The most important (as opposed to the most powerful) audience for my PhD dissertation

I have always intended my research to be of more interest and use to activists than to anyone else. Nonetheless, I think my tendency in academic writing to criticize weaknesses in the climate movement is ultimately motivated by a desperate determination to collectively take our best shot at avoiding climatic disaster.

Operating under those conditions, I contend that we cannot afford to be congratulatory or to prioritize making activists feel positive over what they have done over continuing to pursue the goals which motivated them. I got into CFFD activism already expecting climate change to be the main work for the rest of my life. My experiences with the Keystone XL protests in Washington in 2011, with Toronto350.org between 2012 and 2017, with the first University of Toronto divestment campaign, and with conducting this research has shown me how many others share that sense of purpose and importance. When I criticize the work of activists it is because I think we cannot afford to fail and that learning is a critical skill and practice for us all, not because I don’t respect the thought and effort which they have put into it.

Plus, I don’t expect anyone to take what I say for granted. One advantage of academic-style writing is that there are clear standards of attribution, with an expectation of identifying where your supporting information comes from. One thing I would say confidently about volunteer-based environmental organizations is that we’re always muddling through and doing the best we can amid our limitations and constraints. Even if you end up fully disagreeing with an idea which I try to advance or defend, perhaps it will prompt you to rethink or refine your view on the topic. It’s through adjustments of perspective like that we can all become collectively better informed.

Dissertation progress, early June 2022

They’re not 100% finished, but tonight I was able to send 2 of my 4 core chapters to my third committee member.

Some things which I am still looking for more evidence about:

  • The salience of climate change as a political issue had risen before the divestment movement began in 2012
  • Climate change is especially salient to young people
  • 350.org encouraged campus fossil fuel divestment campaigns to use informal, non-hierarchical forms of organizing

I am working on incorporating corrections to chapter 2/4 (on mobilizing structures) within the next day or so. Then I can move on to wrapping up chapter 4/4 (framing) with more rounds of comments and changes with committee members. Then I can re-write the introduction and conclusion, fill in any remaining important gaps, and get the whole dissertation to the internal external and external external examiners.

Bert Robinson Park, 11:32pm

Four substantive chapters make up the argument of my dissertation, covering metaphors or categories from the academic literature on contentious politics: the political opportunity structure where activists develop approaches to advance their goals; the mobilizing structures they use to choose priorities and make decisions; the repertoires of contentious actions they perform; and the framing which comprises their world view and theory of how to achieve political change.

I have written many versions of each, in drafts going back for at least a couple of years now. Continuous interaction with my advisory committee is making them more concise and focused on defending specific claims.

I had a fourth version (v4) of the thesis a couple of years ago, but it was an intolerable 700 pages and my committee members had many other comments on what was important to conclude and how to structure the argument.

A few months ago I had a sixth version (v6) available for the committee (the fifth was clean sheet rewrite which I never got far into). It was cut to about 50 pages per chapter to leave room in a standard 300 page dissertation for an introduction and conclusion.

Since then and in close consultation with my committee I have been revising the introductions to each substantive chapter — which lay out a structure and argument and explain how the content of the chapter relates to the through story of the dissertation. With a round or two of meetings or comments we revise an introduction, then I redraft the rest of the chapter based on the largely-formed raw material of v6.

Tonight I sent the revised version of the repertoires chapter, which along with political opportunity and mobilizing structures (which they have already seen and told me to proceed from) will comprise 3/4 of the main text.

I have been very grateful for an enormous amount of sympathy, aid, and support from family members and friends. The whole PhD experience has been shaped by the people who I have been fortunate enough to be close with over these years. Your aid has been indispensable throughout this process of coming up with a book-size idea… and then wrenching it out of my brain as an actual book.

Diss progress

I sent the updated (v7) version of the mobilizing structures chapter late Friday night. The task due today is to review v6 of the repertoires chapter and comments from supervisors on v4 and then write the opening 3-4 pages for what will become the structure of the new chapter.

The “wow” from delayed source discovery

There ought to be a name for the experience, when involved in the long process of writing up a dissertation or scholarly book, of coming across a scholarly source and thinking: “Wow! I wish I had read this several years ago when it was published!”

Going through such a document line-by-line in printout form while making extensive marginal notes serves several valuable purposes. It gives you something else to respond to and cite, knowing it has already crossed the bar of being accepted as scholarly. That’s good if they broadly agree with you (adding another reference with a short citation) and probably even better if they disagree, since it lets you contrast yourself with something specific and scholarly. It directs you to yet other potentially useful sources. Finally, it provides an example of a complete and successful piece of scholarly writing, which is always an inspiration and even a source of comfort when striving to produce one of your own.

The struggle for focus and productivity

Due to an overwhelmingly stressful family situation, which kept me up all night Friday and Saturday with racing intrusive thoughts, I have deleted my WhatsApp account and disabled the phone and messaging features on my cell phone.

I gave my committee a commitment that I would have a complete political opportunities chapter done this weekend for version 7 of the dissertation. Working during the great majority of my waking time, I am getting close, though there are still some gaps to fill and the whole thing to review.

Related:

Thoughts on my PhD in 2022

Amid all the struggle with trying to get my dissertation done, I have frequently thought about the sunk cost fallacy: basically the idea that because you have invested a lot in something, you need to keep going. It’s called a fallacy because we can’t change the past and need to decide whether any undertaking is worthwhile at every moment in time. Just because you have devoted time, money, or resources to something in the past doesn’t mean you should continue to do so if the additional commitment needed isn’t justified by the outcome you get.

I probably didn’t get into a PhD program for a terribly good reason. I was never aspiring to be an academic, which is the one career where you actually need one (and arguably the only one where you wouldn’t be better off with the same number of years of job experience). I had determined that it would be impossible for me to stay in the federal government, condemned to helping implement disastrous climate change policies and prohibited under their view of professional ethics from engaging in the public conversation on how to get out of this mess. While trying to find a way out that would allow me to do something positive and meaningful on climate change, I applied for a slew of jobs and didn’t get interviewed for any. Then, with Rebeka applying to master’s programs, we came up with an idea to apply to the same places and hopefully end up studying at the same school. She went to Yale, I went to U of T, essentially for lack of better options at the time.

I think if I could send what I know now about how the PhD program has gone so far back in time to myself in 2011 or 2012, that version of me would choose to do something else. At the same time, I feel like these years have been some of the most important and productive in my life, albeit not particularly in the academic sense. One reason grad school was appealing was as a platform to do activist work that I wasn’t allowed to in government. While both helping establish and run Toronto350.org and the U of T divestment campaign involved a lot of suffering, frustration, despair, and heartache, they also made me learn a great deal about activism and clarify my own thinking about how to drive political change to avoid catastrophic climate change.

The chance to be part of the Massey College community, as a resident for three years and subsequently as a non-resident and alumnus, has undoubtedly been a major boon of these past ten years. People joke that “youth is wasted on the young” and in some ways the positives of being at university are wasted on those who haven’t been in the working world. All through my time at Massey, and through the PhD generally, I have felt fortunate for being able to appreciate the contrast between employment and education and the rich social and intellectual life at universities. If people ever ask me now about whether to do a PhD, I tell them that the only reason to do it is because you enjoy being in university so much that you are willing to sacrifice a great deal of lifetime income, career progression, and retirement security to have the chance to spend more time in school. I haven’t the slightest idea where the rest of my life will take me, but at least I did cherish and value my extended exposure to the scholarly environment, even though my actual PhD work was often frustrating and less rewarding. The photography I did at Massey has also undoubtedly been the most extensive and successful project I have undertaken in that craft.

The academic progression from undergrad to M.Phil to PhD is based on the idea that a high degree of academic success in the prior program demonstrates your suitability for the latter. At no stage does the application and acceptance program consider your personal and emotional maturity, and thus ability to endure in something as lonely and unforgiving as a PhD. In retrospect, I definitely didn’t have the emotional skills to thrive as a PhD student in 2012 — just as I didn’t have the emotional security and skills to make a real success of my M.Phil thesis in 2007. I didn’t have the self-assurance to push through the ego defence reflex to criticism of my work, and therefore I couldn’t really be helped to make it better. To a lesser degree I still don’t, which is doubtless part of why writing up has been so painful.

I don’t want to get into the details here, but I feel at this point that the most valuable thing that has happened to me during the PhD program has been the way exposure to the acute and intolerable suffering of others — and my powerlessness to intervene and stop it — has forced me to take responsibility for my own life as the only thing I can control. Again I don’t want to get into details, but there have been immature forms of self-destructive behaviour that exposure to that suffering has burned away for me, and I think that will endure for the rest of my life. Metaphorically, I feel like I will never need a tattoo because my scars are already all the permanent and individualized marking I need. As assessed by my present-day self, achieving that (though it was totally impossible to predict beforehand) is itself sufficient to justify everything that I have put into this doctorate.

There are still three big reasons I want to finish my dissertation and the program. I think that I have collected information and analysis which would be of value to both the academic and activist community, and it will get more credibility and attention as a successfully defended PhD thesis than as anything I publish independently or elsewhere. The only real benefit I could promise to my research participants is that they would get to see the results, so I feel an obligation to them to get this material out into the world. Even if I am totally wrong, I will hopefully give others something productive to argue against. Finally, even though it has taken ten years I feel like it will be a whole lot easier for the rest of my life to explain to potential employers how I had a long and difficult, but ultimately successful, experience in the PhD, as opposed to one that ended after so much time and effort with no degree. There may be elements of sunk cost fallacy in that, but it doesn’t seem irrational to me.

P.S. In another example of how hard it is to judge whether an outcome is good or bad at the time it happens, I am now glad that I wasn’t accepted to any of the top-tier US schools where I applied, though it felt a bitter blow then. With the Trump election and its terrifying consequences, I’m very hesitant about the idea of even visiting the US and glad that I spent these years building up knowledge and personal connections within Canada.

Dissertation extract: structural barriers to climate change action

Today I saw a Twitter post with some text that governments cut from the Summary for Policymakers from the 6th Assessment Report (AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

B6.4. Factors limiting ambitious transformation include structural barriers, an incremental rather than systemic approach, lack of coordination, inertia, lock-in to infrastructure and assets, and lock-in as a consequence of vested interests, regulatory inertia, and lack of technological capabilities and human resources. (high confidence) {1.5, 2.8, 5.5, 6.7, 13.8}

This accords with the section on structural barriers to climate action in my in-progress dissertation.

In response, I have released a draft section from my dissertation on the structural barriers that make controlling climate change so challenging. The barriers are essential for understanding why growing scientific alarm has not translated into adequate policy responses. It also raises questions for environmentalists working to control the problem, since part of the issue is their own opposition to fossil fuel alternatives.