[csaa-forum] csaa-forum Digest: Thesis Components

[Paul Magee]

I like what Mark is saying in terms of the importance of methodology; in
those contexts it¹s vital and can also potentially function as a really rich
space for intellectual exchange.

But my favourite line on on the matter is from Spinoza, his insistence that
methodology is actually retrospective: you find out first and then work out
how you did it. If that¹s where the Ethics came from it can¹t be all that
bad. 

I¹m all for pluralism in the matter, but it strikes me that the Spinoza¹s
approach to how you approach things is the one that is more likely to be
found amiss in the current climate. Of course there¹s lots of current
climates. In part it¹s a matter of supervisors choosing the right examiners.
Our initiations are still very intimate in that regard. And that makes me
think that maybe it¹s worth stressing to doctoral students that they¹re not
writing to knowledge in general as rather to a set of experts in their
field, with its own particular forms of evaluation. The sort of ethics that
scares me ignores that and imagines it¹s possible for one committee to know
what¹s good or bad in relation to the conduct of any research at all.  I
find that a prima facie threat to academic freedom. Whereas methodology
strikes me as still a pretty safe space for original work.

Cheers

P


Dr Paul Magee

Associate Professor of Poetry
Faculty of Arts and Design
University of Canberra
ACT 2601
02 6201 2402

Australian Government Higher Education (CRICOS)
Registered Provider number: #00212K




On 17/03/11 8:06 PM, "Mark Bahnisch" <mbahnisch at gmail.com> wrote:

> Just to chime in quickly here, and I'm writing from the perspective of someone
> who wrote an interdisciplinary thesis (one panel member at the final seminar
> thought it was philosophy, another cultural studies and another social theory)
> submitted as a sociology PhD but examined by two political theorists.
> 
> I was initially reluctant and resistant to restructuring the thesis to include
> 'method' and 'literature review' chapters, so I have a lot of sympathy with
> the points being made. But it also occurs to me that statements like "Findings
> are always paramount" and "Reading about people's methodologies is boring" are
> actually contradictory.
> 
> In the human sciences, findings will only emerge from a deliberate set of
> choices about method, which are choices about how the social world is
> represented.  There are no "findings" without such choices. So a lot of
> controversies in sociology are precisely about method. It's something more
> than a proxy for epistemology, though it is also that.  Therefore there is
> value in some contexts in highlighting and justifying it.
> 
> This sort of way of doing writing research is also crucial in what I do now
> postdoctorally - which is conducting and writing very applied policy relevant
> research.  There again, the context for me and others is often in effect
> interdisciplinary (I'm working with biomedical scientists and soon, economists
> among others).  So, aside from being expected in these sort of fields of work,
> a lot of the force of such work is negotiating and foregrounding variances in
> assumptions and paradigms, in this case in a position where sociology/social
> science is perceived as the 'soft' partner vis a vis more 'scientific'
> approaches to policy research.
> 
> Dr Mark Bahnisch | Fellow, Centre for Policy Development |
> e: mbahnisch at gmail.com | m: 0448 008 165 | skype: mark.bahnisch | w: bio
> <http://brisculture.com/brisculture-people/#Mark>  | f: facebook
> <http://www.facebook.com/markbahnisch>  |
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Mark Gibson <mark.gibson at monash.edu> wrote:
>> I would agree with Tony and Andrew on theory chapters, methodology chapters
>> etc. I also advise against long, indigestible tracts of theory or
>> methodological reflection separated out from their points of actual
>> application.
>> 
>> But I think Amanda may be right about a 'pull towards a single discipline
>> now'. Yes, we do share many theorists and we are all in some sense 'post-new
>> humanities'. But disciplinary groupings are still very powerful and often
>> raid other areas only to shore themselves up. There's a big difference
>> between a bit of strategic borrowing and a more thorough-going
>> inter-disciplinarity. The latter is risky and actually much rarer than one
>> might think.
>> 
>> I've just had another conversation off list about who is putting in general
>> submissions for ERA on behalf of media and cultural studies. I suspect
>> no-one (although happy to be corrected). There may be a number of areas
>> where cultural studies could do with more forceful representation. It would
>> be a mistake to think that everyone is already with us.
>> 
>> -- Mark
>> 
>> On 17/03/11 11:13 AM, "Tony Mitchell" <Tony.Mitchell at uts.edu.au> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 1) do you ask your students to include a literature review as a stand
>>> alone
>>> > piece
>>> >
>>> > absolutely not. this is surely a formula for a dull, conventional thesis
>>> that
>>> > no publisher would want to look at. The literature review should be woven
>>> into
>>> > the fabric of the thesis so that it is barely noticeable.
>>> >
>>> > 2) what level of detail in 'methodology' when it mainly
>>> > involves ethnographic work / cultural analysis/ development of theory.
>>> >
>>> > certainly not a theory/methodology chapter, again surely a recipe for
>>> > dullness. and think of the poor examiners. Reading about people's
>>> > methodologies is boring, unless they are doing something highly unusual,
>>> like
>>> > interviewing animals. Findings are always paramount.
>>> >
>>> > 3) Does anyone really require write a 'theory' chapter?
>>> >
>>> > obviously some people do, but again in the interests of formulaic,
>>> > programmatic theses destined for oblivion.
>>> >
>>> > 4) How do you manage these issues in an interdisciplinary thesis where
>>> there
>>> > are different expectations for each discipline?
>>> >
>>> > isn't everybody interdisciplinary? is it even possible to be
>>> mono-disciplinary
>>> > any more? isn't everybody using the same theorists to say basically the
>>> same
>>> > thing? everything is
>>> > complex/multivocal/polyphanous/intertextual/pluralist/diverse/etc.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 'The revolution will not be twittered'
>>> >
>>> > the Darlo barber
>>> >
>>> > Dr. Tony Mitchell
>>> > Senior lecturer
>>> > Cultural Studies
>>> > Arts & Social Sciences
>>> >
>>> > UTS
>>> > P.O.Box 123 Broadway
>>> > NSW 2007
>>> > Australia
>>> > Tel. 61-2-95142335
>>> >
>>> > ________________________________________
>>> > From: csaa-forum-bounces at lists.cdu.edu.au
>>> > [csaa-forum-bounces at lists.cdu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Andrew Hickey
>>> > [Andrew.Hickey at usq.edu.au]
>>> > Sent: Wednesday, 16 March 2011 4:48 PM
>>> > To: csaa-forum at lists.cdu.edu.au
>>> > Subject: Re: [csaa-forum] csaa-forum Digest: Thesis Components
>>> >
>>> > Hi Amanda,
>>> > I recently supervised an autoethnographically based thesis that steered
>>> away
>>> > considerably from the usual '5 chapter' structure of a PhD. Having said
>>> that
>>> > though, there was clear connection with the literature throughout the
>>> work,
>>> > and similarly, the methods applied were articulated expertly by the
>>> candidate
>>> > (particularly the epistemological implications of autoethnographic work).
>>> One
>>> > thing we did give considerable thought to was the list of examiners we
>>> might
>>> > contact once the thesis was completed and ready to send out. We explicitly
>>> > selected folks we knew would be up to speed with the alternative structure
>>> of
>>> > the thesis and who would appreciate the creativity the thesis contained.
>>> While
>>> > we were'nt looking for an easy ride (and the candidate will adamantly
>>> confirm
>>> > that she wanted to have the thesis examined on its merits as an academic
>>> > work), we felt it was vitally important to go for examiners who would
>>> > appreciate its structure. (As it happened, she got through with 'flying co
>>> >  lours' and was highly commended by the examiners).
>>> >
>>> > My own thoughts on the structure of the thesis are that, yes, it must
>>> contain
>>> > evidence of a connection to the literature and field, and must articulate
>>> > clearly how its data were collected and analysis performed (both as a
>>> > pragmatic discussion of what was done 'in the field' as well as the
>>> > epistemological orientations of the researcher). A PhD, as the highest
>>> > qualification, must represent the scholar's 'license to practice'; a
>>> > demonstration of the candidate's capacities for rigorous research and
>>> > scholarship. Whether or not this needs to be done within clearly
>>> delineated
>>> > chapters I'm not so certain. I take Jipson and Paley's (now aging) idea of
>>> > 'daredevil research' on board here and actively encourage those
>>> candidate's I
>>> > work with to think creatively about how they might present their work- in
>>> many
>>> > instances, the usual 5 chapter approach isnt the best way to convey what
>>> needs
>>> > to be conveyed. But again, dealing with institutions and examiners who
>>> often
>>> > have very fixed ideas abou
>>> >  t what a thesis should look like must be a consideration.
>>> >
>>> > Apologies for prattling on, but I hope this adds something to your query,
>>> >
>>> > Andrew
>>> >
>>> > Andrew Hickey
>>> > Senior Lecturer- Cultural Studies and Social Theory
>>> > Faculty of Education
>>> > University of Southern Queensland
>>> > TOOWOOMBA QUEENSLAND 4350
>>> >
>>> > (07) 46 31 2337
>>> > hickeya at usq.edu.au
>>> > www.andrewhickeyweb.blogspot.com <http://www.andrewhickeyweb.blogspot.com>
>>> >
>>> > "At a time when the mainstream media leave out half of what the public
>>> needs
>>> > to know,
>>> > while at the same time purveying oceans of official nonsense, the public
>>> needs
>>> > an alternative source of news"
>>> > (Jonathon Schell, 2010)
>>> > ________________________________________
>>> > From: csaa-forum-bounces at lists.cdu.edu.au
>>> > [csaa-forum-bounces at lists.cdu.edu.au] On Behalf Of
>>> > csaa-forum-request at lists.cdu.edu.au [csaa-forum-request at lists.cdu.edu.au]
>>> > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:17 PM
>>> > To: csaa-forum at lists.cdu.edu.au
>>> > Subject: csaa-forum Digest, Vol 83, Issue 14
>>> >
>>> > Send csaa-forum mailing list submissions to
>>> >         csaa-forum at lists.cdu.edu.au
>>> >
>>> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>> >         http://lists.cdu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/csaa-forum
>>> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>> >         csaa-forum-request at lists.cdu.edu.au
>>> >
>>> > You can reach the person managing the list at
>>> >         csaa-forum-owner at lists.cdu.edu.au
>>> >
>>> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>> > than "Re: Contents of csaa-forum digest..."
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Today's Topics:
>>> >
>>> >    1. Formal elements of the PhD thesis (Amanda Wise)
>>> >    2. Digital Humanities International Perspectives (Kylie Brass)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >
>>> > Message: 1
>>> > Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 15:44:21 +1100
>>> > From: Amanda Wise <amanda.wise at mq.edu.au>
>>> > Subject: [csaa-forum] Formal elements of the PhD thesis
>>> > To: aasnet at anu.edu.au, csaa-forum at lists.cdu.edu.au
>>> > Message-ID:
>>> >         <AANLkTincJQmd+_RVgnRt-4WKnXvPOm1Y9d6HnYVgopWt at mail.gmail.com
>>> <mailto:AANLkTincJQmd%2B_RVgnRt-4WKnXvPOm1Y9d6HnYVgopWt at mail.gmail.com> >
>>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>> >
>>> > Hello Anthropology and cultural studies colleagues,
>>> >
>>> > I am having a debate with a colleague at the moment (a sociologist) about
>>> > the required elements of a PhD thesis. She is of the view that there
>>> always
>>> > needs to be stand alone 'Literature Review' and 'Theory' chapters.
>>> >
>>> > What to do with interdisciplinary work. My work is interdiscipinary as is
>>> > most of my students' research (in migration, transnational, multicultural
>>> > studies, ethnicity, identity). Recently I supervised a student, whose work
>>> > on labour migrants involved 8 months of in-depth fieldwork, drew on
>>> > anthropology, cultural studies, sociological theories and work in cultural
>>> > geography. We had two sociologists of migration mark it, and one social
>>> > anthropologist. The two sociologists wanted a lot more detailed exposition
>>> > of 'method' (OK), and a stand alone literature review chapter. My
>>> > sociologist colleague also feels our students should have a 'theory'
>>> > chapter.
>>> >
>>> > My PhD was in cultural studies (co-supervised by an anthropologist) and
>>> > neither of these were required. Either I had dodgy supervision (I don't
>>> > think so) or there simply are different expectations. I feel that such a
>>> > rigid structure can sometimes (depending on the thesis) disrupt the
>>> > narrative flow of a thesis and that theory/lit review is just as happily
>>> > embedded throughout the chapters.
>>> >
>>> > So, I wanted ask the opinion of cultural studies people and
>>> anthropologists:
>>> >
>>> > 1) do you ask your students to include a literature review as a stand
>>> alone
>>> > piece
>>> > 2) what level of detail in 'methodology' when it mainly
>>> > involves ethnographic work / cultural analysis/ development of theory.
>>> > 3) Does anyone really require write a 'theory' chapter?
>>> > 4) How do you manage these issues in an interdisciplinary thesis where
>>> there
>>> > are different expecations for each discipline?
>>> >
>>> > On top of the ERA, I can't help feeling of late there is more and more
>>> pull
>>> > towards a single discipline now.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for your thoughts and reflections.
>>> > Amanda
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> > Dr Amanda Wise
>>> > Senior Research Fellow
>>> > Centre for Research on Social Inclusion,
>>> > Macquarie University NSW 2109
>>> > Ph:  <tel:%2B61%202%209850-8835> +61 2 9850-8835
>>> <tel:%2B61%202%209850-8835>
>>> > Email: amanda.wise at mq.edu.au
>>> > -------------- next part --------------
>>> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> > URL:
>>> > 
>>> 
http://lists.cdu.edu.au/pipermail/csaa-forum/attachments/20110316/8434e525/a>>>
tt
>>> > achment-0001.html
>>> >
>>> > ------------------------------
>>> >
>>> > Message: 2
>>> > Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:17:35 +1100
>>> > From: Kylie Brass <kylie.brass at humanities.org.au>
>>> > Subject: [csaa-forum] Digital Humanities International Perspectives
>>> > To: <csaa-forum at lists.cdu.edu.au>
>>> > Message-ID: <C9A69321.8DDE%kylie.brass at humanities.org.au
>>> <mailto:C9A69321.8DDE%25kylie.brass at humanities.org.au> >
>>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>> >
>>> > ===============================================
>>> > DIGITAL HUMANITIES: INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
>>> > ===============================================
>>> >
>>> > TUESDAY 22 MARCH 2011, 11.30AM-1PM,
>>> > AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
>>> > HEDLEY BULL LECTURE THEATRE (HB 1)
>>> >
>>> > Two leading international figures in the digital humanities discuss future
>>> > research directions in this ground-breaking field.
>>> >
>>> > Sponsored by the Australian Academy of the Humanities, in association with
>>> > the National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. This
>>> free
>>> > event is open to the public. No booking required.
>>> >
>>> > Professor Ray Siemens (University of Victoria, Canada)
>>> > 'Enacting a Vision for the Future of Digital Humanities'
>>> >
>>> > Dr Patrik Svensson (Ume? University, Sweden)
>>> > 'The Digital Humanities as a Trading Zone'
>>> >
>>> > RAY SIEMENS is Canada Research Chair in Humanities Computing and Professor
>>> > of English at the University of Victoria with cross appointment in
>>> Computer
>>> > Science. Editor of several renaissance texts and founding editor of the
>>> > journal Early Modern Literary Studies, he has written numerous articles on
>>> > computational methods and literary studies and is co-editor of Blackwell?s
>>> > Companion to Digital Humanities and Companion to Digital Literary Studies.
>>> > Chair, Alliance of Digital Humanities Organisations? Steering Committee,
>>> he
>>> > is also incoming Vice President of the Canadian Federation for the
>>> > Humanities and Social Sciences.
>>> >
>>> > PATRIK SVENSSON is Director of HUMlab at Ume? University, Sweden, where he
>>> > is Senior Lecturer in humanities and information technology. He is author
>>> > and editor of books in English and Swedish including on language
>>> education,
>>> > linguistics and digital technology. Svensson has a long-term interest in
>>> the
>>> > intersections between technology, learning, collaboration, innovation and
>>> > creativity in the humanities. His recent articles in Digital Humanities
>>> > Quarterly, OHumanities Computing as Digital Humanities? and OThe Landscape
>>> > of Digital Humanities?, survey the international field.
>>> >
>>> > ENQUIRIES  Email paul.arthur at anu.edu.au or kylie.brass at humanities.org.au,
>>> > Phone 02 6125 2676
>>> > -------------- next part --------------
>>> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> > URL:
>>> > 
>>> 
http://lists.cdu.edu.au/pipermail/csaa-forum/attachments/20110316/801bf9cb/a>>>
tt
>>> > achment.html
>>> > -------------- next part --------------
>>> > A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>>> > Name: Digital Humanities poster.pdf
>>> > Type: application/pdf
>>> > Size: 260441 bytes
>>> > Desc: not available
>>> > Url :
>>> > 
>>> 
http://lists.cdu.edu.au/pipermail/csaa-forum/attachments/20110316/801bf9cb/a>>>
tt
>>> > achment.pdf
>>> >
>>> > ------------------------------
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________
>>> >
>>> > csaa-forum
>>> > discussion list of the cultural studies association of australasia
>>> >
>>> > www.csaa.asn.au <http://www.csaa.asn.au>
>>> >
>>> > change your subscription details at
>>> > http://lists.cdu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/csaa-forum
>>> >
>>> > End of csaa-forum Digest, Vol 83, Issue 14
>>> > ******************************************
>>> >
>>> > This email (including any attached files) is confidential and is for the
>>> > intended recipient(s) only.  If you received this email by mistake,
>>> > please, as a courtesy, tell the sender, then delete this email.
>>> >
>>> > The views and opinions are the originator's and do not necessarily
>>> > reflect those of the University of Southern Queensland.  Although all
>>> > reasonable precautions were taken to ensure that this email contained no
>>> > viruses at the time it was sent we accept no liability for any losses
>>> > arising from its receipt.
>>> >
>>> > The University of Southern Queensland is a registered provider of
>>> > education with the Australian Government (CRICOS Institution Code No's.
>>> > QLD 00244B / NSW 02225M)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________
>>> >
>>> > csaa-forum
>>> > discussion list of the cultural studies association of australasia
>>> >
>>> > www.csaa.asn.au <http://www.csaa.asn.au>
>>> >
>>> > change your subscription details at
>>> > http://lists.cdu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/csaa-forum
>>> >
>>> > UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F
>>> > DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may
>>> contain
>>> > confidential information.
>>> > If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate,
>>> > distribute or copy this message or
>>> > attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the
>>> > sender immediately and delete
>>> > this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the
>>> individual
>>> > sender, except where the
>>> > sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the
>>> > University of Technology Sydney.
>>> > Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.
>>> >
>>> > Think. Green. Do.
>>> >
>>> > Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>>> > _______________________________________
>>> >
>>> > csaa-forum
>>> > discussion list of the cultural studies association of australasia
>>> >
>>> > www.csaa.asn.au <http://www.csaa.asn.au>
>>> >
>>> > change your subscription details at
>>> > http://lists.cdu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/csaa-forum
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________
>> 
>> csaa-forum
>> discussion list of the cultural studies association of australasia
>> 
>> www.csaa.asn.au <http://www.csaa.asn.au>
>> 
>> change your subscription details at
>> http://lists.cdu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/csaa-forum
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________
> 
> csaa-forum
> discussion list of the cultural studies association of australasia
> 
> www.csaa.asn.au
> 
> change your subscription details at
> http://lists.cdu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/csaa-forum

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cdu.edu.au/pipermail/csaa-forum/attachments/20110318/7777c8c8/attachment-0001.html