======= Date Modified 18 Apr 2011 16:52:17 =======
Hey all! I am in the middle of writing up the discussion section for one of my results papers. I have quite an unusual result that I am trying to account for, so am having to be rather speculative in my explanation for it. There is a theory that is very common in the literature which could quite easily partially explain the result I have got. I think it is perfectly reasonable to cite this in the discussion as a POSSIBLE reason that might PARTIALLY account for this particular result. However, it is quite a controversial theory and my sup has done a lot of work in trying to disprove it. She has been successful in showing that the theory does not apply to all people with dementia, but has not been able to show that is doesn't apply to some people with dementia, mainly because it probably does apply to some people with dementia (however undesirable this is).

However, when I have cited this theory in my discussion section - suggesting that it could account in part for my results, although not in full - she will not accept it! I truly believe it is a reasonable explanation, but even though I have also cited her work to emphasize that it would not fully explain the result, but might contribute towards it, she has crossed it all out and strongly suggested that I don't refer to any of that literature. I'm not arguing against her work, I am actually agreeing with her conclusions regarding this theory, but she won't consider anything that even suggests that it doesn't apply to every single person with dementia! I'm not quite sure what to do....any ideas?!

Cheers people! KB

KB, I once again feel and say - she sounds unprofessional, unreasonable and frankly everyone knows that intellectual dialogue is just that - a 'dialogue' of contrasting opinions, divergent claims and inexplicable findings. To steamroller over that on the grounds that all people mentored by a particular intellectual must necessarily follow in the exact footsteps of that intellectual to the extent that they cannot even cite a theory that intellectual disagrees with, is unrealistic and undeisrable, dont you think?

I would stick to what I wish to do, but more importantly, I would seriously reconsider working further with her,beyond the PhD!

Maybe you could phrase it as you think it would be given as a revision when the article is reviewed before publication?

If it was my supervisor, I'd put it like that, and if they weren't going for it, I'd just ask what we would reply if the comment was made by a reviewer. If the theory fits and she doesn't want to include it, I'd say the onus is on her to come up with a reason why she disagrees.

Yeah, I think you're both right- I am going to leave it in there. I have just checked with the next senior in the team after my sup, who was principal investigator for the relevant project, and she agrees that the theory could definitely account for some of the result I have got, even though it does not apply to everyone with dementia. I'll look forward to the argument when my sup realises it's still in there!!

I know Phdbug, it often amazes me how she has got to where she is and is so well-respected given her attitude. Her work in this area is hugely influential, but behind the scenes things are not so rosy. Unfortunately, she can turn on the charm when required. I am contemplating whether I want to stay on post-PhD and work for her but at the moment, with no results from funding applications, it's a hypothetical situation anyway, so I will face the problem head on if it occurs.

Cheers for your responses! KB

I don't think I can resist taking this small jab. Have you had her read an article by Jacob Cohen (1994) The Earth is Round (p<.05)? It sounds like she is stuck in a theory that explains everything, and she will eventually get her (preferred) theory to explain it all. Finding the anomaly is not a bad thing, it forces better theory as it causes us to rethink 'what we know'.
You could try using hers as the main platform you stand on, but also point out where it falls down. Then enter the other theory to help fill in the gaps. But you also know what to be careful of in your external, where they stand on the theory that you use to partially explain.

Good luck

I agree--your work, your interpretation! It should stay in!

It is after all YOUR work and not meant to be a carbon copy of your supervisor or her theories and her research. And I think good research explores various possibilities, does not discount competing theories out of hand but gives them due consideration, and accepts the limits of its own results and insights. I would say (up) because it shows you are independently researching and is that not a big piece of what a PhD is meant to be about?!

Keenbean, I agree with what others have said. Leave it in. It's the essence of critical writing to examine theoretics very closely, and from what you've said, it appears that you've done all the right things - ie said that this doesn't apply universally, but may be interesting to explore in further research, as it may be applicable to a small sub-group and would appear to be potentially a partial explanation of some of your results. Anomalies are ALWAYS interesting and any good researcher looks carefully at them. We shouldn't toe a line. I think your approach is spot on. Just remember to put in all the caveats, and you'll be fine. It could lead to an interesting discussion in the viva, too, especially if you're quite cool about it! Just own it! I do have issues with people who believe that one theory explains all, and is over-arching. That's just too positivist for comfort! I thought we'd all moved on from there?