Suman Pokharel
A real master does not make you a follower;
he makes you free, independent, and utterly yourself.
-— Osho Rajneesh
I had written a reflection paper a year ago, and in it, I mentioned the actual reason for enrolling in the M Phil English Program at Nepal Open University. Certainly, it is due to the thirst for learning how to write research papers. Now, the journey of the third semester M Phil study is about to end, so I am writing this reflection to explain my experience of this semester, particularly focusing on one interesting subject- Independent Study.
When I was admitted this semester, I observed the course of study and knew that there were three subjects to be studied. Among them, the course title of one subject amused and intrigued me because it indicated something unique: independent study. I asked myself what type of subject it might be and what types of English issues would be included, and later thought to myself, “This subject might include the issues of those countries that gained independence after colonization.” Wasn’t it critical thinking of mine? But, when the class started, I was startled because there was no course of study, particular texts, or chapters to study in this subject. What could be happier for students than not reading any textbooks in the classroom the whole semester? I was eagerly waiting for this class, and when Dr. Komal Prasad Phuyal appeared as our course instructor, I was extremely glad because he was familiar to us from our first semester; similarly, I was familiar with the breadth of his scholarly knowledge in his subject.
Dr. Phuyal explained the nature of this subject, the topics to be discussed in class, and made it clear why it is called an independent study. Knowing the major concern of this subject made me very excited because it was related to writing research papers and dissertations in our field of independent choice. Yes, this is what I was expecting from the beginning of this program. Though we had done the task of writing research articles in the first and second semesters, the contribution of Dr. Phuyal to enable us to write papers was highly praiseworthy. In addition, I was expecting more from him this semester.
The class moved smoothly forward, and we engaged with our instructor’s insightful lectures. He started the class with how to conduct research writing from the very beginning. Dr. Phuyal told us that, before conducting the research work on literary text, we should make reading notes of our primary text. While making the reading notes, we should include notes, quotes, and reflections. No teacher and no level of study before this gave me the idea of forming reading notes in this way, so I have taken this idea as a golden rule (Guru Mantra) from him and it has given me a lot of confidence that I can now interpret any type of literary texts in my own way. Another important piece of advice he gave about forming reading notes is that we should not observe the text from any particular perspective at first. If we do so, we are only focused on a single agenda and cannot see other perspectives or ways of interpreting the text. For instance, if a reader wants to prove the text from a feminist perspective, he/she starts taking notes only from that perspective, so he/she cannot see the existentialist or psychological dimensions hidden in the text. Therefore, his suggestion was that reading notes should be more comprehensive; if we do so, it helps to produce different articles using the same reading notes. In this sense, he made us understand that comprehensive reading notes work as a data bank for the research writers.
While he was suggesting that we not give any angle and not prepare thematically focused reading notes, he gave one interesting example that I still remember. According to him, if a worker of the shop goes to buy goods in the wholesale market following his master’s order, he might bring only one thing from the market, but if the shop owner himself goes to buy the goods, he brings all the necessary goods for his shop. In this way, by observing the text from only one angle and completing the task solely to fulfill the assignment’s requirements, we end up with only one paper. Still, if we make comprehensive reading notes that cover all possible angles, it will help generate many research papers in the coming days as well. This thing really made us aware that comprehensive reading notes can create many opportunities to bring together research articles.
He told us that the second step in formulating a research article is to create the working bibliography. These are the possible texts and secondary sources related to our research. They provide ideas for observing the explored areas, support for thematic aspects, and issues to include in the literature review section of the article, which helps define the research gap of our research. Dr. Phuyal made it clear to us about the differences between bibliography and works cited. He added that when the documents from the bibliography do not enter into our research, we should delete them. When we include bibliographic documents in our report writing, they become part of the work citation, and we should keep them in the last section of our research work in a proper format. We knew that research starts with the bibliography, and the completion of research writing appears in the last section of the works cited in our paper. He added that making a list of work citations after completing the writing paper is not a good idea. We have to keep listing the works as the documents enter our writing. If we do not do so promptly, it will be difficult to manage the parts and documents later, and the researcher will suffer greatly.
Our instructor made it clear that doing research and presenting research are different things. According to him, there are various ways of presenting research, such as oral presentations during a conference, viva voce presentations, journal papers, books, and documentaries.
In the third step of research writing, his suggestion was to handle the literature review section properly. He said this part is not specific to the title of our research paper and does not directly connect to our interpretation of the primary text. In this sense, we can prepare this part before other parts of the research article, such as the introduction, methodology, and discussion. This part is used to show the existing studies in particular text on particular issues. It mostly helps us to generate a research gap. Our instructor led a broad discussion of the research gap, and he gave us new insight into how we can create one in our research paper writing.
He stated that the research gap is the undiscovered aspect of the particular research task. We can perform it in various ways. First, we can compile a list of the scholars’ previous work and present our work as a new perspective. Second, we can review previous research and identify incomplete studies, then either complete them or give them new angles. Similarly, the third way is to observe other studies, identify their shortcomings, and work from our own perspective. At this point, we can mention that the intention of my work is not to complete this previous work, nor is this beyond the scope of my present paper. In other research, I can elaborate on this issue, but this research takes a different direction. If we do so, it shows the researcher’s maturity, as readers praise the researcher’s wide-angle perspective. I found that these deeper concepts for identifying research gaps are rarely discussed in academia. There is just a narrow view of the research gap, which says we cannot do any research work in previous studies. This discussion widened the door of my conscience regarding the research gap. Dr. Phuyal added that it is not always necessary to support and agree with what previous studies have argued and claimed about a particular theme in their research area. This idea really helped me broaden my perspective and made me more independent in my own ideas and in my consciousness of how to formulate arguments in research article writing.
We discussed in detail the other parts of the research article, such as the title, introduction, keywords, methodology, and interpretations of the text. He suggested we write an abstract as the very last step because it contains the gist of the whole research work. His argument was that, without methodologies, results, and discussion, the abstract is incomplete at first; if we write an abstract at the very beginning, we have to revise it after completing the research writing. Our instructor strongly disagreed with writing ‘qualitative method’ in the methodology section of a literature-based article. He said that the method of conducting research on literary texts is hermeneutics, or the interpretation of the text; it is not necessary to write a qualitative or quantitative methodology. We understood his suggestion to mean focusing on the interpretation of the primary text. In this way, he gave us a clear roadmap to formulate a perfect research article. Recently, he launched an ambitious group research paper writing project under his command. He divided us into different groups and gave us the task of writing our parts in group work under his supervision. It was certainly a wonderful idea to train us, and we were extremely grateful because it helped us sharpen our research writing skills.
Another important subject we discussed in this class was the fundamentals of writing dissertation proposals. This discussion was held for the upcoming fourth-semester dissertation preparation. We all know that before writing a thesis, we have to prepare a proposal, and after defending it with a viva, the proposal’s approval only leads to the next stage of thesis writing. Nevertheless, most of us face the same challenge of writing a proper thesis proposal. Here in this discussion, Dr. Phuyal made it very easy to understand the parts and the essence of the writing proposal. As the subject was Independent Study, we were all free to choose our desired texts and areas of interest. Our instructor offered suggestions to scholars who were a bit confused about the selection of texts and areas. He did not force any students to take any particular text or area; he just suggested, which shows his intention to make his students independent enough to explore the issues themselves, and I think this is the mark of a great teacher. He often told in class that his purpose was not to give fish to the students but to teach them how to catch fish, and this same great thinking of his made me quote the saying of Osho Rajneesh at the top of this writing, which is actually dedicated in honor of our instructor, Dr. Phuyal. He was well aware that forcing particular text and perspective in students’ work makes them feel like a reined-in horse. His aim was to make students fly freely like birds, with creativity, and to explore to the full their capacity, showing and proving what they can do.
He gave us detailed guidance on writing a thesis proposal. First, he suggested that all the scholars finalize the primary text for the research proposal, and then he described its parts. I found his discussion about the research problem and research questions very interesting. It changed my perception of writing a proposal, which I had carried over from my master’s degree. I had the idea that a thesis proposal should include specific sections, such as the research problem, research questions, and the hypothesis, but Dr. Phuyal presented it differently. His idea of the research problem and my concept matched, but the research questions and hypotheses differed. According to him, a research problem is an unexplained issue in a particular set of text in literary research. When we identify it, it is the research gap in a particular issue within a particular text, and from this research gap, we formulate the research questions. I agreed with him on this concept.
Our instructor’s observations about research questions were interesting and different from mine because in our master’s degree, we were taught that there would be three research questions in the proposal. They are created in what, why, and how form, and those questions should be fulfilled by the research objectives. Contrary to this, Dr. Phuyal put forward a new concept: that this is the traditional way to write a proposal. He said that humanities students should not write research questions in this form, as it is unnecessary and suitable only for the social science faculty. According to him, research questions address the issues or matters of the study, so he suggested we focus on hidden issues and explain them in a specific set of text as a research problem. Focusing on interpreting the text in a new light rather than spending much time on the research questions is a better approach for literary research. Similarly, he had objections about the hypothesis section of the proposal. He recommended omitting the hypothesis section from the research proposal. He made it clear that the research problem is a major issue in our study, and we are not going to test the hypothesis. Then, he provided us with a clear understanding of the research objectives. He stated that the objective of the study is to identify the gap, address it, and explain it. In this way, we were given ideas about the different parts of the thesis proposal in the newer version, which helped to erase the traditional sketch of the thesis proposal from my mind.
After giving a clear concept of how to write a proposal, he gave us the same assignment. We started the task according to his lecture, forming a working bibliography as the beginning step. He divided this assignment so that we students could complete it easily. He assigned this to be completed in three drafts. In the first draft, we were asked to write only six pages. In the second draft, he demanded ten pages, and in the third draft, he was told to complete the proposal with six thousand words above. I think he used this approach not to make students feel overwhelmed at the beginning of proposal writing, and I find it a suitable way to apply it when assigning tasks to my students as well.
Another important issue Dr. Phuyal raised is the use of Artificial Intelligence in the modern age. There was broad discussion on whether to use or deny, encourage or discourage the use of AI in our academic research. He shared an example of how people once considered television a disadvantage, and now some view AI similarly. His understanding of this issue was entirely different. In his view, we cannot totally deny the use of modern-era technology. In that sense, we can use AI in our research project to formulate ideas, generate bibliographies and citations, and convert citations from one format to another. He practically demonstrated the use of some AI tools, including ChatGPT, Notebook LM, and Consensus AI. We knew how ChatGPT helps make a working bibliography and how to use NotebookLM to generate ideas for our text. I found NotebookLM very interesting because our instructor showed how it generates audio podcasts, visual slides, and a bullet-point mind map from our related text. Similarly, I found the use of Consensus AI so helpful for the research scholars. This AI tool is useful for arranging scholarly articles in the literature review section. It provides a summary and brief ideas about previously published articles, saving the researcher a lot of time when reading the full articles. It classifies published articles by theme, so we can find the articles in our desired area. The central focus of this discussion about AI was how to use it properly. He points out that AI use should be ethical in literary research. We should not use it as a writing tool for our research, as it is unethical and constitutes an undeclared crime; such works are unacceptable in university education and academia.
Later, our discussion turned to plagiarism, the similarity index, and AI detection tools. If scholars use AI as a writing tool, there is a lot of AI detection software to detect such writing. Turnitin, iThenticate, GPTZero, Scribbr, etc., can easily detect such writing and produce a report on the writing. Our instructor practically demonstrated how iThenticate detects AI-generated writing in front of us. I think he did so to make us aware of the conscious use of AI. He made it clear how plagiarism is different from the similarity index. Similarly, he told us another thing: that while writing research articles, we should not cite unprofessional writers. We should check the background of writers; their professionalism in particular fields, and also check the use of AI in their writing. For that, we can check the profiles of scholars on platforms like Google Scholar or ORCID. If a scholar is writing across diverse fields simultaneously, we may suspect that their work is not genuine. If we check writers’ fields of writing, publication frequency, journal type, etc., before citing, then we are only in safe territory. Another general hint Dr. Phuyal gave us is that articles published after 2022 are more likely to use AI than those published before, because common people gained free access to AI after that date. This insight heightened our awareness of how careful we should be when writing our research articles. Later, he encouraged us to discuss the same matter by creating a forum in Moodle where we wrote our views and commented on each other’s with agreement or disagreement, which helped us to understand others’ ideas and how they think about the same issues in their own way. In this manner, he prompted us to be independent in the use of AI in research paper writing.
Another lecture by Dr. Phuyal was a seminar on dissertation structure. This was most important for us because we have to work on it in our following semester. After submitting a dissertation, we can complete our studies at this level at the university. He imparted to us some ideas on how to start writing a thesis and also some background knowledge, such as that 3% of total reading makes a thesis in the MPhil level, meaning that reading 100 pages of texts allows writing only 3 pages in a thesis at this level. We had never heard of this concept of reading percent before. We didn’t know how many hours or how many pages we needed to read to produce a thesis at different levels, like Master’s Degree, M Phil, and PhD. We didn’t know, which was really new to us.
As he pointed out, at the early stage of writing a thesis, we can use the same method he suggested earlier for writing a research article. We can start by forming a working bibliography, reading notes, and a literature review section. At this point, he reminded us of the use of Consensus AI in the literature review.
The main thing that attracted me to this lecture was the dissertation’s chapter division. He first taught us the concept of thesis, and he used it in the formula- ‘synthesis+analysis+conclusion=Thesis’. It was so easy to understand the dissertation concept with this simple, shortcut form. Later, he guided us on how to include different chapters in our dissertation. According to him, the synthesis section combines the literature review, the research gap, and the methodology. Similarly, analysis is the interpretation of our primary text, and the conclusion section is the summary of the whole thesis. His suggestion to us was to focus more on the analysis and discussion section. In his words, it is the part where we can dance with our ideas, critical thinking, and decode linguistic complexity. He gave us insight that the analysis should cover 60% of the whole thesis. We learned that the gravity of the analysis chapter determines the organization of the whole thesis. He suggested we avoid unnecessary block citations and instead use short in-text citations. His suggestion regarding in-text citations is worth noting. He told us to give the gist of previous studies in paraphrase and to include only a small chunk of in-text citation. We understood that this way reflects the maturity of the research scholar to produce a thesis or even an article. He gave a brief idea about the thesis writing tense, too. Later, he assisted us in writing our thesis, with separate chapters. This discussion gave us the confidence to organize and write our thesis for the days ahead.
In his last lecture, Dr. Phuyal took our feedback and addressed our confusion regarding previously discussed subject matters, removing any confusion among the scholars. Before saying goodbye for this semester, he left us some constructive ideas on how to stay up to date in academia after completing our M Phil degree. He again suggested that we make comprehensive reading notes on any text we use for research writing, because it will help us produce many articles combining old and new data in the future. He posited that if any new idea strikes him, he should write it down in a notebook and apply it in future projects. He recommended that we attend the conferences with our papers to present them, meet people, talk with other scholars, listen to their ideas, and understand how they think about certain issues, and compare how we are thinking about our ideas. He added that idea generation is the way of life for scholars. His last words in his last lecture were, “pressure does not produce mature paper, it takes time to form the concept about the writing. Continuous revising, rewriting, and reworking can only bring the refined ideas in our research work and keeps you alive in academia.” This statement makes me think deeply about the idea that producing research articles solely for publication is not a good idea. We should consider what our work can contribute to knowledge generation in our research field. Finally, he advised us to focus on a particular field and build our domain expertise in that area, which helps develop our recognition in academia. He suggested we create our profiles on Google Scholar and Orchid and said that a research paper portfolio makes a strong presence for scholars. At last, he encouraged all the scholars to prepare for the university service commission in the future and expected to meet some of his students in the university service.
Now that our Independent Study class is over, it has made me more independent in my critical thinking. At this point, I have realized that I have found what I was expecting from enrolling in the M Phil program. Dr. Phuyal has left us fully trained, as if a mother bird were training her nestlings to fly. He has trained in writing research articles, thesis proposals, and theses, and in what is needed for scholars at this level. He has taught us how to search for online materials, how to handle AI, how to organize research articles, and all the basics to advanced ideas for producing articles and a thesis. These things have really inspired me, made me more independent in producing my work, and broadened my worldview of literary research. His pedagogical approach was interesting for conceptualizing the research writing. I found that no teachers used such a practical modality to train their students at this level. He sets an example that online education can also contribute equally to student training as on-site classes do. He has shown that students can conduct research on online platforms as well.
The creative, critical, and philosophical thinking of Dr. Phuyal has impressed me. His style of teaching, interaction with students, sharing of his personal learning experiences with his students, his eagerness to give something important to students, his wide knowledge and perspectives to see the world view, and his radical thinking about the traditional modality of education in Nepalese academia have made him my personal favorite instructor. The articles he has frequently published in his field have established him as one of the renowned scholars of Nepalese academia. I am extremely happy to be trained with such an instructor. I am damn sure that my thirst for learning research paper writing would not have been satisfied without getting him into this M Phil program at Nepal Open University. In that sense, I would like to thank Dr. Phuyal from the depths of my heart through this reflection paper, for being my instructor and for training me to the utmost. I say, I will be in touch with him in the future, also to get his academic guidance.
In such a way, one instructor has made me “free, independent, and utterly” myself in the literary research writing process, as Osho mentions in his argument at the beginning of this reflection.
