Many dissertations I edit are steeped in a passionate brew of righteous anger, resentment, and desperation to be heard. It’s not suprising. Dissertators are fanatical about the problem they have decided to study. We need to be. We can’t be disengaged from our topic and successfully navigate the dissertation journey. It’s the rage within that keeps us going. I have some ideas about how you can maintain your objectivity while still conveying the need for your study to your reviewers and the urgency of your solutions to your readers.

What are you angry about?

Dissertators often write with passion (sometimes it’s really drama). The problem you identify has to be real and big enough to warrant doctoral-level research, so it’s not a trivial thing. When it seems as if there’s a lot at stake, it can be tempting to get on the soapbox. First, you have to convince university reviewers that your proposal merits approval. That means lamenting all the dire consequences of not approving your study—in other words, you have to make molehills look bigger than they are.

While you are writing about those dire consequences, though, it is so easy to fall into subjectivity.

Here’s an example from a paper I once edited:

While democracy and “good governance” are preached in the hallowed halls of Congress, American society suffers the consequences.

What’s wrong with this sentence? Plenty.

First, “good governance” in quotes sounds snarky (unless it is an actual quote from a source, then it needs a citation including a page number). “Preached” is a judgmental term; “discussed” would be a better choice. “Hallowed halls” is used sarcastically—you can tell the writer thinks the halls of Congress are anything but hallowed. Finally, “society suffers the consequences” is vague and overblown. “Society” is a vague term that essentially means nothing. “Suffers” is a frothy word that when combined with “society” becomes a perfect example of anthropomorphism: Society, no matter how you define it, is not an animate being with feelings and consciousness; therefore, how can it suffer? As if society were a neglected dog to be put out of its misery.

Reviewers spot the unsupported frothy emotional appeal a mile away—this dissertator’s argument is short on substance and long on restrained fury. Usually, it’s a sign the dissertator has not done much review of the literature and is more interested in expressing wrath than in finding objective reality.

More reading is the antidote to the lack of knowledge about the topic. However, it’s sometimes harder to deal with one’s anger.

Here’s another example, from my own dissertation experience.

I was a teacher at a for-profit career college. I had experienced firsthand the consequences of owners and administrators focusing on profits over education. I had a lot of rage. I wanted to know if any other teachers were as angry as I was, so I proposed a study about teachers’ perceptions of academic quality in for-profit career education. That fire within carried me through my years-long slog toward the finish line. I probably wouldn’t have completed my degree if I hadn’t had that rage to keep me warm during the long tedious frustrating dissertation journey. Fortunately, my anger didn’t carry over into my paper. After three years of struggling to get my proposal and IRB application approved, the anger had mostly seeped away. I no longer had the energy to be enraged.

How do readers interpret your anger?

It feels cathartic to express anger. However, writing a dissertation is not the same thing as talking to a therapist. Your readers are not hostages to your rage. They don’t like to be told what to think or what to feel. That moment when they stop being willing to accept your point of view and rebel against your resentment is different for every reader, but even your most stalwart fans will eventually realize your conclusions are based on your personal gripes and disengage. It’s like that moment when the curtain is pulled back to reveal not the superhero wizard but an angry curmudgeon with a “get off my lawn” sign.

Dissertators’ anger is not invisible. Many times, I’ve edited dissertations in which the authors’ conclusions and recommendations can’t logically follow from the findings of their studies. It’s obvious they thought they knew the answer to the research problem all along, even before they started collecting and analyzing data. They might as well have saved themselves years of trouble and just written a white paper and posted it on their blog.

I recently edited a paper written by a person of color about the situation faced by people of color in a certain industry. I use the word “situation.” The author used the word “plight.” It might not be obvious to you, but using the word “plight” reveals the dissertator’s perceptions. Instead of waiting to collect data from participants—and letting their voices demonstrate the challenges they faced (and letting readers reach their own conclusions)—the dissertator inserted her own interpretation of the problem. After other evaluative judgments appeared in the paper, I began to sense the depth of the author’s righteous indignation. I left her some comments in the margin, suggesting she might take a step back. Is she entitled to her anger? Of course! Is a social science dissertation the place to express that anger? I don’t think so.

How can you express your passion for your topic without sounding like a self-centered whiner or homicidal maniac?

The solution to the anger thing requires some self-awareness, a little soul-searching, and a commitment to finding and telling the truth as it exists, not as you perceive or desire it to be.

It’s not easy. Human nature conspires against us. People are emotional creatures—we like stories, preferably ones that make us feel things. In the process of being entertaining (i.e., not being boring), authors might pepper their prose with phrases aimed at stirring the pot. Dissertations aren’t supposed to be creative writing, but sometimes authors who aren’t solidly grounded in objectivity resort to frothy yet vague statements that readers might find entertaining but distracting or confusing.

As writers, it can be difficult to separate our opinion from fact, especially when it comes to a topic we care deeply about. If you want to make a passionate point, make sure you have lots of company (that means providing solid citations). If many previous researchers have uncovered reasons to be angry, point to their rage, instead of focusing on your own.

In other words, be a scribe. Dig through the literature on the topic, find the touchpoints that support the need for your study, and report what you find in good scholarly fashion, that is to say, without superlatives, unsubstantiated claims, fear-mongering, or whining. Lay out the case, hold up that gap you identified in the tapestry of knowledge, and then do your best to fill it with robust research leading to solid believable actionable conclusions. Strive to use value-free language.

Is there room for your passion in a dissertation? Yes! Offer your opinions in your Discussion chapter (and base them on your research findings). Don’t assume your view is the only view. Find all sides of the debate. Compare and contrast your findings with the literature, so readers can see your conclusions are trustworthy. You can indicate your position in your recommendations (but don’t whine or exaggerate).

It’s really satisfying to read a dissertation that identifies a problem, presents a solution based on solid objective research using value-free language, and then circles back to offer hope that the problem will soon be solved—tying up the dissertation with a big red bow.

Summary

In sum, be a fair, honest, and objective scholar. Dissertation projects are scientific research studies—yes, even if you are using qualitative methodology and methods. Your goal as a scholar is to remain as objective as you can throughout your study. Follow the guidelines offered by research experts. Set aside your rage, make your case, and trust your readers to find their own righteous anger. They will keep the fire burning.