Category Archives: PhD and me

Does my back-end look big from here?

A blog as I near the end of the PhD journey. What does progress look like, and how far away does the finish line forever seem to be? Hence asking if my back-end looks big from here.

It is July 2025. This is month 34 out of 36-42 of my full-time PhD. It has been too long since I last blogged but that is the reality of this time in the process. Writing is the constant, and if not writing then preparing to present the writing for another academic audience. If you want a brief summary of the back-end of the PhD, and why all other things take a back seat, that is pretty much all you need to know. Academic writing is the one constant.

I am currently also preparing my next annual progress report (APR). That will be submitted at the end of this month; my last APR. It is all ready to be submitted, already. I wrote it in draft at the weekend, as I know well enough where I am at. As I have reported in the APR, I may well have finished all written progress as planned by end of September, and if not I am going to be close. I will have finished (or almost finished) writing my thesis by then. I am, however, here-and-now, a long way from that finished written phase. Indeed, even now I wonder if any words I have written to-date will stand as my final 70,000 or so. By example, last night I had new feedback on my results chapter; I am going to now rewrite that entirely. Accordingly, my schedule of work-in-progress is starting to stack at the back-end. The result chapter is required before the discussion chapter and the conclusions chapter can be moved on. There is plenty more academic writing left to do. My back-end is looking bigger by the day.

One thing I can now say – with the conviction only possible from experiencing the reality – is that as a PhD candidate you do stop fearing harsh feedback. It actually matters not that the volume of outputs stacks up. All becomes welcome criticism. The next draft of a thesis chapter is better because of it. In the context of the results section for example, it is more likely that justice will be made to the data collected and analysed. This is the priority after all – the quality not the speed. The feedback is the nature of being a peer under review. It reflects the process in action by being shown what is still wanting and in need of another redo. Nonetheless, it remains the case, in my opinion, that peer criticism remains the toughest part of the PhD process to get used to. The timing is forever, and the progress sometimes hard to stay attuned to. It is also the most important to understand and come to appreciate. The wounds never truly heal, but instead become scars or the itchy felt reminders that one uses and is prompted towards via the robust challenge still to be asked. The back-end of a PhD looks bigger because the front-end of post-doctoral challenge is bigger still.

The reward of this forever critical process becomes the modest acknowledgements towards progress. Between bouts of criticism are small accolades. In 2025 I have had papers accepted at conferences, had them presented by my supervisors on my behalf, presented them myself, defended the specifics of such papers, accepted pointers to improve them, been awarded best presenter, awarded best paper, and on the same day been shown why a chapter of the underlying thesis needs to be written all over again. Take both praise and criticism equally. In this space both have meaning and means to help the contribution to knowledge-in-progress. The back-end looks bigger than the front because more is known as not known.

Does my back-end look big from here? Yes it does. That is both a compliment and a concern. As is the norm.

to be continued…

Turning self-doubt into the weapon of choice

Self-doubt is more common than some might wish to admit. As I draw a little nearer my PhD completion – third year of three/four and so now months not years away – I am reflecting differently upon what progress looks like. Specifically, progress can be as subjectively simple as turning self-doubt into a weapon of choice. However, I think this a process that must be worked toward – it is unrelated to the idea of faking it; quite the opposite actually. I am now into the most enjoyable time in the PhD process; something I just need to keep reminding myself to feel. Self-doubt is now a different thing, at least subjectively to me.

I wrote about self-doubt way back near the beginning of my PhD process. I will link to that blog later, but for now I just want the reader to have in mind this has changed over time. Self-doubt is subjective, but I want to first reflect upon what PhD progress has become for me, as both a subjective and objective notion. Subjective being more personal, whilst objective is more outwardly measurable. Both aspects become important in the transition I have identified in myself. I therefore need to outline this objectivity first, and dig into that a little, before then returning this blog post to the underpinning idea of “weaponised” self-doubt.

An overall objective of the PhD wannabe can be express as “to gain a doctorate”. As such that one objective measure has a clearly demarcated end. The process of getting to that end can be approached in one of two ways. First, conducting a doctorate by publication. Key milestones then become the three or more publications in journals that is the output to objectively achieve. Many of my peers have gone this way, and each can therefore count their papers as moving toward the overall objective. The second way is to conduct a doctorate by monograph, as I am doing. This way progresses differently because it lacks those more obvious milestones as publication outputs. Nonetheless, an objective measure remains in place by checking against stated objectives necessarily made plain in one’s research plan. Whether by publication or by monograph, a final output is the thesis; which frames the viva defence which then concludes the doctoral process. This is the objective means, and the associated tangible outputs, one can measure progress against.

The distinction between the two objective paths merits further expansion. My experience of this objective sense of progress is that the monograph basis of a doctorate leaves more room for self-doubt in this final year. This is because less has yet been truly scrutinised by peers – i.e., nothing yet published in a journal. This lack of outputs is the space in which the individual and their research is less advanced, because it is yet to be truly subjected to external scrutiny. My supervisors warned me of this concern quite early on. This is where I reflected upon doubt initially {here}. This added place for doubt was therefore something I have been preparing for in two supplementary ways. The first way around this is familiar to most PhD students: submitting papers to conferences. I had early success with this at BAM in 2023 (discussed here). More recently, I submitted a full-paper submission to EURAM 2025; now accepted and due to be presented in June. The conference is an important space as a peer-review stepping-stone. It is used by many pre or post-doctoral researchers to gain some early academic scrutiny of research-in-progress. My second supplement toward external engagement has been directed to professional peers. This is more particular to my field of project management. Between December and April I volunteered my time in collaboration with the Association for Project Management and an external emeritus professor. We combined our knowledge and audience reach to prepare a background piece on the future of government procurement using private finance for public delivery of services. The detail is not important here, but this has also been addressed and contextualised elsewhere by my university (link here). For me, this second supplemental publication relates directly to my professional background and current research. Both of these supplemental methods reflect a progress which can be objectively shown.

The objective measure remains important to the subjective sense of weaponised self-doubt. For me at least, turning self-doubt into a positive has required some objective sense of success or acceptance. The subjective sense of progress is of course more a personal sense of positive change. What that means to each of us is perhaps quite different. For some it might relate to progress towards the doctorate itself, for others it may be something different entirely. For me, the subjective sense of progress is related directly to a needed sense of belonging. From the objective success I outline above, I now place myself a little nearer to the fringes of the academic world I have silently looked upon. Until five years ago, I looked upon that world as if it were from an unreachable distance for me. Only by this more objective progress can I now begin to relate more closely to this same subjective sense of belonging via contribution offered and accepted.

The weaponised sense of self-doubt is from this point onwards what I think progress becomes. In reality, the sense of doubt as to whether one truly belongs is never lost. I have confessed this openly to others and in return other confess it true of themselves, too. The inner-critic seems strong in academic circles and I think this an important aspect of doubt we should each hope never goes away. It is however different. Different particularly to that doubt I was expressing two years ago which I can now highlight as distinct from (discussed here). For example, I am assured that the double-blind peer review process that all researchers continually encounter remains unapologetic in tone, brutal sometimes, and with no regard for seniority and experience. The self-doubt returns at moments such as this (so I am told). As an early-stage researcher, my changed sense of progress is simply that sense of now having the same quiet confidence one builds slowly in time within themselves: “I too will endure”. This progress is not about being immune to criticism, more the sense of knowing how to be wrong to oneself before needing others to chime in. The researcher intentionally lets the inner-critic in and uses it productively.

This empowerment of the inner-critic is my progress. Objectively, I am not yet sure if I am a few months or many months from my being ready to truly defend my research. However, I am now beginning to defend aspects of it to others. This is objectively evidenced. There are now objective markers to satisfy my subjective sense of belief in being capable and thereby being changed. It is now within my power to make this a “when I will” and not an “if I can” defend my yet unfinished work. That is not to say I will, but it is to be more assured that I can. I know now well enough the many ways academia can (and will) judge me as wrong. My inner-critic no-doubt the quicker study and all the keener to be first in that queue. The inner-critic as self-doubt let in of what is being enacted not whether one can act. Progress in of itself…

…to be continued

Learning to write (again)

This blog addresses the elephant in the room for my PhD and about me – my writing style still needs to improve

Improving my writing capability remains the biggest challenge of my PhD. I now have a writing coach – hooray! My supervisors have decided to make a writing coach available to a number of our cohort, and I am thrilled to have this additional access to such expertise. My coach assures me it is quite normal for a PhD candidate to have something about their writing style that needs to be improved. Less normal is my particular problem however, namely my propensity to write-to-think in such volume and thereafter deem that enough -i.e., I am guilty of just writing for me.

My self-framing problem was the biggest revelation from the interventions my writing coach has begun to address. In other words, writing for the reader is a reality somewhat alien to me. Whilst this notion of write-to-think is pretty normal in academia, my perception that the reader can follow that basis of written thought is less the norm. The impact of this lack of empathy on my part is that my writing lacks the structure and sign-posts that a reader needs. Both of these features of good writing are required if the reader is to be comfortable on the journey toward sharing in whatever thought the author is trying to convey. That’s pretty obvious, right? My writing coach spotted this problem immediately. For me, however, it was like someone suddenly switching on the lights. Blinded by my own inner-processes and unaware of what others need in order to see what I see. I was presented with examples, many examples. I now have new devices and strategies to progress my writing into a more appealing journey to the reader.

So how is this for you? I am applying some of these strategies in writing this blog. The most obvious strategy I am applying is brevity. More subtle perhaps is each sentence offering a sign-post as to how it relates to the last. A similar device is being used at paragraph level. Each paragraph is introduced with a sign-post toward what is coming next, but also signalling if the level of abstraction is the same as the last paragraph; or if something new is being introduced. At a higher level still, the overall piece of writing is contextualised from the hook and introductory remarks. Do you see these features now? Did the reader journey feel more like it was addressed to you?

I will finish this blog here, because I have written what I wanted to convey.

…to be continued

Being a good peer

A pay-it-forward blog and what that means as we each progress as peers through our individual PhD journey.

To pay-it-forward: “to do something kind or useful for someone” but more specifically prompted “because someone else has done something kind or useful for you” (Cambridge dictionary). There is much of the pay-it-forward spirit as a PhD candidate. At the Leeds Centre for Projects this is a matter of giving back to the next set of candidates as the last candidates did for you. As a cohort, we collectively meet once a month as a team. It is a useful touch-point as a group, comprised of PhD candidates, supervisors, and occasional guests. All sharing research papers, and challenging each others’ ideas. These meetings are a chance to learn by participation in how to be the good academic peer. The ongoing interaction creates habits, and promotes behaviours, that in time become engrained. The pay-it-forward idea a crucial factor of moving into the seats others vacate as all is passed along.

As I move into my final year of three, I suddenly find myself in a curious role of being one of the more senior PhD candidates amidst my cohort of peers. A curiosity that has prompted this blog. For example, I have already noted a move from only ever seeking insight into what is coming next towards instead now being the one giving the insight, partially progressed and through the gates others now approach. In the latter part of year two that became the accepted offer of supervision of MSc students undertaking their dissertation. I am noting that I am increasingly the one asked to help guide and engage my PhD colleagues, just as others did for me in my prior years. I am therefore now happy to pay-it-forward as others did for me. I think that a nice reality of what this academic journey really means. What is the “it” being passed along?

To pay-it-forward, as I experience it in these academic terms, I identify in three forms. Firstly, in the help we offer one another. That is typically a “hands-off” or the necessary “at-a-distance” helping others find their own way – e.g., offering our individual examples of the formal reporting documents we all inevitably prepare to pass through the next stage gate. This may also be sharing summary notes on how to do something, or pointing out those better resources that guided us along that same path. Secondly, the “it” paid forward is a habit or norm of active engagement with other candidates’ research when presented for critical evaluation. That may be in these monthly cohort meetings, but equally a feature of conferences, or giving written feedback as we are all asked to do. In this second form of pay-it-forward, the term often referred to in our meetings is “active listening” -i.e., the action of listening with intent to prod or probe at the identified research problem, methodology, results, or positioning within extant literature. Active reviewing would have similar meaning when engaged in others work. Thirdly, to pay-it-forward relates to soft skills of being a good peer by being both recipient and giver of encouragement, and best practical advice. This is a little like mentoring, rather than coaching or managing – but as a peer we may be mentor and/or mentee as situations arise. All are peers, and as such we are each developing skills that others may know better, or not so well.

At the Leeds Centre for Projects we are developing and refining our shared peer-to-peer expectation. For example, as I have just moved into my final year, I was asked to be the first to present to my peers in the new academic year. It was made explicit that I should expect searching questions of my research by my peers. Indeed, I gave hints as to the tougher questions I think are there to be asked of me. Questions in that context of critical enquiry which I think could and should be asked of us all. That was a really useful exercise because it both gave me reason to ask questions of myself, and required me to think about where to find the tougher questions which are soon to find me. Those types of questions are important to be asked. I made specific request for that in my annual progress report, and took more of the same in this presentation Q&A. They are questions that could be applied to most any academic setting when research is being presented in preparation for critical evaluation at a later stage.

As a project management scholar I turned to the International Journal of Project Management guide to authors, and editorials (Huemann, M. and Martinsuo, M. 2020; Huemann, M. and Pesämaa, O. 2022), to guide my questioning. Guidance I am now taking in anyway, as I am currently preparing a paper for a conferences in 2025; IJPM is my target journal thereafter. Notwithstanding that specific field focus, the following may apply to many other fields to guide the PhD level criticality asked of all. For example, “Too many promising papers are rejected at an early stage because they do not present the problem being addressed sufficiently clearly, do not define a clear relationship with the theory, and do not explain the contribution being made to the literature” (Huemann and Pesämaa, 2022, p.827). In addition, this relates to the guidance that a good start-point as being “excellent research design” and combining “rigor and relevance”. (Huemann and Martinsuo, 2020).

A more detailed summary of key areas to have in mind as a peer can be taken from the following extracts from the same (Huemann and Martinsuo, (2020) editorial guidance. Questions such as: [1] “which debate?” is this article contributing towards; [2] is it explicitly highlighted which project management aspect of the topic is being addressed; [3] is the contribution and academic engagement clear and the “practical or managerial implications”. [4] Is the researcher making plain which conceptual positions have been taken, this is because “well-known concepts of project management are highly debated in the literature”. [5] is the research precise? It is explained by these editorial scholars that brevity leads to failure by unclear positioning, opinion not analysis, or insufficient discussion with theory. Whereas too long suggests “conceptually too broad, unfocused and covering too many debates or findings”. [6] philosophical positioning made explicit and justified to the research question introduced (cf. Huemann and Martinsuo, 2020).

I am looking forward to this next year for many reasons. In this pay-it-forward context those who came before me did this very well, and I take seriously trying to do that best I can in ways they did for me. I can perhaps also seek out and invite more of this challenge by my peers. Challenging myself and the research I am now permitted to take forward into my final year. That search for challenge is really for my benefit, in others finding issues I can think upon before mounting a doctoral examination defence. However, this encourages the safe psychological place for others to find their voice and their way to be a welcome critical peer. I will hopefully find the means to aid others as they prepare their path; aiding them by being gracious in their critique of what I am doing, whilst exemplifying my best work-in-progress, and being the same in reciprocity. In other words doing the same with my “active listening” of their attempts to be doing the same. The forever retaining that ongoing preparedness to be asked, and to ask, those more searching questions of our research all over again, time and time again. So begins my third year of learning – the occasional pay-it-forward as others have gifted me – and the perpetual cycle that we each revolve about in sharing the benefits of being a community of peers.

…to be continued

References

Huemann, M. and Martinsuo, M. 2020. Is the International Journal of Project Management the right choice for publishing your excellent research? International Journal of Project Management. 38(5), pp.310–312.

Huemann, M. and Pesämaa, O. 2022. The first impression counts: The essentials of writing a convincing introduction. International Journal of Project Management. 40(7), pp.827–830.

A little affirmation goes a long way

Gaining a little confidence from praise is quite a thing. It has taken me the best part of two years to start getting mine. A blog on that progress, through stormy seas of self-doubt.

“Nice!”, explodes from the page as a one word comment next to a highlighted three sentences of my methodology chapter. My other supervisor separately emailing me late last night suggesting in review of the now fully written chapter, “I believe it has come a long way!”. Better still, “…this could become a methodology paper”. Perhaps even one to put to the general management community, not just my project management peers.

Wow! That really has put the wind into my sails. Not that I am allowing myself too much celebration, as this is a long line plotted separately upon a busy chart if that is indeed another route to publication. First and foremost, I am still aiming for empirical contribution and that is far from being anything until I actually have some empirical evidence to put forward.

The point of this blog is to share that there is pride in justly winning a genuine compliment from ones betters; betters who one day any PhD candidate will wish to be regarded as a peer. Oil cast on the water of otherwise stormy seas (hence the cover image). I am writing this because there is much self-doubt to fight through when undertaking a PhD. These few moments of praise are therefore to be savoured.

Self-doubt is a good thing, though. Checking charts, keeping close look out, checking one remains ship-shape. If there is no self-doubt, then that is probably worse. I am forever worried my external confidence will be seen as arrogance. I am at the same time, forever battling my doubt, and seemingly destined to forever find the hardest route to safe harbour of a far-away port. A few positive words like these – a first hint that I am now making actual academic progress – and I am ready to be found wanting all over again.

As of 31st July my Annual Progress Report was submitted. My methodology chapter part of that wider brief. I begin my empirical research proper next week. My pilot interview to check my ethically approved interview method does what I want it to. A meeting with an external assessor in mid-September determines if I am progressing well enough, overall. All of this feedback important, therefore. Then October, and year three can begin. Rigging readied, and course set to what I am now clear is left to do.

...to be continued

It is confirmed, I am ethical!

Phew! That is a relief. My ethics application has just been approved. As a follow-up to my last blog, I am pleased to report this was approved first time of asking. Conditional upon my confirmation that all recording of interview will be stored directly to university systems – and not on my laptop. Yes, that is a must-do.

For me personally, this first-time approval is a big deal. My year 2 progress assessment is fast approaching, and this is important progress. I would have some explaining to do if I were moving into my final year still to be approved to conduct my method of interview. For any PhD candidate, this approval is a milestone to pass through. For any academic research this is now what must be done each and every time one moves an idea into a formal academic action.

As stated in the last blog, this approval is the result of months of challenge to my methodology by my supervisors. The pre-PhD me would be asking “why on earth does this all take so long?”. In other words, how can a PhD possibly need so long in the preparation before the real data collection even begins? Which for me is a data collection via interview. Maybe you are reading this, thinking that, too. After all, plenty of people conduct interviews, and against tight deadlines which demand one to just get on and do. Skills most learn in business or through life one way or another. Much like you then, this has been me too!

If I contrast this preparation with other forms of interview I am more familiar with, this has been quite different. For example, I have been a consultant interviewer – I have prepared, conducted and reported plenty of interviews to establish facts for executive decision-makers. That requires preparation more focused upon the needs of those engaging one to seek what they want you to find. I did similar work when compiling reports for purposes of due diligence. Different again is conducting one-to-one career development interviews, or performance appraisals, or performance improvement interventions, with colleagues. This one-to-one is different because they reported to me and I was working within frameworks of guidance imposed upon me, and therefore obligations of a different kind. The same may be said of interviewing job applicants, where one is ultimately intended to tell most the answer is no based upon a selection criteria. Or I could recall, with stoic resolve, occasions when my investigations into allegations of poor conduct resulted in dismal of those found to have been too wayward and too economical with the truth. In each case there was preparation, consideration of duties, and thereafter there was interview. All are life skills of communication and assessment perhaps, but each demanding preparation as well as establishing facts in interview. Many of those examples would not have been long in the preparing – prepared as I was for each.

However, the PhD version of me now appreciates just how exacting and powerful this more deliberate and precise academic preparation can be. It is different in kind. Even if I compare this to other transformations, such as learning to be a facilitator consultant and not an advisor in a room, or mentor, or directing others to what I needed them to do, this is different preparation again. This academic ethical process is different in kind, because it questions why do this at all. The questioning of everything, and most especially the safety of the other, and the integrity of what is then found and what is retained and what not. In this research capacity, this preparation is something different and useful to have learned. Both in interview context (a method) but also in methodological context much more broadly. In both senses applying best practice to the how and the why of what must be more precisely framed, and to know what we are academically adhering to.

My supervisors suggest I will now need quite some months conducting interview and analysing my interview data – of course I am naively thinking I can do it quicker than they think!!! Some lessons can only be learned the hard way I suppose. Learning by doing, no matter how well one prepares. More lessons to learn over the summer and beyond no doubt.

To be continued…

Protecting us and them from “them and us”

A blog intended to convince you of the role of approvals and assurance as a benefit. A factor of doing things well but often missing or ineffective – creating that “them and us” attitude. An individual view, drawing from the ethics process in academic context compared to assurance in other domains.

The ethical approvals process in PhD level research is probing and exacting upon the researcher. I like it. I do however wonder if mine is the minority view of “the dreaded” ethics approval process. With this resistance in mind, this blog attempts to convince you that the role of assurance is a positive one, in what ever field you are in or whether in academic or professional life. I now have experience enough to make reference to both.

I speak with some authority of assurance processes for two reasons. Firstly, my professional background involves questioning the internal controls in project-based organisations. In advising tier one contractors (i.e., main contractors often managing tier two or three specialisms), assurance is part of what we colloquially called “risk, internal control, and assurance” or RICA. This may be layered or distinguished by commercial, planning, design, and other specialist roles. In construction design management this includes questioning the effectiveness of the internal controls and how they relate to key interfaces (internal and external), the capability and capacity of those using them, the leadership overseeing all of this, and the assurances in place to inform that overseeing. Secondly, my PhD research is focused upon governance in this same “project” context. Subsequent to my professional learning therefore, I can also now borrow from academic conceptualisations and theory. Without labouring on that too much, both professional and academic learning can be positioned toward the same need for appropriate assurance.

In both experience and theory terms, I would also observe that assurance and governance are terms that have contextual meaning. As such, there is potential for much confusion of where one starts and the other stops. Arguably, assurance sits within governance. However, one can be talking at cross-purposes where one level of assurance is confused with another level of governance, or an obfuscation of these distinct terms. All depends on the context. For example, the overall governing of an organisational process is a context. Depending on context the internal controls in a project-based company are one part of a governance framework. The accompanying sign-offs within the overall procedures, the approved persons lists, stated policies, or standards or procedures, have potential assurance aspects or framing as governance. I may be guilty of having crossed purposes or confused terms with your own preferred definitions. Which is to some extent my point.

The academic researcher might borrow from methodology literature and understand this obfuscation or confusion as highlighting the need to be clear on the applicable level of analysis. For example, an organisational level of analysis here directs the distinction between terms with clear hierarchical delineation of what formal governance may be. However, the randomised checking, or spot checks, via formal audit is also an assurance process with a distinct and separate formality. A separate line of defence. In a project-based organisation I have often encountered confusion in discussions where two interlocutors are talking of approvals processes, audits, and the broader notions of what governance relates to. The interchanging level of analysis may be a source of confusion. However, the definition of the project or what the project is to that one organisation versus another – i.e., at interorganisational project scale – or the project as the temporary organisation, all create potential for misunderstanding. My research is focused on this confusion – which is everywhere once one considers perspectives beyond ones own. In the remainder of this blog, the framing of sign-off of what is “ethical” will next be turned to. A change of unit and level of analysis once more.

The ethics approval process becomes an assurance of the prior-start process of empirical research. It is applicable to every researcher in my university, and a demand of any researcher in most all academic settings. I will not dwell on the details of the academic approvals process I am going through per se because the generalisations are quickly lost. I will offer an experiential account instead. In truth, I have taken much longer on this ethics process than most PhD candidates would (or should). I have read through the guidance notes from other fields, I have also read other university guides from other Russell Group universities, and Oxbridge and the US Ivy League. I have worked through the various templates of key supporting documents required. That is very much overkill. Such reading around is not necessary, indeed much the same is asked in broad terms overall. For me this extended reading around the theory and practice, specific to the issues of ethical concerns in academic context, is of interest and use to me. Ultimately, my own application has taken four months to prepare (on and off). Anecdotally my reading suggests the norms are more like six weeks. I am consequently behind the curve in research project or process terms. But I think I am also now better prepared, in the context of my wider research aims. Overall, I applaud the process now engrained within the norms of universities everywhere, and the habits instilled which peer review journals now expect as standard. The levels of questioning the researcher must apply to ones own research and how it has been framed are robust – whether they always followed is a separate assurance related question. There is plenty of evidence to suggest other problems grounded in motives not means.

Elsewhere on this website I also talk of visibility | behaviour | trust ( v | b | t ) – as three legs of a stool that supports an interest in truth. Assurance can be canvassed in these same terms. The unit of analysis applicable there may be leadership, and the level of analysis perhaps the assurance process itself. A decent assurance process compliments the broader internal governance framework because it requires leadership to behave with ongoing care, by seeking visibility that confirms what they think is happening is in fact the case. All parties involved can become more trusting of the overall process if all are included in ensuring there is clarity and efficacy in that process.

Another framing of this assurance challenge would be to ask who is checking the checkers? Or challenge whether leadership takes the possibility of not hearing bad news because of the processes they insist upon. In practical terms this means leadership proactively ensuring all involved are being given the right guidance and training to act in accordance with this accepted way. Based on practical experience, I would also observed this attitude of leadership is rarely in place. At institutional level I think the current Post Office fiasco in the UK highlights such leadership apathy. At national level I think the parliamentary process weakened by a lack of constitutional oversight, and telling that current government have taken to calling the Civil Service and its many layers of checking “the blob”. At lesser levels of analysis, if the process is working well, one is required to use the best tools to do what is expected and the given right training to do or manage at all levels of authority. Furthermore the clarity of priority and purpose also becomes bound to the overall vision of leadership. In broad terms I think this applicable to most levels of process. This same top-down need exists in this context of priority and vision, but this should also be ground-up effective by design. The ground level view is critical — both for buy-in but also efficacy and capture of emergent best-practice — from those working within this framework. The assurance of leadership should be much the same. It is the doers who must be given means to ensure what is being asked of them is relevant, do-able, and universally upheld. Leadership should be accountable for making that so. There is great power in being empowered by this collective interest in truth.

The three legs of v | b | t is an idea which emerged from my dissertation in my first masters [link here]. However, the RICA idea was firmly a matter of learning for me, taken directly from my consulting colleagues and betters – they developed this idea which predates me going back several decades. All of these notions are pointing toward the same positive outlook of what assurance can be. In essence, the benefit of good assurance (distinct from the broader notions of governance) is as the final aspect of this increased visibility. Seeking the truth of what is actually going on. This is about critically challenging what leadership thinks is going on, based on the policing of what is actually going on, via the combined effectiveness of the systems of control and the people managing and relying upon that process (i.e., the risk in RICA being managed via that compliment to leadership). That is the professional summary – what frames consulting discussions in areas such as design management – but the notions apply equally well to what the academic ethics approval process represents.

In summary, this is all important stuff and to be taken seriously by the researcher. Even in “low risk” situations such as my own. I observed risk assessments being demanded in context terms, which is great to see. I learned besides in going through this so thoroughly. The process is useful, because it is demanding of oneself and ones research assumptions. For example, my interview method is now more clearly stated and supported by the new-found clarity of my interview protocols. The recruitment materials – participant information sheet, consent forms, draft email – all prepared and agreed via my supervisors’ critical interventions. Within the ethics application I wrote and rewrote several times, there is now a clarity of purpose, process, and outcome of my research methodology and the reasoning for that chosen design. All of this has necessarily become more exacting of me. I have been challenged in new ways. Kudos to my university for the quality of supporting information and various modes of training or guidance which all made this process meaningful. The new online system – Phoenix – one I have grown to like (and trust) these last four months. I very much approve.

My ethics application was formally submitted yesterday evening. Electronically signed by me. Then separately approved by my lead supervisor. Now with the ethics committee to deliberate over for between six and eight weeks. I will no doubt need to make amendments, or offer clarifications. Just as it should be! An “us and them” in compliance terms, only in the context of hierarchy. That hierarchy ultimately acting as a “we” within the university. Approvals governing the same protections of others -i.e., of the researched them to whom we must act ethically as a researching us (including me) who may cause harm. The ethics process is a means to manage that risk.

to be continued…

Living life in Schrödinger’s blender

Today, I feel like a hydra or a sponge living in a blender. Both are examples of basic lifeforms which, despite external effort to break them, will not die when put through a blender but instead return to their basic form. By virtue of some rather ethically suspect experiments (not by me), this has been shown empirically. As a PhD researcher, I am curious to know who signed off the ethics of that…

I am not unbreakable, far from it, but my point is the PhD process often feels like a rebuild. Life lived in a blender. However, the process of PhD progression becomes a fight with one’s innermost way to be. Like the hydra or the sponge therefore, one must withstand the blender and rebuild again. Unlike these more basic lifeforms, the PhD student’s form should not remain unchanged.

Today is another rebuild for me, feeling all battered and bruised post a tough destruction of three months work. The blender was on full power on Friday, with my supervisors turning the switch. It was a pulse-blast, just the headlines of what is coming my way. For background, I submitted a large lump of first draft thesis writing in mid-January – at 20,000 words probably too big to cram into that one blender. I then spent much of the last two weeks much like Schrödinger’s cat. My work was both alive and dead – with possibility of being whole or in pieces – both at the same time. The actual state would be dependant upon external measure of how those words would be viewed. With the box now open, blender lid opened enough to peer in, the rebuild will once again begin. So is the way of the PhD progression, and the cycles of form and necessary reconstruction.

Fresh from the latest of so many intervention therefore, I know I can survive being blended once again. I am grateful. The new clarity and targeted aspects of change give me the signposts towards coming back around again. Like the simple structure of the hydra, I am therefore blessed with the gift of being alive whether found temporarily blended or mended. The life of the metaphorical hydra-sponge cat that remains alive yet in a state that is both pulped or whole at the same time. The PhD life, lived in Schrödinger’s blender, where change is forever invited in.

to be continued…