Studies in Higher Education, 2015

Vol. 40, No. 5, 838–851, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.842967

Learning dilemmas in undergraduate student independent essays

Maria Wendt* and Cecilia Åse

Department of Political Science, Stockholm University, Stockholm, 10691, Sweden

Essay-writing is generally viewed as the primary learning activity to foster

independence and analytical thinking. In this article, we show that independent
research projects do not necessarily lead to critical thinking. University-level
education on conducting independent projects can, in several respects, counteract
enhanced analytical skills. The purpose of this study is to advance knowledge on
the difficulties students experience in acquiring analytical skills. A group of
undergraduate political science students were interviewed while they attended an
independent research course. They were also asked to record their reflections.
The digital diaries provide access to the students’ perceptions regarding the
assignment and their struggles as they handle scientific problems. We argue that
the students are caught up in different learning dilemmas when asked to perform
independent academic research. One result is that ambiguous and contradictory
understandings of science affect the learning processes and thus affect the
students’ possibilities for developing analytical thinking.
Keywords: analytical thinking; learning dilemmas; political science; essay-
writing; student perspective

Introduction
The ability to think and write critically and independently is highly valued in higher
education. To obtain high grades, especially in the humanities and social sciences, stu-
dents are often required to demonstrate the ability to successfully formulate and analyse
an argument. An independent essay is generally the preferred form for final exams.
While universities increasingly emphasise the importance of teaching students to
think critically and to conduct independent research projects, there has been limited
pedagogical discussion on how to successfully prepare students for this task
(Wagner, Garner & Kawulich 2011).
Teachers call for argumentative and analytical papers, while the assignments sub-
mitted by students are often descriptive or merely express the students’ personal
opinions (MacLellan 2004; cf. Hounsell 2005a). There has, nonetheless, been a lack
of systematic inquiries on how students’ difficulties with analysis can be understood
and handled in the university context. Rather, as Tamsin Haggis writes (2006, 523),
academics often use a ‘defensive cynicism’ and a deficit view of the students, identify-
ing the root of the problem at the level of incompetent individual students, and hold the
view that this problem has increased as a result of a mass education system. Although
abilities such as critical thinking are seldom explicitly taught, it is assumed that students

*Corresponding author. Email: Maria.Wendt@statsvet.su.se

© 2014 Society for Research into Higher Education

 Studies in Higher Education 839

understand what they are required to do. Students may receive teacher feedback and
critical comments on their papers, but students are puzzled by how to attain a critical
perspective in their academic undertakings. Critical thinking has also been described
as tacit knowledge that teachers simply assume the students will grasp (Jones 2009).
In political science, enhancing students’ abilities to think critically and to analyse
political phenomena is regularly regarded as a core value in teaching processes
(Olsen and Statham 2005; Fitzgerald and Bird 2011). In this discipline, problems of
personal opinion have been described by political scientist Michael Marks as especially
salient because politics is perceived as a subject in which it is legitimate to express
opinions. As he states, ‘[ … ] students confuse their personal beliefs with scholarly
analysis’ (Marks 2008, 206). However, in political science, there are few discussions
on how different teaching strategies and writing assignments can actually promote criti-
cal thinking skills (Çavdar and Doe 2012).
The purpose of this study is to advance knowledge on the difficulties students face
in obtaining analytical skills. This purpose is accomplished by following a group of
undergraduate students as they complete a minor political science research project.
We study the abilities of the students to negotiate and solve a series of theoretical
and methodological problems and how they engage with disciplinary ideals and
standards.
In spite of their core position, the substance of concepts, such as analytical skills or
critical thinking, is rarely explicit in academic settings (Jones 2009; Oros 2007). There
is also a lack of scholarly consensus regarding the specificity of these terms (T. Moore
2013). However, Jones (2009, 91) notes that ‘an examination of reasoning, consider-
ation of assumptions and a questioning of received wisdom is part of critical thinking
in most disciplines’. In some academic contexts, critical thinking is also closely con-
nected to scrutinising power relations and ideological dimensions (B.Z. Moore,
Faltin and Wright 2003). In this study, we have chosen to refer to analytical skills
rather than to critical thinking. Although a qualified analysis involves critical aware-
ness, this should not be confused with ‘critical’ in the sense of social critique. In pol-
itical science, the characteristics Jones discusses can be supplanted with the ability to
reflect upon meanings and consequences of political discourse and actions. Olsen
and Statham (2005, 325) state that what characterises critical thinking in political
science is foremost the students’ ability to do independent research, analyse others’
research and ‘come to their own conclusions about political questions’. In political
science, these characteristics do not necessarily require that the students develop
more synthetic thinking in which the learning outcome involves construing novel theor-
etical positions. To perform a qualified analysis, however, we want to stress that stu-
dents need to understand that reality cannot be taken for granted or neutrally
described. Analytical thinking, therefore, requires the awareness that a theoretical per-
spective is the basis of any account of political reality.
Our research approach is in line with what Timmermans and Tavory (2012) and
Thornberg (2012) describe as an abductive strategy. In this tradition, theoretical
models and novel concepts are generated and constructed on the basis of empirical find-
ings. However, in contrast to more pronounced inductive research strategies, the abduc-
tive approach recognises that empirical observations are always theoretically informed.
This study has as its theoretical point of departure the argument that in order to grasp
learning processes, student perspectives are crucial. Our assumption is that the difficul-
ties that students experience when trying to perform qualified analyses, cannot be
understood as merely following from a lack of intellectual ability, misunderstandings
840 M. Wendt and C. Åse

or as the result of inadequate teaching strategies. We provide a theoretical interpretation

of the learning processes in terms of ‘learning dilemmas’, based on a group of students’
accounts and course writings. More specifically, the theoretical contribution amounts to
the argument that students find themselves in different learning dilemmas, which affect
their ability to perform analytical work. Empirically, we show how these dilemmas
become manifest in the students’ learning processes. We also demonstrate how the
dilemmas are influenced by a wide range of contextual factors, including academic dis-
courses and institutions, educational practices, value-laden norms, and the criteria of
what distinguishes ‘doing science’ from other social and intellectual activities.

Previous research
During the last three decades, educational research has shifted from a focus on teaching
to a focus on conditions for effective learning. This shift is the result of two interrelated
processes: the expansion of higher education to encompass new groups of students and
the emergence of new ways for organising university education (Northedge 2003a,
2003b; Feigenbaum 2007). Effective teaching strategies, accountability and transpar-
ency have been the key words governing the transformation of higher education, as
exhibited in the implementation of the Bologna process (Jauhianinen, Jauhianinen
and Laiho 2009). University courses and programs have become increasingly struc-
tured through demands that teachers specify explicit learning outcomes and detailed
assessment criteria for every course according to a standardised framework (Dahlgren
et al. 2009).
Following this trend, significant pedagogical research has focused on determining
the factors responsible for positive learning outcomes. To date, explanations of what
contributes to students’ analytical and critical thinking are both individual and
context-bound. One strand of research focuses on explaining and predicting student
success on an individual level (Kreber 1998). Similarly, individual student beliefs
and approaches to learning have been examined and classified (Boscolo, Arfé and
Quarisa 2007), as have students’ different approaches to specific learning practices,
most notably essay-writing (Hounsell 2005a). Not only is the individual the object of
analysis, but these studies also result in different types of categorisations of individuals,
their beliefs and their approaches. In our view, such research risks reproducing an
understanding of learning that fails to acknowledge the importance of both the learning
situation and the social and political context in which learning occurs.
Nonetheless, several researchers highlight the need to include the background and
learning experiences that students bring with them to the classroom in order to under-
stand the challenges that students face when entering institutions of higher education
(North 2005; Niven 2011). A similar argument is made by Northedge (2003b), who
emphasises that students’ lack of familiarity with the terms of a specific academic dis-
course must be addressed in order to understand the conditions under which students
can successfully engage with academic discourse.
These perspectives are challenged by researchers such as Dai Hounsell, who
emphasise the importance of broadening the scope of inquiry by taking the students’
perspectives into account. His standpoint is that learning is subject to ‘a dynamic
and richly complex array of influences, which are both direct and indirect, intentional
and unintended’ (Hounsell 2005b, 253). For example, teaching can have effects and
consequences other than those anticipated by the teacher. Consequently, unintended
effects, or the ‘hidden curriculum’, remain undiscovered unless we focus on the
 Studies in Higher Education 841

students’ responses to teaching and learning situations. Similarly, Ramsden (2005)

stresses that it is how students perceive assessment, teaching and learning tasks that
has to be analysed if the dynamics of student learning are to be grasped. However,
this view on student learning appears to have had limited influence on educational
research (Hounsell 2005b).
The present study furthers knowledge on how students interpret what they are
expected to do in a learning context. It is the students’ responses to the learning task
that are analysed. Unlike previous studies, this analysis does not identify or classify
the different ways that students respond and relate to the learning context. Rather,
the focus is on how the different learning dilemmas inhibit the students and on the con-
sequences that this inhibition has for their abilities to perform analytical work. For
example, we will argue that contradicting discourses on science affect learning pro-
cesses and the students’ possibilities to develop analytical thinking.
Thus, we want to emphasise the potential to look beyond students’ prior learning
backgrounds and skills as well as beyond the immediate learning context with its con-
comitant assessment and course criteria, to understand the complexities that character-
ise the learning dilemmas. This perspective agrees with Haggis’ statement that learning
is affected by norms and values inside academia as well as in society at large: ‘[M]any
of the problems experienced by learners are at least partly being caused by the cultural
values and assumptions which underpin different aspects of pedagogy and assessment’
(Haggis 2006, 533, cf. Jansson, Wendt and Åse 2013).

Materials and methods

For this study we followed 10 students in the second term of their studies in political
science at Stockholm University as they participated in the course Political Science
Research: Independent Project during the autumn of 2011.1 The empirical material con-
sists of sound recordings, interviews and written course material (drafts and final
essays). The course length was five weeks, with the primary product being a final
essay of 12 to 15 pages. Although the scale was small, the students were to perform
an (empirical) investigation, to address relevant methodological and theoretical ques-
tions, and to follow the basic rules of scientific writing.2 For many of the students,
this was the first time they had been required to write an independent essay.
The students who agreed to participate in our study, three men and seven women,
can be described as high achievers, and their essays received, in a majority of the cases,
high grades. Voluntarily engaging in such a pedagogical project as this, with no clear
rewards besides the opportunity to discuss science and pedagogy with their peers and
the research team, illustrates the commitment of these students and also their tendency
towards reflection. The difficulties they encounter and the dilemmas they address are
still salient, however.
To a large extent, previous studies concerning student learning and critical thinking
have relied on student and teacher interviews, examinations and course evaluations.
Not the least in political science, pedagogical conclusions tend to stem from somewhat
anecdotal evidence, such as teachers’ reflections of their own experiences in the class-
room (Fitzgerald and Baird 2011; Çavdar and Doe 2012; Marks 2008; Stein 2011). To
understand the learning process of writing an independent essay, such research designs
are not adequate. A method is required to analyse the intellectual process itself, rather
than merely the result or the teacher’s perspective. To follow the intellectual process of
the students, we gave the participants digital recording machines and asked them to
842 M. Wendt and C. Åse

record their reflections throughout the course. Because the students worked in pairs,
they recorded their conversations around crucial phases in the project. In this way, dia-
logical research diaries were obtained.
Inspired by the police officer in the television series Twin Peaks, we have named
this method of data collection the ‘Agent Cooper Method.’ Agent Cooper routinely dis-
cusses his case and reflects on different aspects of the Laura Palmer mystery using his
dictaphone. When transferred to an academic context, this method makes it possible to
approach the students’ perspectives and their shifting perceptions of the task through
the phases of the learning process. As researchers, we had no teaching responsibilities
and no examining functions related to the course. The students could therefore express
themselves relatively freely and share their opinions.
We asked the students to make five different recordings, each preferably no longer
than 30 minutes, in connection with their scheduled seminars and tutoring. To guide
each recording, we suggested some questions: How did you approach finding your
research problems? Describe how you arrived at one analysis you really like! Describe
a moment in which you got stuck in your work! In the end, each pair delivered between
2 and 4 hours of recordings. As supplementary material, we collected their final essays
and conducted four focus group interviews, each 1.5 hours long, where we divided the
participants into two groups. The first of these interviews was conducted two weeks
into the essay-writing course, and the second interview was conducted immediately
after the course was finished.3 The interview material differs in some respects from
the digital diaries. Whereas the diaries more directly reflect the students’ perspectives,
the interviews are influenced by our ambition to elicit explicit ideas and convictions that
are left as assumptions in the students’ diaries. Thus, the interviews gave us additional
information on factors contributing to the choices and strategies the students employed,
e.g. we were able, through the interviews, to probe in more depth into the students’
understanding of concepts such as analysis or theory. In contrast to individual inter-
views, the focus group interview enabled discussion and comparisons between the stu-
dents’ experiences. It was thereby possible to clarify differences as well as similarities
regarding how research problems were negotiated and solved.
The design of this study has its limitations regarding generalisation and issues of
changes in the student body over time. However, with a limited number of participants,
we were able to include different forms of empirical material (the research diaries, the
interviews and the essays) produced by each pair of students. To fully obtain the stu-
dents’ perspectives and analyse in depth how they make sense of their learning task,
it was necessary to prioritise depth over quantity. As this study focuses on the
student perspective, our intention has been to follow closely how the students perceived
and tackled the challenge of essay writing. More specifically, we listened to and tran-
scribed the diaries and interviews, and followed the learning processes in the written
assignments. Thereby we were able to distinguish the forms of learning problems
that they encountered. In line with the abductive research strategy, our ambition was
to allow the empirical material to guide the analytical process. One way of doing
this is to ‘revisit the phenomenon’, as Timmermans and Tavory (2012, 176) label
the research practice of ‘[... ] forcing the researcher to revaluate and rethink’. We fre-
quently revisited those parts of the material where the students were struggling to
solve problems. Thereby, it was possible to revaluate earlier understandings and formu-
late new theoretical insights. One example of this concerns how we came to interpret a
situation where two students, after several days in the archive, abandoned what in our
view seemed to be a perfectly reasonable and interesting research idea. In this case, our
 Studies in Higher Education 843

initial interpretation was that the students lacked the analytical tools and capabilities to
analyse the material. However, after having listened repeatedly to their discussions, and
having compared with other parts of the empirical data, we realised that they were
struggling to solve a question that we had not at all expected. Their solution could
be interpreted as an adequate response to a question emanating from a learning
dilemma (this example is discussed in the section Dilemmas of political science scho-
larship). Accordingly, what at first appeared to be an individual failure or misunder-
standing was actually comprehensible and perfectly reasonable when interpreted as a
way of dealing with a learning dilemma. The identification of learning dilemmas
thus involves a form of denaturalisation of our own taken-for-granted perceptions as
political scientists and teachers. Consequently our analytical practice was closely
related to what Timmermans and Tavory describe as ‘defamiliarisation’ (2012, 176–
177).
By working abductively with the analytical tools of revisiting and defamiliarisation,
we were able to discern a number of salient and recurring learning dilemmas in the
material. The dilemmas are related to ideas about political science as a discipline, to
the status of scientific knowledge, as well as to issues of hierarchy and academic sub-
jectivity. Moreover, these dilemmas are closely connected to social norms and values
which, as we will argue below, elucidate central conditions of learning at the university.

Dilemmas of political science scholarship

In the initial phase of formulating a research problem, the students face several difficul-
ties. They struggle with defining their topic and choosing what material to analyse. The
recordings show that students are apt to interpret a research problem as equivalent to an
important political problem. What students perceive as politically relevant is often
strongly influenced by media discussions. Scientific relevance merges with societal rel-
evance when students define a problem as something that ought to be promptly changed
in society. For example, in search of a research problem, students propose to investigate
why state institutions discriminate against women or girls and to study the biased
description in the media of female politicians or of ethnic groups. One pair of students,
Alexis and Jonas, initially had the idea of investigating the issue of Swedish men who
go abroad to use prostitutes; they express strong views and a feminist commitment to
countering prostitution.
Apparently, these students position a research problem in a political rather than a
scientific context. As a consequence, it becomes difficult for them to transform their
viewpoint into a research problem that is possible and rewarding to explore scientifi-
cally. Another consequence is that, when the students start their intellectual work
from a political problem, they tend to rely on an unproblematised conception of politi-
cal reality. The first two recordings from Alexis and Jonas clearly illustrate this point.
They discuss the phenomena of prostitution and come up with suggestions such as
interviewing Swedish sex-buyers about why they use prostitutes. Soon, they realise
that it would be impossible to carry out such a project. Then, they search for facts
about prostitution, and they identify five books on the internet. Lacking a research
problem, they do not know what to do with the books. ‘Are the books theoretical
texts or empirical material?’ Alexis asks.
The dilemma that Alexis and Jonas face here is related to the ambiguous status of
reality in social science discourse. While scientific knowledge is authoritative and is
said to be more truthful than everyday beliefs and opinions, most social scientists
844 M. Wendt and C. Åse

argue that any description of reality relies upon a theoretical perspective. In this respect,
a scientific frame of reference rejects the naive conception that reality is simply ‘out
there.’
Alexis and Jonas, however, are unable to move beyond the question of discerning
an objective truth about prostitution. They fail to focus on what they want to investigate
and instead start searching haphazardly for facts about prostitution. A consequence is
that their analytical process never has a chance to get started. Thus, their decision to
abandon this topic is perfectly reasonable. The new project they choose is to analyse
how the current uprisings in the Middle East have been portrayed in two different news-
papers. Although Alexis and Jonas continue to struggle defining a research problem, the
media project enables them to determine a way out of the analytical cul-de-sac of ‘how
things are’; that media material does not equal the truth is widely recognised. Here,
everyday understanding facilitates the move away from a naive conception of reality.
Another pair of students, Maria and Jo, also abandon their initial project. However,
the dilemma that leads to their decision involves specific understandings of social
science rather than a naive view of reality. Their original idea is to study how
Swedish media representations of famine have changed from the 1960s to the
present time. In their first recording, they describe how they went to the royal library
and meticulously worked their way through several years’ worth of newspapers only
to find that the media representations were quite similar during different time
periods. The conclusion they draw is that no interesting scientific result can be gener-
ated from this material. Consequently, the project is abandoned.
During the interview, we specifically asked Maria and Jo to expand on why they
abandoned this project. They respond that, of course, no result (i.e. no difference
over time) is also a result but that they chose to select another project. The no difference
result appears uninteresting and leaves them without interpretative options, i.e. they do
not know how to proceed. Our interpretation is that the following chain of thought
informs their course of action: To perform an analysis equals finding a difference, spel-
ling out the specifics of the difference, and finally, explaining the difference (using
theory). In the famine project, they find no difference that theory can explain. This situ-
ation becomes an insurmountable obstacle because they are required to use theory in
their essay. They employ a conceptualisation of theory that strongly limits what
types of project and analysis are viable.
Even if Maria and Jo do not express themselves explicitly in positivist terms, the
conviction that the role of theory is to explain a difference leads them to define scientific
analysis in terms of testing and comparing. Similar views on science become evident
during the first interview, when one group of students discusses why they want to for-
mulate their research problem in terms of testing a hypothesis. They express the idea
that if you work with an explicit hypothesis, this guarantees a result: ‘If the hypothesis
holds, then you have won’, one student says self-ironically in the interview, and the
others laugh.
Our interpretation is that the students are in a position in which they need to engage
differing and contradictory ideas about science. On the one hand, they embrace positi-
vist-informed ideas about science and scientific projects that involve testing, compar-
ing, and finding explanations; on the other hand, the specific situation they are in, as
undergraduate students undertaking a small-scale research project, limits the possibili-
ties for explanatory and testing research designs. Nevertheless, positivist ideas continue
to influence how the students approach the assignment. In one essay, the students plan a
small-scale interview project with kindergarten employees. When choosing which
 Studies in Higher Education 845

institutions to contact, they turn to a random number generator on the Internet, rec-
ommended in their methodological course literature. In this way, they were assured
to end up with a random sample, i.e. a non-biased and presumably non-questionable
selection of institutions. At the same time, as the random number generator functions
as a scientific safeguard, a more thorough reflection on issues of selection and general-
isation is bypassed.
These findings are in line with Pollock, who claims that despite important contri-
butions from social constructivist and postmodernist perspectives, political science is
still characterised by a strong positivist legacy (Pollock 2011). During the last
decades, the discipline has been marked by discussions and conflicts between different
positions. It has also been claimed that these differences are not nearly adequately dealt
with in the introductory literature on methodology in political science (Bates and
Jenkins 2007). Hence, it is not surprising that students of political science are posi-
tioned in uncertainty concerning the legitimacy of epistemological claims.
As students start to produce scientific knowledge, they encounter dilemmas that
stem both from everyday conceptions of science as an inherently objective, unbiased
truth, as well as from the ambivalent and contradictory understandings of science
that they have encountered in academia. The students in our study negotiate this
ambivalence in ways that hinder them from more fully developing analytical skills.
An illustration of this is the fact that in none of the projects is the research problem
explicitly related to a theoretical perspective. The dilemmas of political science scholar-
ship apparently make it more difficult for students to reach an analytical position that
recognises that the important decisions in a research process need to be connected to
a theoretical perspective or point of departure.

Dilemmas of linearity
Several times in the recordings, the students express frustrations concerning the plan-
ning of the course and believe that the tasks appear in the wrong order. When asked to
present their research problem, they state that they first need to study previous research.
When asked to discuss their empirical material, they do not understand how to do this
before they have found the right theory.
The first dilemma concerns the tension between research practices and teaching
practices. While a course demands that one theme or problem be tackled at a time
(i.e. the first workshop addresses the research problem, the second the theory, etc.),
the research process can seldom be divided into discrete phases. Research processes
tend to be circular, with continual revisions (Blaikie 2000). The teaching outline
makes it appear as though parts of the research process are completed as the course
moves on to the next phase. An established view on learning as a linear process also
implies that the thinking is over as soon as you hand in your paper (Çavdar & Doe
2012).
Another dilemma is related to the Bologna Process, with its focus on clearly stated
learning outcomes and the overall emphasis on students demonstrating that they have
fulfilled the various objectives. The result, not the thinking or the understanding, tends
to be in the foreground. It can be argued that this move towards predictability and trans-
parency has influenced the learning situation of the students and has also coloured their
expectations. As noted by Biggs (2003), assessment criteria, rather than curricula, guide
students’ learning activities. The students, unsurprisingly, want to know beforehand
what they are to learn, which they view as a prerequisite to obtaining good grades.
846 M. Wendt and C. Åse

At the same time, in an independent research project, it is difficult to specify exactly

what the students are expected to learn or how they should approach their task. The
ability to independently solve problems that occur is an important part of the course.
The students nonetheless feel abandoned and disappointed when they do not obtain
clear instructions. They continue to ask: ‘Can we do it this way or that way … ?’
and ‘We have been asking so many times.’
In addition to creating frustration and insecurity, dilemmas of linearity and transpar-
ency work against the students’ analytical thinking. They are preoccupied with
‘naming’ what they are doing in their essays (comparative analysis, a case study,
etc.). When they succeed in adequately naming their approach, they move on, as this
appears to be what they are required to do. They ‘tick off’ the different parts to
make transparent that they have a method or a theory (as required in the course syllabus
and the assessment criteria). For instance, they search for a good theory to put under the
headline ‘Theory’, and then they search for a method to place under the headline
‘Method’. Naming and ticking off seems to override a deeper problematising of how
theory and method work in relation to their project. A striking example is how students
relate to the concept of theory, as one student says: ‘One gets so caught up in thinking
that one should have one theory, called lalala-theory’. A theory needs linguistically to
be a named theory if the students are to be on the safe side. Consequently, they turn to
theories such as the agenda-setting theory, Hirdman’s gender-system theory or the dis-
course theory.
At the same time, the students express concern and insecurity regarding how they
actually use the theory. Edie and Susanna state that: ‘We don’t know how to use it and
no one is telling us either … We have a theory because we have to.’ Linda and Sam
have been criticised for presenting three different methods, and in the first interview,
they are confused about how to move on from that point. They have understood that
they have too many of what they describe as ‘etiquettes’, but they do not know how
many they should have. ‘Not three anyway!’ Linda jokes. These examples show that
students have understood the need to find or pick a theory and a method but are
unsure as to why.
Moreover, the demands of transparency and clarity can inhibit the analysis pro-
cesses. Various meanings and different interpretations appear threatening, and the stu-
dents are cautious with loose ends and ambiguities. Kim and Thomas strive to make
their essay a well-wrapped package and are satisfied when their text is unequivocal
and, as they say, ‘neat’. Thomas states that they have avoided ‘everything that stands
out. Just keep things that can’t be questioned. Nothing farfetched.’ The importance
of being able to prove everything, to show evidence, and to not contradict themselves
is often stressed. The necessity of clarity is a recurring theme, as when Linda and Sam
state that they are satisfied because they have clear results and there are no ambiguities.
What could have developed into analytically productive questions or a discussion of
ambivalence is superseded, and the analytical process dwindles.

Dilemmas of hierarchy
The way the students relate to academic hierarchies influences their analytical work. To
make their choices and to legitimatise their projects, they make references to what are
perceived as high-status academic persons, established theories and established
methods. Linda and Sam, for instance, are quite confident in their method because
they use an analysis model from a published thesis. However, they are uncertain as
 Studies in Higher Education 847

to what counts as theory and what counts as previous research. Additionally, they
believe that they should take a critical stance towards the theories. However, they con-
clude that this is not necessary since the texts are published in peer-reviewed journals
and that one of the authors is a professor.
The uncertainty about what theories and methods are appropriate and how to use
them is handled with reference to what is perceived as established scientific knowledge.
Therefore, discussions on how the theories and methods relate to their own project and
could help them analyse their material are set aside.
Several students also express a strong urge for more advice from authority. A recur-
rently expressed understanding is that, if only they got time alone with the teacher, their
problems would be solved. They want, as one student expresses it, more ‘expert knowl-
edge’. The course design, which emphasises group discussions and students’ comments
on each other’s work, creates frustration, especially in the initial phases. Edie and
Susanna state that they do not always listen to their fellow students’ comments
because they perceive these students as low achievers. Students giving input to each
other appears to the students to be a bad and nonsensical idea: ‘No one knows how
to do this. It’s like a blind man leading a blind man.’ They also express strong disap-
pointment with the learning situation: ‘No one is telling us how to do [this]. We have
not been told how to make an analysis.’
The workshops do not function as occasions for students to discuss their papers and
to help each other under the supervision of the teacher. Instead, the students are primar-
ily concerned with their own appearance as commentators. At the first workshop,
Thomas and Kim are dissatisfied because they had not quite understood what was
expected from them, and this had prevented them from doing their best.
We interpret the students’ reliance on high-status academic texts and persons, and
avoidance of knowledge from low-status academic persons, as a result of the dilemma
of academic hierarchies that is inherent in this specific learning situation. The students
are constructed as fellow researchers, i.e. they are supposed to engage in writing a
research project as if they were on equal footing with established representatives of
the field. They are asked to work independently and to deliver scientific results. At
the same time, they are positioned as students who are expected to learn from the
teacher, a fact that they are acutely aware of. When reflecting on the possibility of
getting criticised for the essay, Kim concludes that the criticism must be directed
towards the well-known theorist whose perspective they only follow. Kim emphasises
that he is ‘only a first cycle student’. In addition, while the students are required to work
independently and to be original in their analysis, they are also instructed to relate their
work to previous research and to always be able to refer to theories when they analyse
the material. These apparent contradictions create a situation of uncertainty in which the
students rely on status and academic hierarchies rather than analysing and thinking cri-
tically themselves.

Dilemmas of academic subjectivity

The dilemma of subjectivity is concerned with the manner in which students negotiate
their position as academic and scholarly subjects. The ideal, clearly stated in the grading
criteria, is that the learning activities will foster intellectual autonomy and that the stu-
dents will display independent thinking. To receive top grades, the essays must display
independent analysis, and both interpretations and conclusions must be characterised
by argumentative reasoning.
848 M. Wendt and C. Åse

Several of the student pairs express frustration and appear to find the independent
research project as a whole vague and muddled. They search for and demand straight
answers, asking, for example, ‘What is a theory?’ or ‘How does one really perform an
analysis?’ One pair talks about wanting a ‘manual’ on how to write an essay. They look
for answers in terms of right and wrong and are disappointed when their tutor fails to
deliver these objective truths. Their initial strategy is to continue to demand straight
answers, i.e. they want their teacher to deliver clear-cut answers. This position also
leads to complaints and harsh criticism of the course. Apparently the students’ point
of view is that there are absolute answers to their questions but that the tutors, for
some inconceivable reason, withhold these answers.
The call for clear answers demonstrates that students believe that they are required
to determine what doing right and doing wrong means, sui generis. Systematically
thinking through the pros and cons of different theoretical and methodological
choices in relation to their own research project is not what the students perceive
they are required to do. This can be exemplified with one pair who is unable to
move forward with their project until their tutor remarks that they ‘may use previous
research as theory’. They perceive this statement as an objective answer to the question,
‘What is theory?’
Some students manoeuvre around the issues of right or wrong by looking at old
essays and using the same theoretical framework as the previous political science stu-
dents. Or they copy the research designs of established scholars. These ‘package sol-
utions’ make it possible for them to perform rather qualified analysis without taking
intellectual responsibility vis-à-vis their project or their conclusions. The academic
demand to relate to theory and build on previous research is interpreted as a demand
to replicate earlier studies, although with different empirical material. What may
come across as independent thinking does not necessarily build upon the student
having actively negotiated theoretical and methodological matters in relation to the
chosen research problem. Instead, the students state that they can apply the Hirdman
package or that they have ‘just put on the postcolonial glasses.’ Several students
describe their work in passive and almost mechanical terms. Analytical work is
reduced to classification, described by one student as putting quotes ‘in the right
boxes’, which is an understanding that echoes perceptions of science as replicable pro-
cedures for procuring knowledge.
It is evident from our study that package solutions can result in essays that receive
high grades. However, these package solutions do not enhance analytical skills in any
straightforward way. They appear to impede students’ willingness to pursue their own
analyses and to take intellectual responsibility for research results. The problem of per-
sonal opinion is crucial here. From the recordings, it is evident that students understand
that it is not acceptable to express opinions. Doing it right, i.e. doing good science,
forbids any such expressions. One pair explicitly states that the way to eradicate sub-
jective views is to attribute all analyses to someone else, which means writing explicit
references to other scholars for all analyses. One student reflects on making authorita-
tive statements in her own text: ‘It is difficult to claim that the meaning of this is that,
when no one else has said so. It feels weird.’ The problematic status of personal opinion
leads students away from challenging interpretations and leads them to remove every-
thing that stands out or signals ambiguity. The students’ dissociation from what they
perceive as personal opinion can also lead them to distance themselves from their
analytical work. In one example, Professor Famous, and not the student authors, is
put forward as the person to criticise if the analysis in their essay does not hold. This
 Studies in Higher Education 849

transference of authorship is not perceived as a potential threat or loss, but rather as pro-
tection and reassurance.

Concluding remarks
The academic essay is often regarded as the ‘default genre’ to assess critical reflection
and independent and analytical thinking (Andrews 2003; MacLellan 2004). This study
shows that analytical skills do not have a clear relationship with writing an academic
essay. Our findings indicate that the connection between excellent student performance,
defined by the highest grades and the ability to analyse, is not straightforward (cf.
MacLellan 2004).
This study illustrates that by closely following students’ perceptions of their teach-
ing and learning tasks, in line with the research of Ramsden (2005) and Hounsell
(2005b), a deeper and more nuanced understanding of learning processes is made poss-
ible. We also argue against an individualistic explanatory framework as well as
interpretations that centre on students’ lack of capabilities, the ‘deficit student’ perspec-
tive (cf. Haggis 2006). Moreover, we have shown how students in their essay writing
are entangled in a number of learning dilemmas. These dilemmas emanate from contex-
tual factors on a societal level, such as academic norms and institutions as well as ideas
and discourses on scientific knowledge. More specifically, our results show how the
students negotiate contradictory discourses. They are supposed to be independent but
at the same time adhere to specific rules and practices; they are required to be original,
but their research should be replicable and follow previous studies. They are caught
between the linearity of teaching, assessment and classroom scheduling and the circu-
larity and intellectual re-considerations that characterise the research process. On one
level, science claims to hold the truth; on another level, the scientific community, at
least in the social sciences, relies heavily on the notion of perspectivism. At times posi-
tivist ideas also seem to restrict the possibilities of analytical thinking. In other words,
framing scientific ideas in terms of objectivity, testing, comparing and explaining
differences tends to result in analytical closure.
Our results indicate that in order to perform qualified analysis, students must have
access to what we call an academic ‘voice’. To succeed in writing essays, students have
to move away from everyday discourse (e.g. the perception that a research problem
equals a political problem) to an academic discourse. This is in line with Northedge
(2003a, 25) who states that ‘[v]oice requires a sense of one’s identity within the dis-
course community’. However, in our understanding, access to this voice does not
involve a search for personal authenticity, and does not require an identity shift.
Rather, we want to stress that a decisive prerequisite is that students gain an indepen-
dent intellectual position from which they can make choices, determine alternatives and
reflect upon the consequences that a certain course of action will have vis-à-vis their
project. It is only from such a position that the puzzle of right and wrong can be
solved from the perspective of students’ own research problems. When students do
not have access to this position, they turn to scientific safeguards such as replication
of previous studies, academic authorities or what they perceive as established and
unquestionable methods, such as the random number generator. When students distrust
their own legitimacy as producers of academic knowledge – when they are without an
academic voice – they have difficulty transferring knowledge from earlier studies (e.g.
courses in methodology), and they are unable to productively make use of learning
activities, such as group-based workshops. They simply do not see how their project
850 M. Wendt and C. Åse

relates to others, or how different theories and methodologies relate to their own
project.
Our results show that the dynamics involved when students struggle to access aca-
demic discourse are complicated. Additionally, our results show that the students’
negotiations to obtain scientific legitimacy may, quite contrary to what might be
expected, restrict analytical thinking. For example, as students seek to give their
work scientific authority, they eradicate not only their personal opinions but also
their position as intellectual subjects. The possibility of gaining access to an indepen-
dent academic voice is thereby minimised. The paradox is that, without this voice, qua-
lified analysis becomes impossible.

Notes
1. The identities of the participating students remain anonymous, and the features of their pro-
jects have been changed to ensure that the students cannot be identified from their projects.
All students signed a consent form and could withdraw from the study at any time during
the course of the study.
2. The learning outcomes state that, upon completion of the course, the student will be able to
formulate a relevant research problem; plan, conduct and account for a social science study
within given conditions and scope criteria; identify, collect and analyse empirical material
using social science methods; justify and problematise the student’s own scientific work;
formulate text clearly and in accordance with scientific practice; and critically study and
constructively comment on scientific works. The entire course syllabus is available at
http://www.statsvet.su.se/English/Student/archive/course_syllabuses/SV200E_polsci_II_
autumn_12.pdf (downloaded 24 July 2012).
3. The first interview was conducted on 15 December 2011 for group A (Alexis, Edie,
Susanna) and group B (Jo, Kim, Linda, Maria, Thomas, Sam). The second interview was
conducted for group A on 17 January 2012 and for group B on 13 January 2012. The inter-
view tapes as well as the digital diaries are kept by the authors at Stockholm University.

References
Andrews, R. 2003. The end of the essay? Teaching in Higher Education 8, no. 1: 117–28.
Bates, S.R., and L. Jenkins. 2007. Teaching and learning ontology and epistemology in political
science. Politics 27, no. 1: 55–63.
Biggs, J. 2003. Teaching for quality learning at university. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Blaikie, N. 2000. Designing Social Research. The logic of anticipation. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Boscolo, P., B. Arfé, and M. Quarisa. 2007. Improving the quality of students’ academic
writing: an intervention study. Studies in Higher Education 32, no. 4: 419–38.
Çavdar, G., and S. Doe. 2012. Learning through writing: Teaching critical thinking skills in
writing assignments. PS – Political Science and Politics 45, no. 2: 298–306.
Dahlgren, L.O., A. Fejes, M. Abrandt-Dahlgren, and N. Trowald. 2009. Grading systems, fea-
tures of assessment and students’ approaches to learning. Teaching in Higher Education 14,
no. 2: 185–94.
Feigenbaum, A. 2007. The teachable moment: feminist pedagogy and the neoliberal classroom.
The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies 29, no. 4: 337–49.
Fitzgerald, J., and V.A. Baird. 2011. Taking a step back: Teaching critical thinking by dis-
tinguishing appropriate types of evidence. PS – Political Science and Politics 44, no. 3:
619–24.
Haggis, T. 2006. Pedagogies for diversity: Retaining critical challenge amidst fears of ‘dumbing
down’. Studies in Higher Education 31, no. 5: 521–35.
Hounsell, D. 2005a. Contrasting conceptions of essay writing. In The experience of learning:
Implications for teaching and studying in higher education, ed. F. Marton, D. Hounsell
 Studies in Higher Education 851

and N. Entwistle, 106–25. 3rd Internet ed. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for
Teaching, Learning and Assessment.
Hounsell, Dai 2005b. Understanding teaching and teaching for understanding. In The experience
of learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education, ed. F. Marton, D.
Hounsell and N. Entwistle, 238–57. 3rd Internet ed. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh,
Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment.
Jansson M., M. Wendt, and C. Åse. 2013. Common-sense notions of ‘nation’: A challenge for
teaching. Journal of Political Science Education 9, no. 1: 34–51.
Jauhianinen, A., A. Jauhianinen, and A. Laiho. 2009. The dilemmas of the ‘efficiency univer-
sity’ policy and the everyday life of university teachers. Teaching in Higher Education
14, no. 4: 417–28.
Jones, A. 2009. Redisciplining generic attributes: the disciplinary context in focus. Studies in
Higher Education 31, no. 1: 85–100.
Kreber, C. 1998. The relationship between self-directed learning, critical thinking, and psycho-
logical types, and some implications for teaching. Studies in Higher Education 23, no. 1:
71–86.
MacLellan, E. 2004. How reflective is the academic essay? Studies in Higher Education 29, no.
1: 75–89.
Marks, M.P. 2008. Fostering scholarly discussion and critical thinking in the political science
classroom. Journal of Political Science Education 4, no. 2: 205–24.
Moore, B.Z., L. Faltin, and M. Wright. 2003. Critical thinking and international post graduate
students. Discourse 3, no. 1: 63–94.
Moore, T. 2013. Critical thinking: seven definitions in search of a concept. Studies in Higher
Education 38, no. 4: 506–22.
Niven, P. 2011. Intersecting epistemologies: First year students’ knowledge discourses in a pol-
itical science module. Teaching in Higher Education 16, no. 6: 641–53.
North, S. 2005. Different values, different skills? A comparison of essay writing by students
from arts and science background. Studies in Higher Education 30, no. 5: 517–33.
Northedge, A. 2003a. Rethinking teaching in the context of diversity. Teaching in Higher
Education 8, no. 1: 17–32.
Northedge, A. 2003b. Enabling participation in academic discourse. Teaching in Higher
Education 8, no. 2: 169–80.
Olsen, J., and A. Statham. 2005. Critical thinking in political science: Evidence from the
introductory comparative politics course. Journal of Political Science Education 1, no. 3:
323–44.
Oros, A.L. 2007. Lets debate: Active learning encourages student participation and critical
thinking. Journal of Political Science Education 3, no. 3: 293–311.
Pollock III, P.H. 2011. The essentials of political analysis, Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Ramsden, P. 2005. The context of learning in academic departments. In The experience of learn-
ing: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education, ed. F. Marton, D. Hounsell
and N. Entwistle, 198–216. 3rd Internet ed. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for
Teaching, Learning and Assessment.
Stein, R. 2011. Seeing white through rap: A classroom exercise for examining race using a hip-
hop video. Journal of Political Science Education 7, no. 3: 312–28.
Thornberg, R. 2012. Informed grounded theory. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research
56, no. 3: 243–59.
Timmermans, S., and I. Tavory. 2012. Theory construction in quality research: from grounded
theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory 30, no. 3: 167–86.
Wagner, C., M. Garner, and B. Kawulich. 2011. The state of the art of teaching research methods
in the social sciences: Towards a pedagogical culture. Studies in Higher Education 36, no. 1:
75–88.
Copyright of Studies in Higher Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.