My doctoral diary (part three)

A doctoral journey is a big learning curve. In January I took a midpoint moment of reflection when I passed the annual progression meeting for the third year: three years done, three more to do. I am now in the fourth year of my six-year doctoral programme.

For me, the most useful learning resulted from resilience, the ability to carry on. I am also finding my PhD very character-building. I have left certain things that prevented me from feeling confident in my role as a researcher, such as perfectionism or taking criticism personally. This sense of worth develops with academic maturity. These are issues that many PhD students experience as our work receives scrutiny before being declared doctors.

That mental toughness is necessary so that new knowledge can be generated. Much of the intellectual depth of a doctoral thesis comes from the thinker’s profundity of argumentation. The quality of thought determines clarity of expression and the intelligence of writing: I use descriptive/factual writing for the analysis, and argumentative writing to be as persuasive as possible when I am making a claim. Rhetorical knowledge is key for a thesis writer, particularly in public relations.

It is through learning that new synapses are created between brain cells while other synaptic links are strengthened. This synaptic activity is reflected on the line of thinking or reasoning: there needs to be a guiding thread for such intellectual work to be coherent. My file rouge is the ethics of dialogue.

Unethical behaviour can involve two-way communication.

Think about gaslighting for example, which is a manipulative form of relational bullying. It is important to recognise the unethical tactics that are used to undermine another person: intrusive questions or circumlocutory/vague replies; thoughtless remarks; a disregard for anyone else’s opinion; twisting an argument or the meaning; instilling doubts to cause uncertainty; minimising someone else’s point or even doubting someone else’s abilities to discredit them; shifting one’s ground; confusing the issue by making suggestions that muddy the waters further; monopolising the conversation; microaggressions; unhealthy perfectionism; not concentrating on the conversation by showing indifference. There are nonverbal signs such as silent treatment, eye rolling or lack of eye contact. The purpose of such tactics, that happen in two-way communication, is to destabilise the other person.

Yet it is difficult to prove. Many unethical issues remain hidden in the two-way communication flow, they are elusive, so they often go unnoticed. Here is the need for observational research. This understanding is essential to me in public relations research because it can provide a new perspective.