Tari Fanderclai wrote:
> How are you supposed to learn anything or think of anything
> new if you're up to your ears 24/7 doing what's customary?
James Inman responded:
> My point, ultimately, is that the bounds need to be pushed for change to
> emerge in the work we do, but that such pushing, if it does not acknowledge
> in an informed and mature way the longstanding history and tradition of the
> particular genre(s), may not find much success. Powerful is the scholar
> who can push the bounds in a way that excites both traditionalists and
> innovators.
and Steve Krause added:
> Form in and of itself is not an innovation
I responded to Jude's post early on, and took a rather unpopular
position vis-a-vis the dissertation. I stand by my position:
dissertations are valuable and necessary, if difficult and occassionally
unpleasant, requirements for a terminal degree. I did NOT say that it
was simply an exercise - I did say "hoop" although "hoop" does not
necessarily mean "not worth doing." I think there are many
dissertations that, in retrospect, weren't worth doing in a longer-term
sense than as a requirment for the degree - maybe mine is one. Who
knows. Even if that is true, I will value my diss as the artifact of a
particular learning experience.
The linear book-length study I completed and submitted in "partial
fulfillment" of my degree was a valuable learning experience -for me-.
I would not have earned my degree without finishing it, of course, but
more important was my struggle both with the text and with my committee
members. Here I use "struggle" in the sense of a difficult but
worthwhile endeavor: challenging but rewarding. I responded to Jude's
post with this experience fresh in my mind, with the experience of
working on an extended mono-logical linear text fresh in thought, and I
thought I should chime in on the hypertext dissertation discussion.
This was in context of the online component of a town hall meeting I
signed on regarding mentoring. And in the context of mentoring, I was
addressing Jude's concern with finding participants for her committee.
This is a situation for good -rhetorical- action. No matter how "good"
a hypermedia duck may be, it does not walk, sound, look, or smell enough
like a duck to be recognized as a duck by the institution. A series of
excellent (if retrograde) linear book-length studies, whether begun as
dissertations or as book projects, would go a long way towards educating
our institutions and colleagues about the rhetorical value of hypertext
work. I am talking about a "we" of tenure-line faculty, the "we" I am
concerned with mentoring and being mentored by.
Hypertext as multi-linear argument is not (yet?) recognized as
scholarly. It isn't given any cache. And insisting that graduate
students "have" to do hypertext work -as- their dissertations (as
"partial fulfillment of the degree") is dangerous -if- that degree
candidate is interested in working in colleges/universities in a
tenure-line faculty position. I wouldn't be a responsible mentor if I
didn't say that to someone thinking about a hypermedia dissertation.
Now, if they were set on writing hypermedia, I would do my best to make
it possible, but the candidate would at least know -some- of what they
were getting themselves into. A rhetorical situation: can I mentor
responsibly, provide a mentee with accurate descriptions of the
situation, and still support a decision I do not fully agree with?
Sure. But I will also make my position known and understood: what are
the candidate's goals? Do they understand the potential problems they
will face? Do they understand the potential perceptions of their work
when they go on the job search?
Administrative discussions right now are centered on digital storage and
dissemination of linear text -- this is a discussion we can participate
in and effect the outcome of the discussion. It's not instant change.
It is incremental change. But it is change, and informed, thoroughly
discussed change will last and alter the institution itself. Demanding
recognition for multi-linear hypertext dissertations isn't going to
help. Arguing for recognition will, but it will take time.
Dissertations themselves are documents that will follow (us) tenure
track faculty throughout (our) their careers; they need to be accessible
for the lengths of our careers and be readable. And frankly, demanding
that change to dissertation expectations be made RIGHT NOW is going to
do little but make people (who may be sympathetic to hypermedia and/or
institutional reform) hesitate to take the insurgent side. And I
believe that multi-linear hypertext is very valuable, and can add much
to scholarship ... but I recognize that my -position- needs to be
articulated and argued, and developed over time.
Tari, providing me with a way to finally close this email, wrote:
> The creative people have lots of choices; they don't
> *have* to persevere through the dissertation to get
> somewhere where they can make use of their talents.
I agree with Tari's argument: no one needs a PhD to live a successful,
rewarding life. However, if one is interested in teaching and
researching at the college and university level in a tenure-track
position, it -is- a requirement. The implication in Tari's sentence,
however, that creative people are in one group and
linear-dissertation-writers are in another group, is unfair. I assert
that I am creative AND I wrote a linear dissertation. In five or ten
years, when this email is used to show that I do not support hypertext
dissertations, I will point to the date stamp and assert that the time
was not right in 2000. We'll see in 2005 or 2010. Between now and
then, however, there need to be MORE creative people writing killer
linear paper-based dissertations that get transformed into books that
administrators and tenured folk read and that convince them to think
about the form of dissertations. We may all be hypermedia butterflies,
but we're still talking to paper-based caterpillars.
I have a serious question: what, in hypermedia/hypertext theory,
supports the idea that writing linear text (or knowing how to write
linear text) is anathema to hypermedia? In other words, does writing a
linear dissertation damage one's ability to write effective hypertext?
Conversely, what is the potential harm of -refusing- to write linear
expository prose? What does such a position do to computers and writing
as a field of inquiry?
--
mike
salvo@ttu.edu
* Message sent from Online2K - http://www.furman.edu/~jinman/cw2k/elists/
* Visit URL above to unsubscribe, read archives, and more!