I recently served as a reviewer for two dissertation of the year (DOTY) competitions. Some thoughts in this thread for those who will apply to these competitions (and their advisors)—I think many of these issues also apply to turning your dissertation into journal articles…
Disclaimer: Your mileage may vary, follow the rules of competitions, some of this is probably just my preference. I have a hard time being concise (evidenced by the length of this thread) and this advice is just as much a reminder for me as it is for anyone else!
If you want to apply & you have support from your advisor (who will write a letter), apply! You can’t win if you don’t apply (and you won't be published if you don't submit). Though there is a lot of rejection inherent to the process, the outlets DO want your contributions!
*deep breath* You will feel the urge to copy and paste from your dissertation document. You are tired. You may have only completed and defended it a few weeks/months ago. But, in general, DO NOT copy and paste from your dissertation. You will end up with a disjointed product.
Your dissertation was probably 100+ pages. You are now writing in a much shorter format; many DOTY competitions call for an abstract of 10-15 pages, and journal articles may be 20-30 pages.
One problem with copy/paste is that everything you paste was situated in the larger context of that big bulky dissertation. Reviewers won’t have that context. In the diss, you could spend endless pages musing on topics central—and not so central—to your work. No such luxury here.
Given the limited space, think through what you will prioritize. You can’t adequately showcase your exhaustive lit review. I know you spent a bazillion hours on it. Hit major areas in 1-2 pages (if that). Sufficient lit needs to be there, but don’t go overboard.
I tend to think findings/interpretations are most important & the most space should be devoted there; however, these must flow from a clearly defined purpose/problem statement & a clear account of the methods you used. “Clearly defined” can happen in limited space (with effort).
It’s a balancing act: Adequate framing of your study is crucial, but don’t spend so much space on framing that you leave only 1-2 pgs for findings. (Reminds me of conference presentations I’ve given where I look up and only have a minute left to cover findings. D'oh.)
Methods—think about the key points here; don’t go overboard telling us about every point on trustworthiness/validity & then forget to tell us about your actual data collection procedures, where your survey instrument came from (& what it asked), your interview protocol, etc.
Devote at least a few lines to analysis—what you actually did & not just the strategy/name of the analytic tool you used. Don’t be overly apologetic; you’re making the case for your work and, unless your competition requires it, it's not helpful to cover limitations in 10 pgs.
Findings/results—with apologies in advance for all caps—please SHOW & do not just TELL. This section in particular is not the time to cut and paste. Think about the one or two central points or parts of the results you want to showcase. You’re going to have to make tough choices.
Better to have a few key findings fully fleshed out with evidence and support, and corresponding implications, than to have a broad overview of a lot of relatively minor findings.
(Side note: For journal articles coming out of your diss, do not attempt to fit the whole thing in one article. Think about how you can divide up your work into multiple pieces—different themes, sub-populations, theoretical/conceptual work, phases of data collection/analysis.)
I don’t think most people are trying to commit fraud here, but I get a little suspicious when there’s telling (your interpretations) and no showing (evidence that leads you to those interpretations). I want to see the connection between the 2. I can’t do that without evidence.
On the theme of show and don’t just tell—in quant, sure, what you have to *say* about these numbers is the most important thing—but there probably needs to be some actual numbers (perhaps a table if appropriate) in your account of results. Show us what you’re working with!
In qual, even though space is tight, include at least one quote (evidence) for each theme/sub-theme you present. You have to be selective - so go for the best evidence. Yes, I am interested in your interpretation & how you describe the findings—but I want to see evidence.
In all instances, at least one visual (figure, table, model) that is central to your work—and can sum up some key points, findings, themes, whatever—is SO helpful. Hopefully you developed something like this in your diss—if not, there’s no time like the present to do so.
Think through congruence/alignment—a clear line of logic connecting your problem statement, research questions, lit review, framework, results. You went down interesting rabbit holes during your dissertation work but now is not the time to talk about those.
Read your draft abstract, and have someone else read it, expressly for the purpose of looking for congruence. Especially important when you are re-working/condensing from your larger dissertation document.
Mind the “little things” (pg limits, spell ck, margins). Attempts to fudge the rules (or just general sloppiness) are sort of annoying & add more time/work for reviewers. Double check for out-of-context language (“In the previous chapter…”) and again, do not copy and paste.
I'll end with some good news: The act of starting fresh and clarifying your central focus/arguments—after you’ve been in the weeds for year(s) with your dissertation study—will be helpful in several ways, whether you win a DOTY competition or not.
Once your abstract is in good shape, you can use it (w/some modification) to apply for other competitions. It may function as the basis for a journal article/book chapter. If nothing else, you’ve refreshed your focus & the way you think/communicate about your study. Good luck!
@threadreaderapp unroll
