Category Archives: PhD and me

How to look, is not first

A blog that offers a glimpse of change – as I ponder my planning for my first formal report – and a re-ordering of my priorities (again)

Publication: that is my goal. And a PhD by publication requires three publications. That is three research papers, that are each to be formed, submitted, and approved by a publication process that is peer reviewed at leisure. Is speed, and volume of output, really my goal?

Not so much, I now realise. The metric of citation and regularity of publication is what all young career dependent academic hopefuls must endure. Thankfully, I do not. Instead, for me, buried deep within my existence is something academic trying to get out. Not as a career and a role, but as process and a quality of output that results. Whatever the something is that I am to produce, it is still to fully reveal itself to me. And publication, whilst important, is not the priority I hold most dear. The quality, not the speed or the volume, is what interests me the most.

The importance of that distinction is paramount in these early stages of my PhD. It now sets the tone and the focus of all that follows. It informs change number 2, most profoundly of all. Before explaining that, however, an example can be offered. If I am asked to systematically search the literature – perhaps as my first of three research questions to facilitate publication – by what measure are my search criteria going to be known? I am still not sure what I am to ask such databases, if those answers are to best serve the question I am yet to know.

This question is what became of supervisory discussion in December. I have been researching much, and writing plenty. I have offered many half-baked parts of what is to come. And I have presented significant inroads into literature reviews that are ongoing, and everchanging in direction, focus, and interest. If I remove the time dependency of that first publication, the whole agenda of my supervision meetings changes too. And it has. For this lack of clarity is not a bad thing – quite the opposite in fact – but it does change everything. It changes what I mean by meaning. It changes what can be known by the meaning I am seeking. And determines the direction of questioning that may result. Mostly however, it changes how quickly I can be certain of what I am asking, and the quality of the question I ask. That is not to say early publication is a bad thing, but it is to accept early publication becomes a priority in of itself.

In scientific enquiry, the clear research question is paramount. It is the enabling constraint. Indeed, the clear research question is paramount to all research. It protects the researcher from the questions that do not fit that brief. It informs the direction; it presents logic and structure; and it presents a pathway towards methodology and reasoning of that choice. But if asking the research question is first, it also requires one to know quite clearly what one is looking for. This is the framing that perhaps sits neatly in the scientific method, or what Saunders (2007) calls the “research onion” of clarity in research more broadly i.e., starting outside and working your way in. Philosophical positioning and there inwards to the pin-point of confirmation sought. This clarity supports early publication. This early committed structure enables a clarity of a plan. But it is not so happily supporting my exploration i.e., that puts a goal around the clarity of what is asked best, and not asked first but asked often and perhaps asked last. I am not rushing to that question. Nor am I rushing to commit to those enabling constraints. For they may constrain what I am trying to enable.

In lay-person terms, that simply means I am now committing to write a single thesis and have a tougher verbal examination at the end. Rather than have three tough debates with peers during publication of three papers, and a more civil discussion to conclude. Publication can wait. I am committed to the strongest finish, not the surest start. And that is not to stop my earlier publication of a part, or conference-worthy presentable element I deem more naturally concluded, as I go. In summary conclusion now, the false priority of my whole PhD experience, was not my finest start.

This is not a change, but perhaps a better perspective on what the first few months of a PhD are. It is the norm to be scrambling for your questions, and the justifications of problems that may or may not be known. Unless your PhD scope has been written for you (i.e., as part of some wider research programme that your PhD is to become part of) the start of the PhD is a fog to adjust into. I feel sure I cannot be alone in the constant frustration that my forever questioning seems to need me to feel. And whilst training helps with the how to look, and how to convey what is found, the what and the why can only come from the repeated reading.

Repeated reading. A phrase that is worth repeating. Because that is the life of the PhD wannabe. Reading that is repeated and renewed, revisited, revised and retold. Get yourself a comfy chair, a decent desktop software overlay like Mendeley, and start identifying the many conversations going on in journal form. This for me is about following trails of wisdom, having new ideas revealed to me, and old ones connecting in new ways. Out of which, whatever knowledge I am constructing anew (or whatever is waiting there to be found), that path begins to emerge. How to search, and how to convey, is all well and good; but necessity teaches me those skills, and the university has all possible manner and teaching how online, but much harder is clarity on what I search for and why.

Dissonance is a term I use often. Out of context, and much too much. But that is because it is about the best insight I have found. It conveys a meaning as to what conflict is about. Since my lowest day, it is perhaps dissonance that I have learned to live with most of all. That is, for me at least, what these early steps in my PhD have been all the more enjoyable for. They bring my dissonance to the fore, because there are many truths that cannot all be, and until that is understood better, those are matters I must endure. I continue to learn by reading and connecting. This is the grounding of knowing what is known, and beginning to form opinion upon what is not yet understood by all. As conversations in academic context, the privilege is to be able to draw opinion on both my dissonance, and the dissonance that surrounds. In other words, challenging what I know; knowing I am yet to know but knowing much that leads to the next; whilst also pointing to what is not yet known at all. If you are thinking of a PhD, be at peace with cognitive dissonance, and much more dissonance besides.

What then, am I to reveal in my first formal report?

I now understand how to navigate the literature well enough to read it, if not claim so clear an insight as to systematically review it. What conversations, and why I think I am of value to them, is a work in progress. But my research questions are now very close. And my ability to convey them now accepted as at least improved. The 62,745 words I have written, and I can call my own, all merely convey those insights and theorising of others. That count in of itself proof that I am still too verbose. My first report (a mere reflection of progress) is due the last day of this month.

…to be continued

Projecting a realistic ideal

A blog offering a little reality into what a nerd considers to be a summer well spent. My preparations towards the start of my PhD. And how reality really is far from ideal.

📆 My formal introductions to my PhD are almost upon me. This summer has perhaps been my final dalliance with free time for what may be years. The little prof within me is quietly pleased. I’m excited, like only nerds can be, at going back to school.

🗄 Administration is still real…🖇📎🪪

Registration at University of Leeds felt quite familiar last week. All online and a few weeks ahead of time. A wrestle with new systems, weblinks, passwords, ID checks, and proofs. But all-in-all pretty slick. Very much akin to my online registration at University of Nottingham a year ago, almost to the day. And if I think back to City, University London, in 2019, registration has become easier. No disrespect to City, I am sure they are improved too. I just think the post-Covid era has moved us all on. The same admin required, but queuing at a desk beats standing in line. Especially 4 hours away from my campus, dealing with lockdown still, and less enthused at standing amongst a mostly near-teen cohort, me being aged 49.

📉 Reality check in a bear market

Did someone say recession three times in early July? Because the housing market has suddenly dried up. That’s the summer experience I can offer, anyway. So I’m starting my next degree very much like the last – remotely – albeit I hope not for long. My supervisors are being wonderfully understanding – my estate agent doing all that they can.

💭 Philosophically speaking 🗣

Ongoing lockdown has afforded me more time spent philosophically engaged. I have spent the summer in the company of phenomenology, transcendental idealism, and existential fear. Heidegger’s 1927 Being and Time as the spine from which wider reading has ballooned. This meant revisiting Kant, introductions better made to Kierkegaard, Tillich, Barfield, and an inevitable flirt once more with Jung, and all manner of those living with the greater crisis of meaning – more meaningful at least than any crisis of my own.

📚 The reality of learning what is hard

Philosophical works can be impenetrably hard. Assistance is almost compulsory for us mere mortals – especially those of us hobby readers with no prior philosophical training or formal learning. For me, that has meant books and academic papers to help unpick that puzzle. A few friendly post-grads (found via LinkedIn) willing to offer up a list of those secondary sources from whom experience has confirmed explain all best. But also so many lecture series that are worth watching. Audiobooks of some of those great philosophical works. Most are freely available on YouTube. I wonder how many know how much there is out there? Knowledge just waiting to be watched.

👥 Real networks for real people 🫂

I must also mention the ongoing generosity of peoples’ time. I give mine up too, but it is still amazing how many people are happy to speak openly about subject matter that is otherwise so hard. LinkedIn is full of possibility, if one just asks. So much welcoming active-learning and sharing.

As a PhD student I now have a new title to use in introductions. However, I think my success in making such connection is simply by being actively engaging in discourse online. Demonstrating some shared interest. Finding those with something to say. That creates a trust enough for strangers to become willing to give up their own time. This summer that has included a few friendly and generous professors and project practitioners equal in their kindness in sharing precious time. One of whom knows Heidegger’s work well enough to use in business school teaching – wow! – and he was delighted to receive an invite to chat – I think I may have struck gold with that cold call. We have spoken once a week all summer, and will probably do so for sometime more.

Such two-way engagement, one-on-one real-time discourse, is unquestionably my preferred mode of building. Building my network and building upon knowledge at the same time. Each of us in it for nothing more rewarding than a little discourse. A possibility of loosening the grip upon one mindful perspective at a time, enough to let new ideas in. That’s how ideas become real. Leaving the mind, and let free into the world. Free and for free, for those willing to be.

💭 Real thought lives outside the mind 🧠

Manage your network, and make that the value of your time. These are the projects of learning and the projects of future possibility.

Producing thought leadership is sometimes as simple as “you show me yours, and I’ll show you mine”. The output need not be a formality or a production. I’ve made connections and friendship over the summer that I hope last a long time. Trust builds that way.

“…projects are about people, not spreadsheets…”

Real advice I recently offered to Euromoney Project Finance students

As I said as part of some training production materials I participated in creating recently, “projects are about people, not spreadsheets…”. In my career I have had the privilege of being part of problem solving moments and all come from time spent with people. I feel sure it is that human interface that will be central to any success I hope to have in my PhD.

↪️ a real change of mind ↩️

Now for the bigger reality check. For me a lesson, or perhaps affirmation, or reward, for keeping an open mind. Despite the hundreds of hours of spare time I’ve given up towards new learning this summer, the philosophy I have spent so much effort to better understand may have fallen short in the end. I can best illustrate this by offering an examination of the final book of my summer read. I hope the real reason for my reality references are herein revealed.

Tom Sparrow (2015) “The end of phenomenology: Metaphysics and the new realism”

[with a foreword by the Object Orientated Ontologist, Graham Harman – editor of this wider speculative realism series]

Tom Sparrow has proved a fitting – if phenomenologically devastating – end to my summer reading. He made quick work of the future failings of “phenomenology” and with it perhaps much of the truth I have gleefully read over this summer.

He concludes that my beloved phenomenology is doomed, and can only hope to be “…the handmaiden of science” (Sparrow 2015 pp188).

Sparrow is drawing upon the clashes of past masters – Husserl, plus his rebellious 20th century defining protégés Heidegger, and the almost greats who have since stood upon those shoulders: notably Merleau-Ponty; but Derrida, Sartre, and much of the continental tradition are herein drawn into view.

The result is a beautifully crafted critique. All pointing to a mind that is going to work methodically and cautiously; but with critical verve and devilish mastery of building a critical case. I loved his analysis of the dissonance and squabbling within the one phenomenology palace. His courage enough to professionally stand with those on the southern more impoverished side of the tracks is also noted, given he comes from a phenomenology orientated university accord. He appeals to the speculative realists, although admits to the further need of building a critical case toward their speculative place. Indeed his lean upon Graham Harman is extensive, freely admitted, and becomes the basis of a large weight of arguments made, including the predicted future orientation of the philosophy of things in themselves without transcendental idealism or hard-nosed materialism (cf Chapter 4 in particular).

All is not lost, he assures me, of my summer spent with Heidegger or phenomenology. We are advised that phenomenology’s strength is when it is put in opposition to scientific reductionism to offer another perspective, thereby, “…locked in a dialectical relation to scientific naturalism…” pp187. But it’s future is no less a relegation. Destined to be the “…irreducible supplement to natural science…” pp188.

Notwithstanding these huge blows, Heidegger has made a lasting impression upon me. As has existentialism and the recently claimed limitations associated with intentionality, consciousness and the object:subject phenomena pairing of correlationism – the eidos or intellectual core that makes phenomenology what it is (to which eidos our Sparrow has helped deny from within). Tom Sparrow pulls the latter asunder and my summer living with phenomenology may have just flown south as a result, at least as a complete philosophy.

The Sparrow that took the intentions of consciousness and thereby denied phenomenology a means to breath real air. Pinning it into its “correlationist” corner, branding it a “philosophy of access” – siding with Meillassoux and Harman by their critique and those boundary defining terms.

Meillassoux and Harman are both from the Goldsmith University origins of speculative realism. Both of whom tell us phenomenology demands those living by its name must also be tamed by the human lens by which all reality (if one is to stay true to phenomenology) is therein framed. Speculative realism rejects this. Objects are not so easily assumed to be as we subjectively perceive them. That claim cannot be made from within phenomenology. And Sparrow assures us the philosophical fashion of the day is speculatively turning, and that continental examination is on the wain. The real, not the ideal.

🧰 Ready-to-hand 🔨🔧🪛

This book threatens much of my summer preparations. Phenomenology appeals to me because my research up until now suggests we need to better explain what a project is. What being in a project represents. My whole summer has been spent reading this philosophical perspective of seeking what it is to be, because I think it offers some machinery, a tool, or device, that may help me refine my own arguments as to what a project is. What it is in a meaningful and wider sense, beyond any pithy definition. And here is Tom Sparrow successfully (in my opinion) presenting fundamental questions to that ontological grounding.

Mercifully, Sparrow (together with Harman and the speculative realists) do at least permit me to embrace phenomenological method. I merely delegate its primacy. If I have a tool, one that enables additional perspective alongside more scientific rigour, well that might actually suit me just fine. I do not need a complete philosophy, I just need method or examination of those limits, as to apply to matters of human interaction and ways to be. And how best they can be applied as projections towards better outcomes in projects by grasping better the needs to control what is yet to be. Surely I may be permitted to have claim on what is not yet present, to not yet be real? So my Sparrow, and his hawkish SR clan, perhaps leave me that future carrion at least to plunder as I go.

🌞 My summer summary 📚📕📗

That perhaps better summarises my summer project, or least in it’s aim fulfilled. Hardly reflecting the pedagogy, or the praxis, but certainly the teleology.

It further supports the next project I embark upon this week. I have that knowledge imbibed, at least. That goal fulfilled – as the insight I sort. Insight that further exemplifies the dangers of committing to a position as much of the late 20th Century philosophical canon has committed to. But it also confirms the necessity to commit one way or other anyway. How else can one find the limitations from which all knowledge grows? That is the reality of learning, the participation, and the experience, even when driving beyond what can be propositionally known.

💼 Ready for school?

I pack my metaphorical school bag again, and I reflect upon those more concerned with such fundamental truth. I remain unperturbed – unperturbed by knowing I cannot hope be the disrupting ideas or reality as Sparrow or the hawk-eyed Harman et al are perhaps moving us all to be. Them the realists. Me just being realistic. Realistic to the time I have left. Realistic to my intellectual neglect or the capacity it reflects.

🎯 Teleologically clear 🎯

I am however, seeking to conclude my own purpose in this cacophony of noise, and in a sometimes too constrained academic space. I can at least press to understand a little more those grander notions of what is. And towards a question of doing that sustainably.

In the end, is that not what project management becomes or can ever hope to be? A scarcity of resources and time, conflicting perspectives and interests necessarily but temporarily aligned (or at least cajoled) and directed towards an end. Managed to maximise likelihood of intended outcome, or more cynically to facilitate a distancing from blame. Realistic or idealistic is therein moot – speculative or otherwise – because if we are not being sustainable that is now our shared existential threat. Indeed if I may play with a word learnt today, we share culpability for iatrogenic risk, now as existential threat, and all project priorities teleologically clear.

“…the handmaiden of science”.

Tom Sparrow 2015 “The end of phenomenology” (pp188)

Everyone’s goal now needs to be orientated around sustainability. My purpose, or at least my intent, is to seek evidence that we can find ways to assess the appropriateness of the how. Ways that I suspect are best accepted as “…the handmaiden of [project management] science” but a compliment to risk assessment all the same. So perhaps, I am well placed enough to contribute in some modest way toward this fundamental enquiry all the same.

…to be continued