![\"\"](\"https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/F1.large_.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
All researchers make claims about their work.<\/p>\n
Remember the phrase\u00a0staking a claim<\/em>? That\u2019s what we are actually doing when we claim something.\u00a0We are metaphorically placing a marker in a field that we are prepared to stand on, stand for \u2013 \u00a0and defend.\u00a0<\/strong>We plant that\u00a0marker at the end of the account of our research. We\u2019re here, we say. This is where, why and how I\u2019ve got to this point.<\/p>\n So\u2026 What does claiming look like? Well, we researchers always claim that we make a particular contribution to what\u2019s already known about our topic. \u00a0We sometimes claim that we provide new insights, alternative approaches, different interpretations, innovative methods, novel results. We might also claim that our work has the So What Now What factor \u00a0\u2013 there are significant implications that arise from the work \u2013 there\u2019s a need for more or particular research to be done, for law and\/or policy to be changed, for practitioners to do some different things and\/or not do others.<\/p>\n What\u2019s also important is that we researchers make our claims in and through writing. And any account of the research we\u2019ve done should provide a traceable pathway from start to finish, from warrant to claim. When they get to the end of our text, readers must understand what claims we\u2019re making and how we got there. Along the way, we need to show \u2013 evidence \u2013 that our ending claims are warranted and justified.<\/p>\n Making claims can be a particular challenge for doctoral researchers. It is hard to summon up the chutzpah to make a firm claim. PhDers sometimes dodge the issue by concluding their thesis by restating their results and perhaps offering short and vague suggestions about potential consequences. Alternatively, occasionally nearly-docs overstate what they have done, making sweeping generalisations. Or \u2013 a particular bugbear for me \u2013 they conclude their thesis with recommendations \u2013 as if thesis readers, particularly examiners, are in a position to act on what they say.<\/p>\n In order to make reasonable and defensible claims, all researchers have to do three things:<\/p>\n ( 1) make sure that the claims match their research tradition, design and its results. So for instance, we can\u2019t claim that policies need to change if we have only a handful of interviews, but we can claim that such research raises questions that need to be investigated further. Another example \u2013 we can\u2019t claim causality if what we have are correlations.<\/p>\n (2) make sure that the research is trustworthy \u2013 we have to provide sufficient details about what we did and why, and make sure this information is available to be checked \u2013 so we always provide an audit trail with relevant details of data and analysis \u2013 perhaps even the data set itself.<\/p>\n (3) summon up the courage to get off the fence and own our expertise, while acknowledging the inevitable particularity, and the limited scope of our research. We recognise our blank spots \u2013 the things that the research design, methodology and methods just didn\u2019t allow us to do.<\/p>\n Examiners look very carefully in the thesis for the argument that leads to claims. They read forwards and backwards tracing the path that leads to final claims.<\/p>\n Here are some of the things that examiners ask while they are reading a thesis:<\/p>\n These are general questions of course, and as such they need to be made bespoke to discipline and research tradition. Supervisors can help doctoral researchers consider the particularities related to their claim-making.<\/p>\n\n