The Curious Predicament of an (un)Comfortable Thesis Conclusion: Writing with New Materialisms

Abstract

A conclusion often entails providing answers derived from questions like “What does all this mean?” and “What do we now know about the topic we did not know before?” While conventionally appealing, these questions become redundant within a feminist new materialist approach, as they are premised on a separation between the knower (researcher) and the known (subject/s). This chapter explores tensions that emerge between ontological foundations of research and thesis writing conventions, such as a tidy conclusion. Drawing on Karen Barad’s (2007) concepts of onto-epistem-ology and intra-action, I consider how a new materialist ontology reconfigures binary concepts such as question/answer, research/ researcher, and knowing/not knowing. These binary concepts often underpin the conclusions a thesis offers, along with doctoral framings of success and failure. The chapter ponders questions that emerge for re-imagining doctoral writing when binaries are blurred. A conventional Ph.D. thesis1 suggests a tidy package neatly bound by an inviting introduction and a comfortable conclusion. This structure follows the guidance provided in the plethora of books on “how to write a thesis”: well-meaning advice underpinned by the goal of (ideally) leaving the writer and examiner with a sense of purpose and satisfaction (Eco, 2015; Evans et al., 2014; Gruba & Zobel, 2017; Murray, 2011). In this chapter, I consider what happens when a theoretical framework provides, or rather demands, an ending that is not so neatly packaged. What happens when academic con1 The term “thesis” is commonly used in Aotearoa New Zealand, although for some readers, the term “dissertation” may be more familiar.