First off, what Mike and Janet just said in their last posts. I agree
100%. I also think it's interesting to factor in to the discussion the
role of the diss in the hiring process. I agree with what y'all are saying
here, but somehow the diss and the process of writing it has a little
different meaning for the student and for the advisor, I think. I can't
put my finger on exactly what that is, but it's something...
Anyway, Kathy suggested in her last post that I actually did know "the
rules" about these things and I articulated them, dispite my denial. Well,
I think I know "the rules," but I don't know "THE RULES" and I don't think
such a universal and all controlling animal exists. What I'm getting at is
I think there are some reasonably accurate generalizations we can make
about the dissertating process, but there are some key differences between
institutions and programs. And it seems to me one of the key differences
is how a hypertext diss would fit into the mix. What I sense is there are
some schools out there that think this would be cool, while there are some
school out there that wouldn't. And there are some advisors out there with
the time and energy to put into making something unconventional work, and
there are some advisors out there who don't. That's what Jude (or anyone
else thinking about an alternative form diss) needs to think about before
they embark on that journey.
I've been lucky enough to have two different tenure-track jobs, and at both
of the places I've worked, I came in with 2 or 3 other young, "newly
minted" PhDs. Talking with them about their experiences always reinforced
for me the idea of "your mileage will vary" because while there were a lot
of similarities in our experiences (both in terms of politics and in terms
of literal steps in the process), there were a lot of differences, too.
Kathy also writes:
>Anyway, I think you're quite right that there's nothing inherently less
>creative
>about the process of earning a Ph.D. than there might be in taking any other
>course. On the other hand, it *does* seem a conservative process or
>"union" in
>many respects, if only because the process and the union both exist largely to
>conserve those "real values" we've been talking about. And that's okay. I
>think pretty much all of us regard something or another as worth
>conserving, and
>do tend to be conservative about that particular issue if no other.
In this sense, unions are conservative because their goal is to "conserve"
jobs and working conditions and the like. But that still seems like a
liberal cause to me, especially given the capitalistic goals the
administration (at least at EMU) wants to "conserve."
But in another sense, there are "union cards" for just about any occupation
or pursuit. For example, I think undergrad students tend to be very
pragmatic and career-driven in terms of their college education. And to be
more specific, most of the students at EMU are education majors of one
flavor or another, and to them, the forumla is pretty simple: college
degree = teaching job = live happily ever after. I do want to point out
that for the most part, students here at EMU are happy to and interested in
actually *learning* something along the way of getting a college degree. In
any event, the formula these students seem to have in mind is in one sense
simplistic, but in anothter sense, very accurate. If they want to be
secondary or elementary school teachers, they need a college degree. We
could call this another example of the tyranny of education, but I also
kind of like the idea that as a society, we now require our K-12 teachers
to be college educated.
>I do you'd say more, though, about innovation being highly overrated,
>because this
>seems the *perfect* time and forum for that discussion.
My reasons for innovation being highly overrated are not particularly
innovative, frankly, but I'll say them anyway. First off, I kind of buy
into the pomo argument that originality assumes a modernistic sensibility
of things-- that is, to be original, you have to be a "starting point" or
"origin" for something. If we question the very existence of "origins,"
then being original just doesn't work. I *kind* of buy into that, but not
entirely. But I do think that it speaks volumes about the difficulties of
being "original," and how most of what we call innovation is really just
looking at the same thing from a slightly different angle.
Second, I think if one is too intently focused on being innovative or
creative in writing, one won't write. I've seen it first-hand a couple of
times. In my not too distant past, I was in an MFA program in fiction
writing (see, I even have a *degree* that says I'm creative!!) and I was in
classes with and knew A LOT of folks who I thought were really good
writers, but they never really got "on with it" because they were always
thinking that what they were working on wasn't good enough.
I saw a similar kind of thing in my PhD program, though I think it took
three slightly different flavors. I knew people in each of these groups,
can literally put names and faces to them. There was one group who never
actually got started writing the diss because they were trapped in the
research, I think because they thought that to have a truly
innovative/creative/significant diss, they had to research EVERYTHING-- if
they were going to quote Derrida, they'd better read every bit of Derrida
and everything that Derrida read. The second group was the one that
actually did start to write, and they believed that their diss was indeed
turning out to be about EVERYTHING, and, as the most
innovative/creative/significant dissertation ever, it was likely to be well
over 800 pages long. In other words, they had sort of the opposite of
writer's block, which can be just as harmful. I was in danger of joining
this group until my advisor reined me in, btw. And I guess I would
describe the third group as despondant and depressed about their process
because they've come to realize that their diss probably really won't be
innovative/creative/significant enough, will not turn academia onto its
head. I suppose there are other groups here too, but what I'm getting at
is that I think too strong a focus on innovation can cause writing block in
a variety of forms.
And third, I think innovation in a general sense is something that is kind
of decided well after whatever is considered "innovative" is done. I think
the laptop quote that Cathy included in her last post is a good example of
that. It's not as if that guy was thinking while he was in the back of the
car "wow, I'm being innovative." It was something that, after actually
completing something that turned out to be innovative, that guy was
reflecting upon.
I guess what I'm getting at is innovation is something largely tied to
audience and context, and that is shifting ground at best. My dissertation
might strike someone as innovative (or might not, either), but by the time
I was done with it, it didn't seem very innovative to me because I was so
invested in it, it seemed like a part of "normal life" to think about it.
And of course, nothing is universally innovative. I mean, my mom
(midwestern, retired nurse, fan of rommance novels) certainly would not
think much of the scholarship that the most "innovative/creative" among us
has created.
--Steve
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Steven D. Krause * Assistant Professor, English
614G Pray-Harrold Hall * Eastern Michigan University
Ypsilanti, MI 48197 * http://www.online.emich.edu/~skrause
* Message sent from Online2K - http://www.furman.edu/~jinman/cw2k/elists/
* Visit URL above to unsubscribe, read archives, and more!