first draft, which he linked to lack of clarity of thought on what I wanted to examine. I needed to make an informed decision on the appropriateness of the attendant methodology. It is the methodology that determines how the research is to be carried out, and how the identified problem is to be solved, hence clarity on methodology is crucial. In addition, it is important to have the methodology sorted out because it interconnects the paradigm and the methods.

Relatedly, I had the challenge to justify why I used two methods during the proposal defence, namely conceptual analysis and deconstruction analysis. I did not make a convincing justification on the limitation of conceptual analysis to warrant complementing it with deconstruction analysis. I realised there was truth in the comment of Osmond (2016:136) that “clear writing is clear thinking”. My writing created room for doubt in the examiners’ mind as they read the proposal, because at that time my thoughts were not well grounded or articulated enough. Although uncomfortable with the feeling of inadequacy within myself, I had to immerse myself back in literature to gain a firm grasp of the limitations to confidently and comfortably make additions, as was advised. As I clearly articulated the distinction, it did not just mean attending to the concern, but was also an added milestone in my intellectual development.

My resolve on the methods can be linked to the idea of reflexivity, which refers to the human capability of turning the attention of the conscious back to itself, or to thinking about thinking (Jackson & Hogg, 2010:627). In line with this view, I continuously created and recreated my thoughts and ideas through my interaction with text to have a concrete understanding to situate myself firmly in the research methods. It was not an easy process, as it did not happen automatically. Reflexivity offered me an opportunity to clarify my thoughts and to move into a new intellectual space.

9.4.3 Finding my own voice

Academic writing is mostly depersonalised. However, some fields, such as philosophy, allow for more personal involvement than fields such as law, for instance (Blanpain, 2012:51). This

170

entails that disciplines vary in degree of formality expected (Blanpain, 2012:49). The doubt on whether the writer should be present or absent in the text he/she writes was part of the dilemma of finding my own voice. It was uncertainty that made me hesitate to include my own voice until I had information on what was considered appropriate for my field on one hand, while on the other hand, it was the inner critic that made me feel inadequate and intimidated by literature published in my field to add my voice.

What is voice? Voice is the overall impression one has of the creator behind what one creates (Haarhoff, 1998:157). The echoes of Haarhoff in furthering this definition were an encouragement as I personalised the explanations. I understood that writing is about trusting my own vision and drawing from the angle of who I am; it is about imagining another position, besides what is in the text; it is about the writer being a mapmaker, rather than a follower of the charted routes; and primarily, it is about finding my own voice (see Haarhoff, 1998: 94, 157). With this understanding, I gained the courage to take my position as a scholar to make my voice heard.

To find my own voice, I further reflected on the meaning of Donald Murray’s thought that “a reader can read without writing but a writer cannot write without reading” (1990, cited in Haarhoff, 1998:94). The advice I received was to read widely in my area of study to find my own voice. Therefore, to find my own voice, firstly I immersed myself in literature to help me gain support of my articulations, and secondly, I had guidance from my supervisor with vast experience, whose feedback was honest and whose supervision style impressed on me confidence to find my voice as he left the final decision of my writing with me, the writer.

9.4.4 Academic interaction

Academic interaction relates to what Haarhoff (1998:35) calls people as an environment. My writing and non-writing friends, colleagues, family and academics in the scholarly field were part of my writing environment, as my interaction with them impacted on my writing. Dorothea Brande (1981, cited in Haarhoff, 1998:35) urges writers to find people who for some mysterious reason leave them full of energy, feed them with ideas, or have the effect of filling them with self-confidence and eagerness to write. This remark made me realise the importance of interacting with peers and academics to sustain my writing momentum and to remain vibrant throughout this academic journey.

As I actively engaged in shaping my writing environment, I learned about the “Shut up and Write” sessions organised as part of the Postgraduate Skills Development programme every

171

Tuesday. This academic forum formally offered me writing tips, encouragement and advice on how to continue writing, and informally helped me to create a social network with postgraduate students from across faculties. The “Shut up and Write” sessions enhanced a collegial environment in which I shared writing decisions with peers, while the session helped with writing dilemmas. Therefore, attending these sessions helped me to persevere with my writing and to grow intellectually.

I was also invited for a presentation by the Department of Education Policy Studies where a visiting professor, Prof. Dr Wolfram Weisse from the University of Hamburg, was presenting part of the findings of the project on “Religion and Dialogue in Modern Societies”. After highlighting the findings of the project, Prof. Dr Wolfram Weisse focused the discussion on the writing of Emmanuel Levinas. The discussion was a highly interactive academic session that privileged me with an experience of critical thinking, and to learn critical analysis when the visiting and the hosting professors were teasing out the writing of Emmanuel Levinas. Listening to these respected scholars added a practical dimension to my analytical skills, as I was able to weave in new arguments in my writing. Therefore, through this interaction, my analytical skills improved, which expanding my intellectual growth.

In conclusion, the doctoral study transformed me into an independent and resilient researcher. The transformation was tough and uncomfortable, because it required of me to move into a new intellectual space, which required effort to overcome struggles and challenges to succeed. The struggles were in relation to my study being part of my lifetime event, in which I experienced constant tension with family relationships. The culmination of my struggles was a shift in my personality to being resilient. The challenges I strived through were academic writing, methodological difficulties and finding my own voice. Each of these challenges was a doorway into new space, which enabled me to be an independent researcher to complete this scholarly study.

9.5 Summary

In this chapter, I outlined a summary of the findings of the study and suggested possibilities for future research. I have also reflected on my growth as a doctoral student, which was attained by crossing thresholds to succeed. Finally, I am satisfied that this study has provided an answer to the research question.

172