This article explores the difficulties doctoral students encounter when writing dissertations. With over 30 years of experience in mentoring and teaching, the authors have observed that many doctoral students lack the essential skills for crafting dissertations, which they call writing critically. The article argues that critical writing stems from critical thinking, which, in turn, requires critical reading and purposeful engagement with texts.
In classroom discussions, students often make insightful connections and respond thoughtfully, yet their written work tends to be a series of isolated summaries rather than well-supported arguments. Many educators notice this gap between students’ verbal and written expressions. Students can engage in complex discussions but struggle to show similar reasoning in written assignments, often merely summarizing authors rather than synthesizing sources.
The issue is not necessarily a lack of critical thinking skills. Instead, the educational process linking reading, thinking, and writing does not always equip students to express their thoughts effectively in writing. Students are taught to read for understanding and write based on sources rather than crafting arguments. As students transition from master’s to doctoral work, the focus shifts from demonstrating understanding to supporting a thesis in writing.
Observations show that doctoral students find it challenging to adapt to doctoral-level writing. They often fail to realize that the objective has shifted from showing understanding to developing and supporting a thesis. Each section of their writing must have a clear purpose, which is distinct from the main point or thesis of the paragraph. Doctoral writers need to evaluate different interpretations, reconcile evidence, and clarify their positions through writing, forming a cycle that helps develop their thesis.
Reading, thinking, and writing are often taught as separate activities rather than parts of an integrated reasoning process. Reading tends to focus on comprehension rather than inquiry, leading to writing that centers around authors instead of ideas. Students develop habits of source-based writing, which are reinforced by assignments that reward accurate summaries and balanced viewpoints. This structure can hinder the development of conceptual integration in writing.
Annotated bibliographies are an example of this source-centered approach. While they encourage careful reading and evaluation, they often maintain a focus on individual texts. Bryan and Graham (2020) noted that annotated bibliographies are best used as transitional tools, helping students develop evaluative reading skills but not necessarily teaching synthesis. Moving from evaluation to synthesis requires an additional instructional step that is not always clear to students.
A key reason for the lack of transition is that students often begin reading without a clear intellectual purpose. When reading is seen mainly as comprehension, students focus on understanding each author rather than examining the relationships among ideas. Purposeful reading starts with a question or problem, guiding students to compare arguments and identify patterns. These relationships form the basis for synthesis and thesis development.
Synthesis demands that writers determine which ideas are central and which are peripheral. Students are taught to present multiple perspectives and avoid bias, which supports intellectual humility but might discourage them from taking clear positions. At advanced levels, positioning is crucial, as writers must explain how their interpretations relate to existing literature discussions.
Original Source: facultyfocus.com
