Developing Quality Dissertations in the Humanities: A Graduate Student's Guide to Achieving Excellence

17106-DevelopingQuality-Humanities 12/5/08 8:53 AM Page b COPYRIGHT © 2009 BY STYLUS PUBLISHING, LLC Published by S...

Author: Barbara E. Lovitts | Ellen L. Wert

24 downloads 530 Views 343KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

17106-DevelopingQuality-Humanities

12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page b

COPYRIGHT © 2009 BY STYLUS PUBLISHING, LLC Published by Stylus Publishing, LLC 22883 Quicksilver Drive Sterling, Virginia 20166-2102 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, recording and information storage and retrieval, without permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication-Data Lovitts, Barbara E., 1960Developing quality dissertations in the humanities : a graduate student’s guide to achieving excellence / Barbara E. Lovitts and Ellen L. Wert.— 1st ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57922-260-4 (pbk.) 1. Dissertations, Academic—Handbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Humanities—Study and teaching (Graduate)—Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Wert, Ellen L., 1953– II. Title. LB2369.L68 2009 808'.0660013—dc22 2008031304 13-digit ISBN: 978-1-57922-260-4 (paper) Printed in the United States of America All first editions printed on acid free paper that meets the American National Standards Institute Z39-48 Standard. First Edition, 2009

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Acknowledgments Credit for the idea of translating the book version of this work into a handbook for graduate students and faculty goes to Louis Sherman, Purdue University, one of the members of my advisory committee. Ted Greenwood, of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, provided moral and financial support for the project and wholeheartedly endorsed creating not one generic handbook but three, one each for the sciences, social sciences, and humanities. My publisher and editor, John von Knorring, Stylus Publishing, ably orchestrated all the people and pieces in what turned out to be a longer than anticipated process. Many, many thanks go to Ellen Wert, my co-author, and the consultants who worked with her, Chris Golde, of Stanford University and a member of my advisory committee; Mary Huba, Iowa State University; and Dannelle Stevens, Portland State University. Last but not least is Karen Klomparens, of Michigan State University and an advisory committee member, who contributed intellectually to this project and provided an institutional home for the funds that supported it.


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page i

Developing Quality Dissertations in the Humanities A Graduate Student’s Guide to Achieving Excellence

Barbara E. Lovitts and Ellen L. Wert

S T E R L I N G , V I RG I N I A


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page ii

Contents

List of Tables

iii

Preface To the Faculty

iv

To the Student

vii

1 2 3 4 5

Identifying the Purpose of the Dissertation

1

Understanding Originality and Significance

4

Aiming for Excellence in the Dissertation

8

Maintaining Consistent Quality Within the Dissertation

15

Achieving Excellence

22

Appendix A: Tasks of the Humanities Dissertation

25

Appendix B: Advice for Writing a Humanities Dissertation

35

Making the Implicit Explicit: About the Study

39

About the Authors

40

ii


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page iii

Tables

Table 1.1.

The Purpose of the Dissertation: Descriptions From Faculty in the Humanities

1

Table 1.2.

The Purpose of the Dissertation: Descriptions From Faculty in English, History, and Philosophy

2

Original Contribution: Characterizations From Faculty in English, History, and Philosophy

6

Significant Contribution: Characterizations From Faculty in English, History, and Philosophy

7

Table 2.1. Table 2.2. Table 3.1.

The English Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

11

Table 3.2.

The History Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

12

Table 3.3.

The Philosophy Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

13

Table 4.1.

Tasks of a Dissertation in the Humanities, Examples From English, History, and Philosophy

16

Introduction/Problem Statement in the Humanities Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

17

Table 4.3.

Literature Review in the Humanities Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

18

Table 4.4.

Theoretical/Conceptual Approach in the Humanities Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

19

Approach to Methods/Sources in the Humanities Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

20

Table 4.6.

Analysis/Argument in the Humanities Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

20

Table 4.7.

Conclusion in the Humanities Dissertation at Different Quality Levels

21

Table 4.2.

Table 4.5.

Table A.1. Tasks of the English Dissertation by Quality Level

26

Table A.2. Tasks of the History Dissertation by Quality Level

29

Table A.3. Tasks of the Philosophy Dissertation by Quality Level

32

Table B.

35

Writing the Humanities Dissertation

iii


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page iv

To the Faculty

on your own dissertation, you probably now see it as a major exercise that demonstrated your expertise at the moment when you were ready to make the transition from being a student to being a professional. Most of your faculty colleagues would say the same thing, as I discovered through a study of graduate faculty across 10 disciplines. Again and again, the faculty described the dissertation as both an opportunity to develop and sharpen skills and knowledge and evidence of a student’s readiness to work independently at a professional level.1 This understanding of the dissertation, it seems, comes with some distance from the process. However, while students are anticipating or engaged in the process, the dissertation is a bit of a mystery and a source of great anxiety. Many students spend a great deal of time (perhaps too much time) wrestling with process questions such as how to identify a topic and how to organize time and material. They try to make sense of a vague demand that the dissertation be “original” and “significant.” Important questions about expectations of quality—What does it mean to make an original or significant contribution? What constitutes an outstanding or very good dissertation?—often go unasked because it is assumed, by both faculty and students alike, that students should simply know. Of course, they do not know. That they do not is evident from the varying levels of quality, both from student to student in a department and within individual dissertations. Some faculty spend a great deal of time coaching and guiding students through the process and do so for a longer period of time than should be necessary. Further, the dissertation is the point of attrition for nearly half of aspiring PhDs who make it this far. Yet it is the rare department that ex-

plicitly and publicly states its expectations about this capstone project.

L

OOKING BACK

Shared Expectations When I asked experienced dissertation advisors to describe their expectations for originality, significance, and quality in their students’ dissertations, the responses I heard were clear and consistent both within and across the disciplines and fields. The faculty offered similar views on the purpose of the dissertation and what it means to make an original and a significant contribution. They also expressed similar views on what constitutes outstanding, very good, acceptable, or unacceptable work. It seems, then, that students spend a great deal of valuable time and energy trying to guess something that the faculty implicitly agree upon but have not articulated in any formal way, either to the students or each other.

Why Explain the Dissertation? Although the dissertation represents the transition from student to professional and should display the capacity for self-directed work, students need and deserve the benefit of guidance about the process and clear expectations about quality. The department or program has a responsibility to communicate clearly both its standards of quality and those of the discipline. The faculty advising dissertations have a particular responsibility to explain the process, work with students to set firm but realistic deadlines, and provide timely, constructive feedback at every step.

iv


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page v

P R E FA C E There are ethical, professional, and practical reasons for making expectations about the dissertation explicit, the process of review transparent, and the production efficient: It is only right and fair to give students guidance about standards and expectations and then allow them to make choices about how to use it. Members of the profession who prepare doctoral students should communicate the norms and skills of the field to those who seek to enter it.2 The process of dissertation advising will move more quickly and efficiently if students know what is expected of them. Some faculty members may argue that this call for greater clarity and transparency is a plea for hand-holding or coddling. Actually, I am suggesting something quite the opposite. If advisors provide guidelines about standards and expectations from the start, students’ responsibilities for meeting them become immediately apparent. Students will also have benchmarks against which they can judge and revise their work, reducing the amount of work for advisors and committee members. In the humanities, where time to degree is an especially significant issue, having clearer expectations from the start may help accelerate the long process of writing the dissertation.

Making Expectations Explicit When it became clear that the findings of my study could be put to very specific and practical use, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, which funded the study, offered to underwrite a set of booklets for graduate students in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering; social sciences; and humanities. The booklets summarize faculty members’ descriptions of the purpose of the dissertation, the role and nature of an original and a significant contribution, and levels of performance. The specific examples throughout this booklet, many of them drawn from English, history, and philosophy, represent the observations of 89 faculty from 25 humanities departments.

Using This Booklet: Benefits to the Faculty and Program Although, as I discuss below, my primary hope is that you and your students use this booklet together, I also

v hope you and your colleagues will find it valuable in your ongoing conversation about guiding your program’s students. Over time, a collective effort to articulate expectations will help your program achieve a consistent level of quality. In addition, with a transparent process in place and a body of evidence around student achievement, you will also be better equipped to provide information about program quality as part of internal and external accountability processes.

Using This Booklet: Benefits to the Student This booklet is intended primarily as an entry point for discussion with the students you advise. I do not pretend to represent what you, as advisor, expect or what your program requires. Instead, you will find, throughout the booklet I urge the student to talk with you and your colleagues about the particular emphases and expectations of your discipline, subdiscipline, department and program. The information in this booklet is offered as a way to start the discussion. Indeed, the earlier students are introduced to the standards and expectations of their disciplines the better. You might consider providing this booklet to students long before they start the dissertation, for example, in a research methods course. Whether you bring this booklet to your students’ attention or they bring it to yours, I hope that you will use it with them to plan, set goals, and provide feedback on work in progress. For example, the sections about the purpose of the dissertation, originality, and significance would be important to discuss with students who are preparing proposals and planning their projects. The descriptions of quality might be of use as you discuss the specific goals of a student’s project. I believe that you and your students will find the process of identifying expectations for the dissertation, as a whole and in its parts, very useful. Your students will be better able to assess their own work and address deficiencies before they submit drafts to you. When you receive drafts, you can use the expectations to provide focused feedback. This puts the conversation about quality directly in the context of professional standards and expectations. Finally, your efforts to articulate quality will help students learn to judge quality in their own and others’ work. They can share what they have learned with col-


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page vi

P R E FA C E

vi leagues and peers; ultimately they will become better professionals and, for those who become faculty members, better advisors. I do not, however, suggest that these descriptions of quality be casually given quantitative values and used to “score” dissertations for decisions about passing or failing. In fact, I strongly resist this impulse. I hope that you will use the descriptors with students to set goals and monitor progress while they are in the process of researching and writing their dissertations so that they can make improvements along the way.

Focusing Students on Responsibility More clearly defining expectations is a way to inspire students and spur them to higher levels of achievement. I suggest offering a set of clear expectations about the dissertation, articulating goals, and providing feedback and guidance because I believe doing so challenges students to meet their responsibility as aspiring scholars, to

check their progress toward professional excellence, and to work more efficiently and independently. Barbara E. Lovitts

Notes 1. The study and the findings are described in detail in Barbara E. Lovitts, Making the Implicit Explicit: Creating Performance Expectations for the Dissertation (Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, 2007). 2. On this topic, faculty and graduate students alike might be interested in the observations of senior faculty from English and history, along with others from the history of science, mathematics, and science and social science disciplines, found in C. M. Golde, G. E. Walker, and associates, Envisioning the Future of Doctoral Education: Preparing Stewards of the Discipline. Carnegie Essays on the Doctorate (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006).


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page vii

To the Student

A Question of Quality

just beginning your graduate studies or have advanced standing in your program, it is highly likely the dissertation is much on your mind—and with good reason. This capstone project of your graduate education is not like anything else you have written before. It is unlike anything you will write afterward. The dissertation is a unique, hybrid project—both a professional-level research project and a crucial piece of evidence of your qualification for a credential. It is a point of exit from student status and a point of entry to professional and scholarly life. In short, your dissertation is a process and a product. Writing a dissertation is a process of developing expert knowledge: the understanding, skills, and thought processes of a professional scholar. In this sense, you began your dissertation as soon as you entered your graduate program. Through classes, teaching assistantships, and conversations with fellow students, faculty members, mentors, and advisors, you are acquiring skills and sorting information, learning about issues, making connections, and developing ideas for work to be done in your field—all of which is necessary to writing the dissertation. As a product, the dissertation is an external representation that you have achieved the expertise necessary to be a professional in your field. It demonstrates that you know how to approach and master complex ideas and information, have acquired professional skills and competencies, and are capable of doing independent scholarship. And so, as a product, the dissertation serves as a “union card” or credential for admission into the scholarly and professional community.

W

HETHER YOU ARE

Some faculty in disciplines in the humanities are currently giving serious thought to the nature and meaning of the dissertation. Many departments and programs are moving away from book-type dissertations, long the traditional form, and toward a dissertation compiled from a set of papers. Judgments about the quality of a dissertation, however, are independent of its form. As you talk with your advisor and dissertation committee members about the form your dissertation will take and the departmental requirements you should meet, you should be asking questions about their expectations: What does it mean to make an original or significant contribution? What criteria will be used to judge the quality of my work?

Starting the Conversation About Quality Knowing that questions about quality and expectations often go unasked, and that few programs or departments have explicit expectations, I decided to ask a representative group of faculty who have extensive experience advising dissertations to describe what they expect in a dissertation: What is the purpose of the dissertation? What constitutes an original or significant contribution? What makes a dissertation outstanding, very good, or acceptable? Under what conditions is work unacceptable? The responses of 89 faculty from 25 English, history, and philosophy departments are the foundation of this booklet. As a way to start the conversation about quality, I offer these advisors’ general descriptions of

vii


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page viii

P R E FA C E

viii standards and expectations for the dissertation in the humanities, with specific examples drawn their disciplines. It is important to keep in mind that these descriptions are a starting place. After reading this booklet, talk with your advisors and other faculty members to understand the expectations specific to your field, department, and project. Ask them what in your department and field is considered to be an original or significant contribution and what constitutes an outstanding or very good dissertation. Read recent dissertations from your department. Ask your advisors to recommend an outstanding or very good dissertation in your field—and study it. Look at your own work critically and ask for feedback in terms of the descriptors of quality presented here. I also suggest that you discuss this booklet and its information with your fellow students. It is an opportunity to develop colleagues and a way to combat isolation and the feeling that you are the only person wrestling with tough questions. In fact, as you will see throughout this booklet, the key to quality in the dissertation is communication. If nothing else, I hope that reading this booklet will prompt you to have many conversations with your dissertation advisor, to seek more than one mentor among the faculty, and to talk with other students to compare experiences. I hope you will map out your dissertation with your advisor and committee and check in

frequently with them. Finally, I hope you will ask questions, ask for feedback, and follow up with your program’s administrators if you are not getting the help you need.

A Question of Professional Responsibility As someone pursuing an advanced degree, you are learning what constitutes credible work in the field. Your increasing understanding of the standards of the field is part of what makes you a professional. It also means that you have to take responsibility for your work. Whether your faculty mentors, dissertation advisor or advisors, committee members, or department heads take the initiative to make their expectations of quality explicit or you take the initiative to bring this booklet to their attention and ask for their thoughts, once their expectations are made clear, it is your responsibility to act on them. As someone who aspires to the PhD, you are responsible for setting goals for yourself, checking your progress, asking for feedback, and taking feedback in the context of professional standards. I wish you well in your work. Barbara E. Lovitts


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 1

1 Identifying the Purpose of the Dissertation

T

theories and methods and a vast array of facts, principles, concepts, theories, and paradigms. The dissertation is also evidence that you have developed informed opinions about various issues, learned how to approach problems, and how to judge others’ work. Whether you plan a career in academia, government, business, industry, or in the nonprofit sector or business, the successful completion of your dissertation will signify your ability to conduct high-level inquiry and to create new knowledge. Table 1.2 provides descriptions that emerged from the discussions with the faculty about the dissertation in their discipline. As you consider the discipline-specific examples in Table 1.2, think about your particular field and program. Ask your advisor and other faculty members what they consider the purpose of

he words on the title page of nearly every dissertation, “Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy,” underscore that the dissertation is part of a process. The requirements of your program and the many informal opportunities for learning are designed to move you from student to professional, from someone largely dependent on others for guidance in learning to an independent, expert learner and producer of knowledge. Consider the observations of the faculty who participated in the study on which this booklet is based. The various purposes they ascribe to the dissertation, summarized in Table 1.1, point to the dissertation as a product that provides evidence that you have mastered professional skills and knowledge: your discipline’s

Table 1.1 The Purpose of the Dissertation: Descriptions From Faculty in the Humanities The purpose of the dissertation is to prepare the student to be a professional in the discipline. Through this preparation the student learns and demonstrates the ability to conduct independent, original, and significant research that shows the student’s mastery of the field. The dissertation thus shows that the student is able to • identify/define problems and generate questions, review the literature, apply appropriate methods, analyze evidence/text, discuss findings, and produce publishable results; • engage in a sustained piece of research or argument and develop a coherent narrative; • think and write critically and coherently; • be a professional in and contribute to the conversation and discussion in the discipline. The dissertation prepares the student for a career. It is the capstone of the graduate education and research experience, a rite of passage from student to professional. It is a “union card” or credential for admission to the profession. Note. From Making the Implicit Explicit: Creating Performance Expectations for the Dissertation, by Barbara E. Lovitts. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, 2007. Copyright 2007 by Stylus Publishing, LLC. Adapted with permission of the author.

1


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 2

D E V E L O P I N G Q U A L I T Y D I S S E R T AT I O N S I N T H E H U M A N I T I E S

2

Table 1.2 The Purpose of the Dissertation: Descriptions From Faculty in English, History, and Philosophy English The dissertation is a process through which the student learns about research: learns how to figure out and ask interesting questions, learns what it takes to do a long-term project, learns the skills of research, and learns to be professional in the field. The student learns to develop richness and depth of analysis, develop historical context, compare different genres, set text against other text, and critic against critic. The dissertation demonstrates the student’s ability and readiness to join and contribute to a conversation: the student knows what the questions are and the discussion is, knows how to use the terms, and knows how to participate in the discussion. It shows prima facie competence in the field: the student has a firm grasp of the discipline, has the capacity for extended original research, has the ability to write a booklike document that articulates the research, can make an argument about it, and is capable of making a significant contribution. The process of writing the dissertation is an apprenticeship: it is an important proving ground, a structural device to put students through the process of sustained engagement, practice at the labor of thinking something through seriously and carefully, and preparation for publishing and teaching in the field. The dissertation is the point where the student crosses from being a student to being a scholar. As a product, the dissertation is a tool for the field to assess the quality of its members; it ensures the student’s competence; it is a writing sample and a “calling card” for a job. History The process of the dissertation trains students to be historians. It teaches students how to practice history independently: how to do research, deal with blind alleys, and organize data into a coherent narrative; how to ask questions of material, draw together the evidence, and write a long, coherent narrative that is original, significant, and interesting. The process develops the students’ skills to attain the level where they can be mentors. The dissertation demonstrates the students’ mastery of the craft: it shows that they know how to do historical research, can pull together a sustained, coherent piece of work, and are capable of being scholars and doing ongoing significant original research. It shows that they have met the requirements and should be accepted to “journeyman” status or to the “guild.” The dissertation makes an original and significant contribution; it adds to the body of knowledge and set of interpretive theories and methods for producing historical knowledge. It allows the students to use their research to turn out articles and books that will establish them as experts in their fields; the dissertation is necessary to get a job and keep it by turning the dissertation into a book. Philosophy The process of the dissertation educates the student in how to do philosophy well and independently. The student learns how to do sustained, decent, independent philosophical research; how to act in accordance with professional standards; and how to be an independent practitioner. The dissertation demonstrates that the student has the research capacity, competence, and skills necessary for a successful career: it shows that the student can identify an important issue and deal with it in a sustained, somewhat original way; is capable of writing really well; has the capacity for engaging in the state of the art; and can contribute to and participate in a sophisticated philosophical discussion at a professional level. The process forces students to write systematically, with rigor and clarity. It provides an experience working in an extended way on some narrowly focused issue. It gives the student an opportunity to gain fluency and competence in a certain kind of relative thinking. It is a training document, an exercise that prepares students to do research. It is the last stage in the student’s philosophical education. It is a foundation for further work, a jumping-off point for the career. The dissertation certifies the student as someone who is capable of doing research in the field; it is necessary for getting a job.


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 3

Identifying the Purpose of the Dissertation the dissertation to be. What aspects of the dissertation does your field or program emphasize? What are the expectations for the quality of writing? As you discuss your dissertation with your advisor and committee members, ask about ways your particular project best lends itself to serving the purposes of the dissertation in your field. What are the goals of the process? What, specifically, must your dissertation demonstrate? What, exactly, will give evidence that you have mastered the expected knowledge and skills? What

3 will demonstrate your capacity to independently produce professional-level work in the future? From these conversations, you might want to draw up a summary of the purposes you and your advisors agree on. Ask your advisor, committee, and other faculty mentors to suggest recent dissertations from your department that might serve as good examples. Put yourself in your committee’s shoes and consider how the students fulfilled the purposes of the dissertation that your advisors have described.


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 4

2 Understanding Originality and Significance

the terms original and significant in the examples in chapter 1. Maybe you have heard or been told that you must make an original and significant contribution to the field through your dissertation. Graduate students across all disciplines spend a great deal of time worrying about these expectations: What, exactly, does it means to make an original or significant contribution in my field? Is my project important enough to be considered original and significant? What, specifically, about my dissertation must be original or significant? In talking with the faculty who participated in the study, it became evident that the qualities of originality and significance are elusive and difficult to define. Moreover, the terms are often shorthand for “the capacity to make an original or significant contribution.”

Y

tion from another discipline and apply it to your field for the first time. It is important to understand that the original contribution is not necessarily your entire dissertation but something that is part of it. The faculty in the study explained that an original contribution may result from

OU PROBABLY NOTICED

• asking or identifying new questions, topics, materials, or areas of exploration; • applying new ideas, methods, approaches, or analyses to an old question, problem, issue, idea, source, thinker, or text; • developing or applying new theories, concepts, theoretical or analytical frameworks, or interpretations; • recovering, developing, or applying new methods or approaches; • creating, finding, or using new materials, sources, archives, or information; • applying old ideas, methods, approaches, or analyses to new data, material, or sources; • developing or applying new analyses, analytic approaches, or frameworks; • improving or coming up with new ideas, connections, inferences, insights, interpretations, observations, perspectives; • producing new interpretations, conclusions, answers, or findings; • combining or synthesizing things (facts, knowledge, models of inquiry, problems, sources, theoretical constructs) from other fields or disciplines.

Originality An original contribution offers a novel or new perspective. The faculty in the humanities who participated in the study described an original contribution as something that has not been done, found, known, posited, said, or seen before. It is publishable because it adds to knowledge, changes the way people think, moves the field forward, or advances the state of the art, debate, or conversation/ discussion. To achieve this goal, you might develop an original insight or advance, or you might borrow a contribu-

4


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 5

Understanding Originality and Significance Your original contribution might appear in almost any part of the dissertation. It can be a question, theory, source, method, analysis, or interpretation. Degrees of Originality There are, of course, levels or degrees of originality. At the lowest level, originality typically involves applying known theories, perspectives, conceptual frameworks, or methods to new sources, texts, or materials, or the like. Originality in this sense might make a small or incremental change to the knowledge base and thus have little consequence. At the higher levels, making an original contribution typically involves asking new questions or applying new perspectives, theories, or conceptual frameworks to old or new problems and producing new arguments or conclusions that are immediately recognizable as having consequence and altering the conversation. Contributions such as these advance the field, are publishable, and often appear in top-tier journals. At the very highest level, the contribution has the potential to change the field. It is rare for a graduate student to make an original contribution at the highest level. Indeed, few faculty make contributions at this level. Table 2.1 provides some examples, drawn from English, history, and philosophy, of what it means to make an original contribution. As you consider these descriptions, think about the questions you might ask your advisor and committee members about their expectations and the potential of your project to create new knowledge, find new sources, or take a new approach to inquiry. Understand Expectations Because expectations for originality vary across disciplines, subdisciplines, and even advisors, it is important to ask your advisor and committee, from the start, for clarification about what is expected of you. Ask to see examples of what they mean when they— and others in the field—call something original. In your ongoing conversations, discuss specifically where, in your project, you are most able to make an original contribution. Is it through, for example, your question, theory, perspective, sources, method, analysis, or finding? Are you using an existing concept or method in a new way? Discuss, as well, how you might best bring your original contribution to the reader’s attention.

5 Significance A significant contribution is defined primarily by its consequences. As suggested by the descriptions provided by the faculty from English, history, and philosophy who participated in the study (summarized in Table 2.2), a significant contribution is of interest and importance to the community and influences the field by changing the way people think. It is important to understand that significance is typically determined, over time, by the disciplinary community, not the individual advisor or committee. Moreover, understanding and appreciation of a contribution often emerges, sometimes many years after the fact. Sometimes a topic, interpretation, or approach is before its time; it does not immediately fit with prevailing knowledge or thought, but later it is recognized as significant. Although significance is frequently stated as a requirement for the PhD, graduate students rarely make significant contributions—or are rarely recognized at the time for making significant contributions. Faculty do not typically expect them to do so. They look, rather, for the capacity to produce a significant contribution in the future. The faculty who participated in the study described a significant contribution as a nontrivial to very important original contribution “that is useful and illuminating and will have impact.” It is publishable in top-tier journals” because it • is of interest to those inside, and possibly those outside, the community and causes them to see things differently; • influences the conversation and peoples’ research and teaching; • has implications for and advances the field, the discipline, other disciplines, or the human condition. As with originality, there are degrees of significance. The most significant contributions are often ones that initiate a new trend or destabilize a conservative area, thus creating new questions and new lines of inquiry. At the lower levels, the contribution is a small or incremental improvement. A contribution is of little or no significance if people say, “So what?”


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 6


6

Table 2.1 Original Contribution: Characterizations From Faculty in English, History, and Philosophy English Something no one else has done before; a fresh contribution that builds on or revises present knowledge about some text, movement, or author, and advances a scholarly discussion; a new look at an old subject, a new look at a new subject; looking at materials no one else has looked at; doing archival research; recovering materials that have been lost, uncollected, undiscovered, or previously unedited; improving someone else’s idea; taking new text or unexpected materials and putting them in new combinations; synthesizing or recombining things that have already been said; putting canonical or semicanonical texts into new theoretical frameworks; taking models of inquiry or theoretical constructs from another field and connecting them with more traditional literary questions; joins a conversation; produces a surprising result; opens up new questions. History Something new; new questions, topics, sources, evidence, archives, approaches, methods, perspectives, analytical frameworks, interpretations, answers, conclusions; giving a new and true account of change over time in the past; adding something to knowledge; discovering, defining, or working with sources that were not used or inadequately analyzed before; establishing linkages; putting sources together in fresh ways; rereading and reinterpreting sources; asking new questions of old material; a new twist, insight, perspective, or focus on primary or secondary literature; rethinking concepts and structures; involves empirical and theoretical comments; a conceptual framework or a compelling model that changes the way people think about history; fresh, new and useful ways to interpret data; an interpretive insight or intervention; contradicts or overturns current historiography drawing new conclusions from old material; conclusions are related to larger issues of concern to the field and break new ground; contradicts or overturns current historiography; advances a debate or conversation in a persuasive way. Philosophy Something no one else has said before that goes beyond simply reporting on what other people have said; assembling the literature in an interesting way; connecting things that have not been connected before; making comparisons that have not been made before; producing a thoughtful, critical assessment of certain major philosophers or commentators upon major philosophers; coming up with a new, distinctive way to think about or understand a great thinker or an existing problem; providing a new organization of or context for thought or arguments; articulating an existing view that has not been articulated very well; providing an exegesis of a philosophical position; adding a consideration, set of considerations, or line of argument; finding gaps in an argument that shed light on the argument; challenging orthodoxy; showing that a widely held view is subject to a counterexample; showing that a counterexample can be gotten around; framing a theory in a plausible way that evades or gets around difficulties; devising a system that formalizes some concepts; backing up or supporting a conclusion; answering a question differently or coming up with an entirely new conclusion; redefining a problem in ways pertinent to the ongoing conversation; making a breakthrough on an established interpretation; coming up with a new argument or new support for a contested premise; discovering a conceptual distinction, connection, or some novel line of argument that has a significant bearing on the truth or falsity of a major philosophical issue or problem; making an independent, authentic discovery of something interesting; positing something and putting it forth as a set of views about a philosophical issue; has the potential to change the way people think about the question; contributes to or changes the direction of an ongoing discussion; reforms or enlarges the boundaries of the discipline.


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 7

Understanding Originality and Significance Table 2.2 summarizes the characterizations provided by the faculty from English, philosophy, and history who participated in the study. Understand Expectations Talk to your advisor and committee members about their expectations for significance. Do so early in the process,

7 and continue this discussion as you progress. Do they want to see a significant contribution in your dissertation or do they want you to demonstrate that you have the capacity—the knowledge and skills—to make a significant contribution in the future? What specific aspect of your project has the potential to make a significant contribution? How can you best present this contribution?

Table 2.2 Significant Contribution: Characterizations From Faculty in English, History, and Philosophy English Not trivial; involves a conversation with the field; looks at material that has not been looked at before; a new way of reading something; an intervention in a central problem; arguing that a noncentral argument needs to be more central in order to understand the field or the world beyond the field; makes an argument go beyond the particulars of the field being looked at; contributing something that others could use to talk about authors or the field; changes the way the history of a particular subject is viewed; opens things up for other fields and periods; alters the self-understanding of the field; provides a new way to look at the bigger picture. History An original contribution; something not seen before that is novel, refreshing, and illuminating; is useful and of real consequence to others both inside and outside the field; something that people will notice and take into consideration in their teaching and research; changes or overturns a particular set of assumptions or the way people look at a problem; engages current conceptual and theoretical concerns; addresses hotly debated issues; makes new connections; refocuses an interpretation; is important to the field or subfield; reconceptualizes a field; engages in a wider conversation; generalizes and makes connections on a broader scale; says something about the human condition; opens up more areas of work; pushes disciplinary boundaries. Philosophy A very original, groundbreaking contribution that is publishable, has an impact on readers’ philosophical views, and motivates them to think about it and contemplate writing about it; says something interesting that is different from what others have said; provides an updated look at enduring questions; gives an interesting, unprecedented, persuasive resolution to a long-standing problem; affects the conversation; sets the agenda for other people; redirects or transforms the subject; will change the field and make all philosophy go in a different direction.


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 8

3 Aiming for Excellence in the Dissertation

the scholarship of others to learn. However, in the process, you also make judgments about the quality of their work. In the same way that you make judgments about the scholarship of others, your advisor and committee members make holistic judgments about the quality of their students’ dissertations. However, your faculty advisors also read student work with another purpose: they read to teach. They must read carefully to see where they can suggest improvements in students’ conceptualization of the topic, in their approach, in their presentation of ideas, and in their writing. Moreover, your advisors and committee read to certify quality. That is, they must make sure their students’ dissertations demonstrate professional competence and capacity for future professional-quality contributions. In short, your advisors and committee are reading your drafts and final version to determine if your dissertation is at a level of quality that demonstrates your readiness to make the transition from student to professional.

Y

sons, just within the boundaries of the profession’s standards of quality. They are good enough. In rare instances, some dissertations are unacceptable. The faculty participating in the study provided descriptions of what makes a dissertation outstanding, very good, acceptable, or unacceptable. In the following sections, you will find summaries of what they said about quality at these different levels. Use these summaries as a way to start planning and, later, evaluating your own work. They are also useful guides as you discuss your project with your advisors and committee members: Am I making progress toward my goal for excellence? Where do I need to make a special effort to develop my dissertation? What might I do to improve the quality?

OU READ

Outstanding Outstanding dissertations are characterized by originality, high-quality writing, and compelling consequences: They show deep knowledge of the literature and mastery of the subject matter. They display a richness of thought and insight, and make an important breakthrough. The body of work in outstanding dissertations is deep and thorough. The approach to the research or scholarship is well designed and well executed. The data or evidence is rich and comes from multiple sources. Quality and care are evident in the analyses and presentation. The argument is focused, logical, rigorous, and sustained. Even though outstanding dissertations are rare— faculty see them once or twice a decade, if that often— the faculty in the study were able to provide a very consistent set of descriptors. They described an outstanding dissertation in the humanities at the higher levels of originality or significance in that it

Degrees of Quality Like books and published articles, completed dissertations have been written and rewritten. The ideas and presentation have been subjected to expert criticism and honed through repeated drafts, feedback, and editing. And, like published research articles and books, most dissertations are very good. A few dissertations are remarkable or outstanding in some aspect. On the other hand, some dissertations are, for a variety of rea-

8


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 9

Aiming for Excellence • asks new questions or addresses an important question or problem; • makes original contributions of texts and ideas; • accesses new sources; • is synthetic or interdisciplinary; • pushes the discipline’s boundaries; • opens new areas for conversation, research, or teaching; • is of interest to a larger community and changes the way people think. They explained that in its execution, the outstanding dissertation • is very well written and very well organized; • clearly states the problem and persuasively explains why it is important; • exhibits mature, independent thinking; • is thoroughly researched; • is theoretically sophisticated and shows a deep understanding of theory; • has an analysis that is comprehensive, complete, sophisticated, and convincing. The faculty also described the outstanding dissertation as having the potential to “illuminate an entire area,” “startle the field,” or “stimulate a lot of activity in the profession.” Indeed, the results or conclusions of an outstanding dissertation push the discipline’s boundaries and are publishable in the top-tier journals. Along with offering new and significant knowledge, an outstanding dissertation is a pleasure to read. The outstanding dissertation is written with transparency, grace, elegance, and literary skill. It has a point of view and a strong, confident, independent, and authoritative voice. Each part, from introduction through conclusion, is excellent, and the pieces are integrated seamlessly. The writer anticipates—and answers—the reader’s questions. Outstanding dissertations were described as “page turners,” surprising and edifying the reader. Readers often react with, “Wow! Why didn’t I think of that?” The faculty offered other descriptions of the outstanding humanities dissertation, such as “ambitious,” “concise,” “elegant,” “imaginative.”

9 Very Good The very good dissertation is very good indeed. It fulfills the purposes of the dissertation requirement and establishes the student as a capable scholar. The majority of the dissertations that faculty see are very good, and this is the level they expect of most graduate students. The faculty in the study explained that a very good dissertation displays the student’s mastery of the field, addresses a meaningful question or problem, and is executed competently. Although it might not hold the promise of altering the field, it has the potential to contribute to the field by expanding its knowledge and thinking. It has something to teach, possibly through new archival material, a new theoretical framework, or a new application of a theoretical framework. The dissertation contains material for two or three papers that could be published in top-tier professional journals. Many very good dissertations have the potential to be outstanding but fall short primarily because of the quality of the writing. More specifically, the faculty described a very good dissertation as “original or significant,” making a “modest contribution to the field.” A very good dissertation

• is well written and well organized; • has a good question or problem; • shows understanding and mastery of the subject matter; • uses appropriate theory, methods, and sources; • includes well-executed research; • demonstrates technical competence; • presents solid analysis. Acceptable A dissertation that meets the basic criteria for the award of the PhD is considered acceptable. Such a dissertation contains a sufficient amount of solid work to demonstrate that the student can do research. It might result in some conference papers, but it has little in the way of publishable material, and what is publishable is likely to be accepted by lower-tier journals. The faculty in the study explained that an acceptable dissertation demonstrates competence and shows the student’s ability to do research and to say something no one has said before. However, the analysis, arguments, and interpretations tend to be unsophisticated, underdeveloped, or limited. The acceptable dissertation shows little promise of


10

12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 10

D E V E L O P I N G Q U A L I T Y D I S S E R T AT I O N S I N T H E H U M A N I T I E S adding much to the field. It is not very original or significant, because it is narrow in scope or focuses on a question or problem that is not interesting. It might be a highly derivative, small extension of someone else’s work. Sometimes an acceptable dissertation is the result of choices and compromises: the student has accepted a job and needs to sprint to finish. In such instances, the student has achieved a primary purpose of graduate education, getting a professional position. More typically, however, an adequate dissertation is the product of poor communication between student and advisor or inadequate advising. Because much of this guidance should take place before you begin to write the dissertation, it is important to talk soon and in detail with your advisor and other faculty members about your topic, your research question or problem, your plan for research and analysis. Get early feedback on your plan for organizing your dissertation and presenting your argument. In addition, be sure to get feedback on the quality of your writing as you begin to draft the chapters. In the humanities, the expectations for professional-level writing are extremely high. Because exceptionally strong skills in organizing and writing are a critical professional attribute, even if your dissertation is very good or even outstanding in other respects, it will be considered only acceptable if you cannot communicate your ideas clearly and effectively. Just as excellent writing enhances a solid piece of scholarship, weak writing undermines otherwise excellent ideas and research. Unacceptable It is your responsibility to produce professional-quality work, and it is your advisor’s responsibility to prevent unacceptable work from advancing. As the faculty who participated in the study concurred, faculty advisors should provide the guidance necessary to ensure that the dissertation meets professional standards. The advisor should make sure that the student is working with a clearly defined question or problem and must make sure that the student is using the conventions of the discipline. The advisor should also provide prompt and constructive feedback. It is your responsibility to follow through on your advisor’s and committee’s guidance. Work that is poorly

written and full of errors and mistakes or has other serious flaws is not of adequate quality. The faculty in the study were clear that they would turn back a draft if the question or problem is trivial, weak, unoriginal, has already been addressed, or has an unconvincing thesis. Work that does not demonstrate that the student understands the conventions of the discipline is unacceptable when • the argument is weak, inconsistent, selfcontradictory, or invalid; • the analysis is wrong, inappropriate, incoherent, or confused; • methods are used inappropriately, or incorrect methods are used; • theory is missing, wrong, or not handled well; • the interpretation is unsupported, misinterpreted, or exaggerated. While unacceptable work has serious flaws, the faculty also described the unacceptable dissertation in terms of its style or presentation: The organization is confusing and the writing is “inarticulate” or littered with spelling and grammatical errors. They also said that a dissertation that violates standards of academic integrity through plagiarism or the deliberate misuse or misrepresentation of sources is unacceptable. These problems should be caught early. Use the criteria in this booklet as a starting point for identifying problems or as a way to plan improvements. If your advisor and other members of your dissertation committee ask you to revise and rewrite, make sure you understand specifically what you need to do to improve—and make the improvements.

Examples From the Disciplines The faculty in English, history, and philosophy who participated in the study offered detailed descriptions of the dissertation at these four quality levels. As you consider the summaries of their descriptions in Tables 3.1 through 3.3, develop questions that you might raise with your advisor and committee about their expectations for quality in general and for your particular project.


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 11

Aiming for Excellence Table 3.1 The English Dissertation at Different Quality Levels Outstanding Brilliant; accessible, adventurous, compelling, coherent, counterintuitive, energetic, engaging, insightful, interesting, original, rich, sensitive, significant, surprising, unpredictable; very well written; has an original prose style; style has spark and elegance; well constructed; carefully and efficiently executed; intellectually solid yet creative; has a strong, confident, authoritative individual voice; voice has an affective dimension; is modest not arrogant; displays a fullness of exposition; startlingly lucid and thoughtful; has a wholly unexpected range of reading; shows a profound reading of the topic and a genuine sense of sources; very interdisciplinary; breaks all the rules; a new piece of research or insight; accesses sources not previously accessed; shows incredibly intense archival research on things that have not been committed to manuscript; asks new questions; makes original combinations of texts and ideas; synthesizes a number of texts; synthesizes from various fields; shows a progression of thought; has an enabling model or a very deep theoretical formula; synthesizes the critical tradition; brings in analytical paradigms that have not been deployed before in the treatment of a particular subject; thinks outside the existing framework; changes the existing framework; presents a very scrupulous analysis; reflects on its own methods of inquiry; comes up with interesting results and conclusions; sees the meaning within a broader context; opens up, branches out, and creates a lot of connections and possibilities; anticipates the questions that the field is going to be interested in; is filled with implications; very clearly makes a contribution to the field. Very Good Good, strong, intellectually mature and engaging; not as well or as beautifully written; has less of an imaginative reach; has some fairly localized original points and some unfamiliar insights; significance is not quite as great; is well executed; has subtle turns and nuanced points, but author is not quite in control of all the elements; is an efficient synthesis of existing knowledge; is better at synthesis than analysis; deploys knowledge in a natural, convincing, logical, and edifying manner; problem or concept is relatively predictable or redundant; poses more traditional questions; uses a new archive; the setup is somewhat familiar; uses a new theoretical framework; provides a new application of a theoretical framework; works a paradigm or mode of inquiry very well; uses advanced methods; takes methods for granted; does not question its methods; student does not always express his or her own knowledge; goes into new territory without really knowing it; explores implications; makes a contribution to how a text or a few texts are read. Acceptable Mediocre; competent; is misconceived or conceived sloppily; muddled, plodding, inelegant; not quite worked through; not very interesting or persuasive; decent not dazzling or exciting; does not say anything particularly original or significant; is utterly predictable; knows the present knowledge on the topic or field; draws from present scholarship and uses it decently; the writing is fairly solid; has a flat treatment of things; sentences close down instead of opening out; applies one idea to five different texts; rehashes the critical tradition reasonably well; advances some arguments but is not very complex; presents the obvious as if it were a new discovery; demonstrates the ability to argue and sustain a discussion about a topic for 250 pages; may not contribute much to the conversation in the field. Unacceptable Contains nothing new; thesis is unconvincing; writing and organization are incoherent or confused; has a lot of discrepancies; is not aware of basic conventions of the field; lacks basic research; engages irresponsibly with the secondary criticism; has not read what others have said on the topic; presents volumes of undigested, incoherent material; is presented as a chronology; cannot get away from repeating what others have said; is like a book report, a march through an author’s work; lacks an argument; does not have a clear sense of its own argument; is unable to sustain an argument; lacks evidence; makes broad, unsupported statements.

11


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 12


12

Table 3.2 The History Dissertation at Different Quality Levels Outstanding Brilliant, one of a kind; well conceived and fully realized; original, imaginative, interesting, surprising, compelling, and persuasive; very well written; written with transparency, grace, elegance, and literary skill; has a great gift for metaphors or a richness of language; uses telling quotes and anecdotes properly; makes minimum use of jargon; shows confidence and independence of mind; has a strong authorial voice; coherent; flows beautifully; has a controlling concept and a good, nonchronological organizational structure; asks new questions and uses information in very different ways; conveys the richness of the subject and issues involved; arguments are logical, rigorous, and sustained; each chapter has its own arguments and a very convincing way of dealing with part of the overall problem; has great transitions between chapters; written as a big symphony; tied together beautifully; very clearly and quickly states the historiographical problem being addressed and how other historians have dealt with it; positions the dissertation in a niche of some sort of problematic; has read and mastered a massive amount of material and thought about the problem in a new way; uses knowledge from other disciplines to address the problem in a way that it has not been addressed before; is theorized; has new methods and new evidence; does spectacular archival research; uncovers some very interesting archival material; is well documented; brings an impressive set of resources to bear on the problem; uses all the evidence to develop and tell an important and compelling story; builds a new model; synthesizes the data in an extraordinarily succinct way; journeys into the realm of analysis and interpretation and discusses what the sources say about the particular issue or time period; draws extraordinary conclusions; is influential; engages in a conversation with the field and guides the conversation in a new direction; pushes the discipline’s boundaries. Very Good Well written; coherent; readable but not exciting; original and ambitious; topics are rather small but may be important in a narrow sense; well grounded in the field but not fully realized; has great potential but has not followed through on everything completely; argument is not as strong as it could be; has done exceptional research, but it has a notecard quality to it; analytically sophisticated and pulled together; displays a conception or an understanding of what historians do; struggles to find a voice; chapters make sense; states the originality and significance of the contribution; has read some new sources; displays a good but not great use of sources; theory is interesting but will not make people want to go out and reinterpret their data; methods are rigorous, interesting but not hugely path breaking; uses a limited body of material; contains extraneous material; takes a new look at evidence; exhausting use of evidence—every analytical or theoretical possibility is covered or pursued; explanation is conceptually tight and persuasive; interpretation is less imaginative and often beholden to earlier theoretical perspectives; is part of a conversation; adds some new wrinkles; makes a contribution in a few areas. Acceptable Competent but not elegant; not particularly original; tends to be unimaginative and unsurprising; writing is pedestrian; lacks confidence; organization is weak and stodgy; is a gap filler; takes a conversation as given; finds a piece of information that is missing and supplies it; descriptive rather than analytical; tells a story that has not been told before but is not interpretive; does not have an integrated, central, sustained argument; argument falters, some part is left out or is not convincing; cannot figure out how to make a significant argument or make the argument match the sources better; rambles and covers a number of different points that have slightly different arguments; shows understanding of theoretical or interpretive issues at a simple-minded level; has done original archival research but does not know what to do with it; looks at a different data set, but analysis and interpretation are not original; is based exclusively on secondary sources; is unable to see how other people may perceive the evidence; provides a lot of detail but no analysis; lacks or has a limited interpretation; does not participate in the conversation as an equal; makes a small contribution in some area.


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 13

Aiming for Excellence Unacceptable Historiographically wrong or not grounded in solid and deep historiography; research is insufficient or inaccurate; makes up or steals data; plagiarizes a little-known source; is not significant or interesting; poorly written; pretentious, inarticulate, sloppy; ungrammatical; has spelling errors; lacks a coherent narrative structure; narrator cannot find voice or overwhelms the analysis; cannot organize paragraphs and chapters; topic or problem is poorly defined; questions are biased in their conception; lacks an organizing, effective thesis; argument is weak, inconsistent, self-contradictory, or unconvincing; fails to engage theoretical or conceptual issues; does not use primary sources; is based exclusively on secondary sources or primary sources in translation; deliberately misreads sources; sources are not properly annotated in the footnotes; describes rather than interprets sources; the evidence is wrong; is analytically incoherent or confused in some way; lacks cogent interpretation; fails to address criticisms; does not make an empirical contribution.

Table 3.3 The Philosophy Dissertation at Different Quality Levels Outstanding Well written; the writing is stylistic, artistic, clear, and transparent; language is used appropriately and with accuracy and precision; is original and significant; shows vision, creativity, imagination, insight, and sophistication; well organized; very focused and to the point; has ingenuity, depth, fire, action, enthusiasm; the argument is brilliant, smashingly interesting, well developed; shows good judgment and philosophical sophistication; has an independent and authoritative voice; gives own views and argues for them; shows real mastery of complicated literature and sensitivity to the history of the tradition; each part is motivated by a significant function within the overall argument; is seamless and carefully argued; painstakingly sets up the problem; phrases or sets a problem in a new light; has a bright idea and attempts to work it out in various ways and trace its implications; has elaborate arguments or subarguments; does a fine-grained analysis; provides a new argument for an old issue; discovers a new problem; introduces a new category that illuminates the problem and generates new insights; reinterprets or does something interestingly different with other philosophers’ thought that shows that it needs to be taken more seriously; handles lots of subtle distinctions and keeps them all going without getting confused; is synthetic or interdisciplinary; ties together a lot of material in a new way; has thought about the objections and navigates through anticipated criticism; arguments lead to a nice conclusion; has lots of interesting future directions; alters the trajectory of the field; opens up a whole new field of inquiry. Very Good Journeyman work; short; well written; rigorous, competent, fully informed; interesting but not compelling; has less originality and less long-range significance; has an interesting topic and some original insights and observations; exhibits mastery of the important literature on the topic; shows a good grasp of the problem and how to do philosophy; may have brilliant ideas but they are inadequately worked out or not expressed cleanly and clearly; may have an idea that is well worked out and confidently put, but is not groundbreaking; articulates and gives shape to a vague idea; raises a number of interesting issues, but does not get much traction on them; takes a vision and carefully and methodically demonstrates that a point has validity and purpose; is argued well, but the argument has an obvious flaw; some avenues are not explored adequately; has a lot of free statement of the standard positions; could move the discussion forward in a useful way.

13


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 14


14 Table 3.3 (continued) Acceptable

Journeyman-like; a good local treatment of local issues; complete, good enough; not very interesting, original or significant; exhibits immaturity of scholarship; not as clear as it should be; overly cautious; meandering, plodding; has sufficient grasp of the problem; shows a clear understanding of the issues and takes them a little further; has read a lot of the literature and can expound on it satisfactorily and make some points that have not already been made; strings together what others have said; is very much within the established pattern of argumentation, but adds another wrinkle; is on the right track, but does not make a good case for it; can make a good case for the candidate’s position even if it seems wrongheaded; lines or argument are not particularly imaginative, insightful, or likely to go anywhere; issues of equal importance are handled unevenly; makes a few distinctions of interest; fails to draw distinctions; has covered all the bases and has tried to respond to objections; presents some criticisms or defenses of the things being discussed that go beyond basic reporting; is constricted in its truthfulness; is not terribly persuasive or does not persuade; adds a little step to the conversation, but the contribution is not impressive. Unacceptable Badly written; not interesting; rambling, sloppy, paltry, underargued, full of gaps; argument lacks clarity and coherence; lacks understanding of how to treat a philosophical issue; unable to master basic professional standards; has a good idea but cannot handle it; has not looked at enough aspects of the problem; does not really understand the issue or existing arguments; incapable of getting a clear understanding of something candidate was confused about; does not attend to or is unable to get a handle on the literature on the subject; missed some literature; misrepresents other people’s views; unable to organize his or her approach to the subject adequately; chapters are not well done; puts forth really bad arguments; advances patently invalid arguments from premises that are false or unwarranted; overlooks things that make what is said uninteresting; thinks that a certain objection is good when it is not; has weak objections; does not recognize that there are objections; is incapable of taking criticism into account; barely adds an iota to the discussion.


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 15

4 Maintaining Consistent Quality Within the Dissertation

N A SUCCESSFUL DISSERTATION ,

the parts work together as an integrated whole. Whether the dissertation is compiled from a set of essays or approached as a book, each piece has a clear function in the argument. Indeed, as the faculty members in the Making the Implicit Explicit study talked about quality in the dissertation, they consistently talked about the quality of the argument, using words like “coherent” and “persuasive” to describe how a student successfully builds and supports a clear, overarching idea, and sustains it over roughly 200 to 250 pages.

of being revised—about the structure of the dissertation.

I

Understand the Tasks While there is no set formula for organizing the humanities dissertation, each humanities discipline has essential tasks that the student must complete in the process of making the argument, no matter how the dissertation is arranged or what sorts of texts or sources are drawn on. Through these tasks you demonstrate your professional skills and knowledge. For example, at this point in your education you should know the important sources in the field and the state of current thinking as it relates to your topic. Your task is to present this knowledge in the context of the research question, to synthesize it, to do so succinctly, and to offer this synthesis in service of your argument. Table 4.1 lists tasks that the English, history, and philosophy faculty in the Making the Implicit Explicit study were asked to discuss. Some of these tasks might be discrete sections of the dissertation; more commonly in the humanities they are integrated throughout the dissertation. Because ideas about the tasks of the humanities dissertation, their relationship, and importance vary not only from discipline to discipline but within subfields and departments, and among faculty, it is critical to understand what your committee expects or recommends regarding the tasks and organization of your dissertation. Below, we describe tasks that are common across the humanities disciplines, even though each discipline may call them by a different

Understand the Form In your early conversations with your advisors about your dissertation topic, it is important to be clear about the requirements for the form of your dissertation. In some humanities disciplines or departments, students present a collection of articles (referred to as “papers,” “articles,” or “essays,” depending on the field); some may already have been published. The student is expected to connect the articles in a meaningful way. In some fields or departments, the student writes a dissertation that is much like a book, although most faculty caution the student that a book-type dissertation will have to be “thoroughly revised before it is a book.” It is very important to understand what, exactly, your advisors and committee expect in terms of the scope and form of the dissertation. Not only do disciplines differ in their approaches, but each department and university has different requirements—that may be under review or in the process

15


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 16


16

Table 4.1 Tasks of a Dissertation in the Humanities, Examples from English, History, and Philosophy English Introduction of problem or concept Review of sources Approach to analysis Justification of chosen texts Analysis of texts Conclusion History Introduction Historiographic review Sources/methods Exposition/analysis Conclusion Philosophy Introduction/statement and clarification of the problem Demonstration of knowledge of the literature Development/defense of the thesis(es) Recognition and response to possible objections Conclusion

name. Tables 4.2 through 4.7 provide summaries of the descriptions.

are typically drawn on throughout the dissertation and are used to advance the field.

The Introduction/Problem Statement The introduction motivates the work and makes the case for the research. It is the student’s task to present the problem or concept that will be analyzed, provide an overview of the arguments that are going to be advanced, and position the dissertation in relation to other work that has been done on the topic. As a distinct chapter, the introduction typically includes some sort of review of the literature, discusses the sources and approach to analysis, and provides an overview of the entire dissertation. Many students write or rewrite the introduction after all else is completed. In the paper-style dissertation, the introduction typically connects the papers and identifies a common theme.

Theoretical/Conceptual Approach The theoretical or conceptual approach is the theory or method behind the analysis. The approach should align with the study’s problem and guide the selection of sources.

Literature Review In humanities dissertations, the students use the literature to position the argument and interpretation in relation to other sources. Because the literature or sources are often integral to the argument, the sources

Approach to Methods, Sources, or Analysis This task involves selecting and justifying the source material for the dissertation, explaining what material is going to be used, why, and how, as well as explaining what material is being eliminated and why. Faculty also consider how students treat the sources during their analyses. Analysis/Argument In the humanities, the analysis or argument is the dissertation. It is where the students prove what they said they were going to explore, where they substantiate their arguments, and where their interpretation answers the question or addresses the problem that was posed in the introduction.


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 17

Maintaining Consistent Quality Table 4.2 Introduction/Problem Statement in the Humanities Dissertation at Different Quality Levels Outstanding • • • • • • • • • • • • •

well written brief, interesting, and compelling motivates the work has a hook provides a clear statement of the problem shows independent thinking about the problem explains why the problem is important and significant places the problem in context and positions it in relationship to contemporary scholarship provides a clear statement of the thesis introduces sources/texts presents an overview of the theory, methods, argument, and conclusions lays out the study’s implications provides a good road map of the dissertation

Very Good • • • • • • •

well written but not eloquent interesting; has breadth, depth, and insight motivates the work but less well poses a good question or problem provides a good statement of the thesis explains why the problem is important and significant provides an overview of the dissertation

Acceptable • • • • • • •

is not well written or well organized lacks or provides minimal motivation for the work makes a standard case for a small problem does not do a good job of explaining why it is important provides minimum or poor context for the problem has a routine introduction of the problem presents minimal overview of the work

Unacceptable • • • • • • • • •

poorly written and organized not clear or succinct provides no motivation or justification for the problem does not state the problem (or it is wrong or trivial) does not make the case for the importance of the topic does not provide or does not put the problem in a clear context does not define the approach does not present an outline or overview of the research contains extraneous material

17


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 18


18

Table 4.3 Literature Review in the Humanities Dissertation at Different Quality Levels Outstanding Comprehensive, thorough, complete, coherent, concise, and up to date The student • • • • • • • • •

presents an efficient and astute reading of the sources. displays command and authority over sources. displays understanding of the history and context of the problem. identifies salient themes. is selective, discriminates between important and unimportant works. identifies and organizes analysis around themes or conceptual categories. subordinates and integrates sources into the argument. treats sources with empathy and respect when demonstrating their shortcomings. makes reader look at the literature differently.

Very good Comprehensive but not exhaustive The student • shows understanding of and command over the most relevant literature. • selects literature wisely and judiciously. • sets the problem in context. Acceptable The student • • • • • • • • •

provides adequate coverage of the literature. demonstrates that he or she has read and understood the literature. lacks critical analysis, synthesis, and original insight. is not selective—does not distinguish between more and less relevant works. misses some important works. cites some works that are not relevant. presents as an undifferentiated list, “This person said this, this person said that.” does not put the problem in context. treats the literature uncharitably.

Unacceptable Missing, inadequate, incomplete, or undigested The student • has not read enough and does not cite enough sources. • misinterprets or does not understand the literature. • misses, omits, or ignores important works, whole areas of literature, or people who have done the same thing. • uses sources awkwardly. • does not provide a context for the research.


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 19

Maintaining Consistent Quality

19

Table 4.4 Theoretical/Conceptual Approach in the Humanities Dissertation at Different Quality Levels Outstanding • • • • • • • •

original, creative, insightful, and innovative simple and elegant well conceived, logically consistent, and internally coherent uses more than one theory advances concepts develops, adds to, revises, or synthesizes theory(ies) aligns with research question, methods, and sources/materials has broad applicability

Very good The student • uses existing theory or concepts well. • informs the research question. Acceptable The student • understands the theory or concepts. • uses theory/concepts appropriately. Unacceptable Absent, omitted, or wrong The student • • • •

misunderstands or misinterprets theory. cannot explain it or why it is being used. uses theory inappropriately. does not align theory with the research question, approach/method, or sources/materials.

Conclusion The function of the conclusion is to take ideas and information that have been presented throughout the dissertation and put them in a wider context. The conclusion should pull the dissertation together, identify what is new and significant, and discuss its implications for new and interesting future research. * * * The English, history, and philosophy faculty who participated in the Making the Implicit Explicit study had many insightful and specific comments about the quality of the tasks of the dissertation in their fields. You will find summaries of their descrip-

tions in the tables in Appendix A. Ask your advisors to be similarly specific, if not more specific, about what constitutes high-quality work in the tasks of the dissertation. Above all, understand the form you are required to use for your dissertation and the tasks you must address within it. Take time to map out your argument and discuss in detail with your advisors and committee how you will make the dissertation work as a coherent whole. Discuss with them how each of the parts will contribute to the argument. Study recent dissertations from your department and see how the students made the pieces work together.


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 20


20

Table 4.5 Approach to Methods/Sources in the Humanities Dissertation at Different Quality Levels Outstanding Brief, thorough, clear, innovative, imaginative The student • • • • • • •

capably chose sources. shows command and authority over sources. extracts interesting and unexpected information from sources. offers a new way to understand the problem. subordinates and integrates sources into the argument. recognizes biases and limitations of sources and their interpretation. is skeptical about powerful figures in the field but treats them with respect.

Very good The student • knows what sources are pertinent. • uses a more limited range of sources. • exhibits confidence in positioning voice. Acceptable Undeveloped and dull The student • • • •

uses a limited range of sources. is subservient and “regurgitive.” has a dim awareness of the limitations of sources. does not explain much.

Unacceptable Inadequate, incoherent, undigested The student • • • • •

has not read enough. does not have a method. does not understand the sources. uses sources awkwardly. makes sources fit the question.

Table 4.6 Analysis/Argument in the Humanities Dissertation at Different Quality Levels Outstanding • • • • •

very clear, interesting, elegant has a mature and distinct voice argument is rich, appropriate, and convincing displays proper balance between original ideas and close, detailed analysis sources and interpretation are mutually supportive and harmoniously linked

Very Good • • • •

clear analysis is new but not surprising takes a subordinate position does not progress with the same clarity, rigor, and fullness


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 21

Maintaining Consistent Quality Acceptable • • • •

coherent but not interesting relationship between the sources and the interpretation is not spelled out clearly does not see the complexity does not make all the necessary arguments

Unacceptable • • • •

unclear fails to convey the argument interpretation is not cogent makes implausible, unsubstantiated claims

Table 4.7 Conclusion in the Humanities Dissertation at Different Quality Levels Outstanding Interesting, surprising, and insightful The student • • • • • • •

summarizes the work in a precise and interesting way. explains what has been accomplished and what has not been accomplished. underscores and explains major points and findings. recognizes gaps in the argument and unaddressed areas of inquiry. identifies contributions and next questions. places the work in a wider context. raises new questions and discusses future directions.

Very Good The student • • • •

provides a good summary of the results. states what has been done. states its contribution but not its significance. identifies possible implications.

Acceptable Underdeveloped The student • • • • •

summarizes and restates what has been accomplished. repeats or recasts the results or major points. does not address the significance or implications of the research. does not place the work in a larger context. identifies a few, nonspecific next steps.

Unacceptable Too short, inadequate or missing The student • • • • •

summarizes what has already been said. does not tie things up. does not explain the results or what has been done. claims to have proved or accomplished things that have not been proved or accomplished. does not draw conclusions.

21


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 22

5 Achieving Excellence

we have offered suggestions for achieving quality in your dissertation. The final table of the booklet, Appendix B, provides practical advice gathered from the humanities faculty in the study. We close with some frank recommendations about the task ahead of you.

T

HROUGHOUT THIS BOOKLET,

As a graduate student in the humanities, you may already be a teacher of writing. You probably tell your students that the quality of their ideas will not shine through poor or ineffective writing. Regardless of how brilliant the ideas and how outstanding the research, if the writer cannot convey ideas and information clearly, concisely, and coherently, a reader will not be able to appreciate the import. An argument that is not mapped out well or adequately sustained is a missed opportunity to share knowledge and contribute to the field. The faculty in the study spoke candidly about the surprising amount of poor writing they see among their graduate students, and some even suggested that writing should be among the essential tasks of the dissertation. The faculty remarked that grammar and style affect the reader’s perception of the quality of the dissertation. If the work is riddled with errors, or the student did not take the time to plan and organize the presentation of the material, the reader wonders, with good reason, how carefully the research or analysis was done. Learning to write and communicate well is one of your professional responsibilities. Moreover, as an expert, you are expected to be able to communicate effectively about your field to a variety of audiences. Your dissertation demonstrates your skill in communicating with your peers in the discipline.

Practice Academic Honesty By passing the dissertation, your advisor, committee, department, and university are certifying that you have the skills, knowledge, and disposition expected of a professional in your field, which includes a commitment to integrity. Honest use of sources and data is the fundamental expectation of academic work. None of the levels of quality described here matter if you plagiarize, deliberately misuse or misrepresent sources, or falsify data. Such serious betrayal of professional standards puts your degree in jeopardy. It could even be rescinded if the dissertation is passed and then found to have these abuses.

Develop Professional-Level Writing Skills You probably noticed that “writing” is a constant item in the summaries of faculty descriptions of quality. The quality of your writing plays a large role in faculty members’ assessment of the quality of your dissertation, for students in the humanities are expected to have high-level writing skills, and the dissertation is expected to be of literary quality. Your advisor and committee are looking at both the quality of your prose and the quality of your argument.

Take Action to Improve Your Writing Although some graduate students—domestic and international—have problems with grammar, many also have problems with basic composition. Some faculty

22


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 23

Achieving Excellence report spending a great deal of time working with students to improve the quality of writing in the dissertation—time that should be focused on the larger ideas. If the feedback on your papers for your course work, dissertation proposal, or chapter drafts suggests that you need to pay more attention to this skill, here is a plan of action: • Know good scholarly writing. Ask your advisor or other faculty members to recommend the work of a scholar whose writing is very clear; read it not for the subject but for how it is written. • Plan your dissertation. Many problems with prose arise because the writer lacks a clear sense of direction for the ideas. Make a map of your dissertation or plot out the argument. Try it out by presenting it to other students and faculty mentors. Use the map as you draft the various pieces of the dissertation. Use early drafts to clarify what you want to say; then begin to shape chapter sections, paragraphs, and sentences. • Plan the pieces of the dissertation. Decide how you will organize each chapter. What are the main points? In what order does the reader need to know the information? What supporting material will you use, including quotes, charts, tables, and other illustrations? • Write and revise. Understand the process of writing. Approach the tasks of writing and revising as separate activities, for they each demand different skills. Although writing and polishing at the same time might seem efficient, it is not. After you have drafted a piece, set it aside for a while, and then review what you have written and reshape it. Then go back again, at another time, and polish the prose, grammar, and spelling by reading aloud what you have written. You will be surprised at what you see. • Follow conventions. A handbook of grammar, usage, and style is an important professional reference tool. In addition, know the citation and formatting conventions of your discipline. Many disciplines publish style guides, with instructions for citation formats and manuscript

23 preparation. Major journals also provide guides for preparing manuscripts. • Get feedback. Although there are many things you can do as your own editor, it is important to seek and consider the feedback of others. Join a writing group and work with your peers. Ask a faculty member you respect to work over a short piece of text with you; even a half an hour in which someone edits your work and explains his or her suggestions can be extremely enlightening. • Practice writing and presenting your research. Take advantage of opportunities to present at conferences or campus research colloquia. Seize opportunities to write and speak about your field or project. The more varied the audience the better.

Set the Bar Having a clear target makes it easier for you to ask questions, seek guidance, and make corrections. It also makes it easier for your advisors to answer questions, provide guidance, and suggest revisions. The descriptions of quality presented in this booklet are benchmarks of excellence. You and your advisor and committee might find it helpful to develop specific expectations of quality for your dissertation. Doing so will help them guide your work and will help you use their feedback. If you and your advisors are interested in putting expectations for your dissertation in writing, you might start with the general examples in this booklet and customize them for your discipline and project. A larger question, though, is where to set the bar. You and your advisors need to talk about finding the balance between challenging yourself and setting realistic goals. Discuss the level of quality they expect in the dissertation. Talk about your goals for quality and your professional aspirations (you might find it helpful to put these thoughts in writing first, before the conversations). As you set the bar together, keep in mind that the “very good” that the faculty in the study discussed is the equivalent of an A. Achieving that level of excellence is an accomplishment that you can be proud of.


24

12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 24


Engage Your Advisors

Engage Your Peers

Above all, we recommend that you take the initiative to speak with your advisors, committee members, and other faculty members who mentor you, and that you do so early in the process and frequently throughout it. You are entitled to guidance about your dissertation and to prompt and constructive feedback throughout the process. Know what you are aiming for and what you need to do to meet your goals. Be clear about the tasks of the dissertation and the expectations for quality for each. Work with your advisor and committee to set a realistic schedule that includes time to respond to drafts, especially early in the process. Meet the deadlines you and your committee agree to. When you meet, use their time and expertise wisely; ask questions and make sure you understand their directions. Make the revisions your advisor and committee members ask you to make—or provide them with reasoned justifications for not making them. If their feedback seems contradictory or confusing, ask for clearer or more consistent guidance. Be proactive about solving any problems. That is an important professional skill. If you feel stuck or unsure about something, talk to your advisor, a faculty member you respect, or other students. If you are not getting the guidance or feedback that you need, bring it to the attention of someone who can help you, such as the program head, department chair, or graduate dean. Don’t withdraw and hope the problem will go away. Don’t give up. Persistence is also an important professional attribute.

Use the process of writing the dissertation to develop colleagues for the future. Sharing work with peers in order to get honest and expert feedback is a habit (and skill) you should learn early. Form a group of peers and meet regularly to check drafts, discuss problems and questions, and savor accomplishments. Meeting regularly to discuss your work will help keep you on track as you prepare to meet interim deadlines.

Applaud Yourself No doubt, at every milestone in the process, you will want to thank the friends and family members who are supporting and encouraging you. They take pride in what you’ve accomplished and the role they have played in your success. But remember, there is someone else who should be congratulated: you. Even when you sometimes feel like you are taking small steps up a big mountain, pause to recognize how far you have come; you will be surprised at the distance you have covered. By pursuing the PhD, you are making an enormous investment in yourself. Take time along the way to appreciate what your commitment to this effort says about you, personally and professionally. The dissertation is a symbol of the hours and commitment that you have devoted to the process. And when you have finished it, and the dissertation is submitted and defended, be sure to celebrate!


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 25

Appendix A Tasks of the Humanities Dissertation

25

Introduction (of Problem or Concept) Unacceptable

Has an interesting idea and shows independent thinking about problem, concept, or position; asks questions that are new or different; introduces the problem and positions it in relationship to contemporary scholarship on two levels: one, the criticism, and two, the theoretical paradigms that are going to be used to approach the problem; provides a very clear statement of the thesis; starts to introduce the justification of the chosen tests; articulates and outlines the argument; provides a road map of what will be covered in the dissertation

A very good problem or concept; has a convincing premise; provides a good statement of thesis and purpose; indicates where it is going

A routine introduction of the problem and methods

Confused; not clear on what the topic is; introduces a lot of topics that are not clearly coordinated; does not provide enough justification for the project; does not define the problem or approach; does not give a road map for the argument; talks about criticism without discussing the problem or the argument; talks about the theoretical approach or some of the theories that are going to be used without explaining how they are going to be used or why they are relevant to the problem and texts; lacks a sharply thought-through center

Page 26

Acceptable

8:53 AM

Very Good

12/5/08

Outstanding

Review of Sources Very Good

Acceptable

Provides a thorough, comprehensive review of capably chosen texts; presents an efficient and astute reading of the sources; shows command and authority over the sources; lays out and positions the sources to lead up to the question; interrogates rather than reviews sources; perceives the relevant crux of an argument and articulates it in one or two sentences; sources are subordinated to and integrated into the argument; shows how disparate combinations are part of the body; is more likely to be skeptical about powerful figures in the field but treats them respectfully

Knows what sources are pertinent; sources are a little less digested; exhibits less confidence in positioning the voice of the dissertation

Demonstrates the student has read the material; is subservient and regurgitive; too long and dull

Unacceptable Inadequate; undigested; has big holes; student has not read enough and does not understand the sources; sources are used awkwardly

APPENDIX A

Outstanding


26

Table A.1 Tasks of the English Dissertation by Quality Level

Acceptable

Selective; analysis is new but not surprising; takes a subordinate position; follows others’ approaches; shows how the approach to the analysis is suited to demonstrating the thesis; affirms what the student is doing but may not see enough possibilities for the methodology

States the method; method may be assumed rather than stated

Misreads the sources; states that the student is using a particular approach, but it is no one else’s understanding of that approach

8:53 AM

Very clear, interesting; edifying, participates in a conversation; defines the questions clearly; has a welldefined, well-justified approach to answering the question; the perspective is clear and is sustained by existing paradigms; the perspective and material are harmoniously linked; firms out its methodologies against alternatives; discovers implications about a particular paradigm that were not intended or foreseen by the original author; accomplishes something that others have not accomplished

Unacceptable

12/5/08

Very Good

Page 27

Justification of Chosen Texts Outstanding Is at a broad intellectual level; often implicit; choice of texts is theoretically motivated; articulates why texts were chosen; uses a wide range of texts; brings in forgotten texts to reorient readers’ notion of literary history; displays an interesting and creative reading of texts; talks sensibly about complicated issues; makes several points simultaneously; deals well with detail; does not range too far from source material


Outstanding

APPENDIX A

Approach to Analysis

Very Good Justifies the texts being used; is reflexive

Acceptable Uses readings to support a thesis; belabors the justification; assumes the text proves the argument

Unacceptable Confused, unclear, or inadequate; fails to offer justification for chosen texts; omits key texts; does not articulate the connection between texts; does not make sense with respect to the argument

27

(continued)

Analysis of Texts Outstanding Intellectually creative; a deft handling of textuality; makes connections between texts and other kinds of phenomena

Very Good

Acceptable

Knows the texts; proves points; uses old-fashioned ways of supporting an argument with text; needs to be more open and creative

Routine; superficial; common knowledge

Unacceptable Misuses knowledge in reference texts

12/5/08

Conclusion Acceptable

Interesting; unexpected; has a surprise ending; summarizes what has been said; recognizes gaps in the argument; identifies areas of inquiry where the student did not venture; states the implications; raises new questions; shows possible lines of inquiry; pushes into new territory; opens things up; allows others to do more work

States what has been done; identifies the significance but not the full significance; does not state what it means for the field; does not indicate how others might follow up on it

Summarizes and repeats what has been found; celebrates itself for demonstrating what the introduction said it would demonstrate

Unacceptable Inadequate; student does not know what he or she is doing or has done

Page 28

Very Good

8:53 AM

Outstanding


28

Table A.1

APPENDIX A

Acceptable

Provides a good exposition of the problem but is less graceful; explains why it is important and significant; situates the work in the historiography; speaks only to own subfield

Writing is pedestrian, uninteresting, and awkward; merely orients the reader to the problem but not as precisely, thoughtfully, or intriguingly as it could; itemizes the chapters and their content; does not conceptualize the strain of thought

Very pedestrian; either too long or too short; does not provide a sense that it is an introduction or do the things an introduction is supposed to do; does not grab the reader; is just a summary; has no point; raises issues that are not developed or ignores issues that are developed; is not coherent; moves backward and forward on a variety of scales of argument, time, or method; makes an excessive claim of significance

Page 29

Beautifully written; concise, thoughtful, succinct, persuasive; has a motivational hook; asks a question that grabs, entices, and excites the reader; sets up and defines the problem clearly and forcefully; provides a clear statement of the thesis; grounds it in the broader historiographic fields; explains why it is important and significant; maps out the procedures, approaches, and methodology; introduces the sources, difficulties, and challenges confronted; provides a road map for the ensuing chapters and tells the reader what to expect

Unacceptable

8:53 AM

Very Good

12/5/08

Outstanding


Introduction

APPENDIX A

Table A.2 Tasks of the History Dissertation by Quality Level

Historiographic Review Outstanding

Very Good

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Brief; concisely and fairly summarizes a large body of literature; identifies salient works and themes; uses rather than lists prior works; avoids, “so and so wrote”; demonstrates mastery of relevant secondary sources; treats secondary sources with empathy and respect when demonstrating their shortcomings; situates the problem in the historiography and theory; historicizes the historiography; engages in the conversation; provides a sense of what the turning points in the literature are and where the literature might be going; shows why the student is coming at the problem from a different direction

Command of the historiography is more limited; selective; picks out those parts of the historiography that are specifically relevant to the problem being addressed; is thin with respect to the problem the student is looking at; exhibits some tendency to oversimplify historical trends or be overly critical of prior literature; shows the debates in the literature; states what issues will be addressed and identifies the gaps; indicates how the student plans to fill in the gaps; takes a defensive stance that exaggerates the extent to which the dissertation and its interpretation are novel or better

Tends to be an undifferentiated list; an annotated bibliography; hits all the major works; is not selective; does not distinguish between more- and lessrelevant works; range consulted is too constrained by the self-definition of the topic; uncritically accepts what has been written as true; does not place the work in historiographic context

Mechanical; too thin; shows no awareness of what has been written on the topic; did not look at enough secondary sources; misinterprets or does not understand the literature; is intellectually confused; jumps around; does not fit problem into the historiography; focuses entire argument against a recent book or article

29

(continued)

Sources/Methods Unacceptable

Brief, thorough, clear; innovative, imaginative; sources are exciting, reliable; has a high degree of integrity; integrates sources; squeezes unexpected, interesting information from sources; has a synergy among new questions, methods, and sources; figures out a new way to understand the problem, theory, methodology, or sources; approaches sources with a completely different understanding; takes traditional sources and looks at them in a new way; opens up new sources; generates new kinds of evidence; shows why method used is superior; uses cutting-edge methodology; successfully defends method and analysis; shows that its theory and method is more valuable, subject to fewer criticisms, and has fewer flaws than previous theories and methods; recognizes biases and limitations of sources and their interpretation; argument is well documented

Uses a more limited range of sources; relies on printed primary sources; rises to the challenge when sources contradict original position; tends to accept what sources say as true

Undeveloped; undifferentiated; out of fashion; very limited range of sources, sometimes only one source or one genre of sources; makes unsupportable assumptions; has a dim awareness of the limitations of the sources; does not explain much

Incoherent; undigested; insufficient research; does not have a method; does not have enough data; student does not know what to read or how to read it; does not understand the sources; does not actually read the material and engage with it; relies solely on secondary sources; material is taken from a Web site; makes sources fit the question; imposes a pattern on the sources; sources are not documented; methods are not described

Page 30

Acceptable

8:53 AM

Very Good

12/5/08

Outstanding

Exposition/Analysis Very Good

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Elegant, everything is there for a reason; consistent, argument or exposition is rich and appropriate; has proper balance between original, new ideas and detailed close analysis; analysis is sophisticated; keeps big picture in mind, analytical presentation has a distinct voice; asks larger questions; pursues questions to

Data are not as clearly tied to the question; interprets the raw material within the context of the conversation; makes some leaps between data and interpretation

Coherent; writing is acceptable but the style is not very interesting or exciting; uses a lot of jargon; covers enough material; uses chronology as an organizer; has no real analysis; has a decent descriptive narrative; gets the story straight, explains it sequentially with cause and effect relationships;

Fails to convey the argument; argument does not have a sense of hierarchy; interpretation of data is not cogent; sources contradict the interpretation; not clear how the chapters differ; does not answer the “So what?” question.

APPENDIX A

Outstanding


30

Table A.2

Acceptable

Unacceptable

12/5/08

does not see the story in all of its complexity; shows awareness of the theoretical issues underpinning the research; the relationship between the sources and the interpretation of evidence not spelled out clearly; interpretation is too simplistic

appropriate conclusions; sources and interpretation are mutually supportive; interpretation answers the question; almost every paragraph has a telling quote or anecdote; answers the “So what?” question

Conclusion Outstanding

Short; sums up the work well but does not go beyond a summary; student is afraid to insert own voice

Acceptable

Missing; appalling; too brief; trails off into nothingness; does not tie things up; introduces new thoughts or information; student is still struggling to figure out what is being argued; student says that it has implications for the present

Page 31

Underdeveloped; provides a very bald and brief restatement of the problem; summarizes what happened in the chapters; states what the major points are; ties it all together but does not deliver the goods that have been withheld; answers the “So what?” question; shows its relevance; makes platitudes about the history of the world

Unacceptable

8:53 AM

Full of surprises; recapitulates the work in a more precise and different way; presents the primary problem, shows how the evidence was presented in answer to the original question; pulls the work together and says something interesting; has an epilogue, which may bring some theme forward in time and show how its implications change with time; puts the work in a wider context; shows the broader implications; explains the significance of the work for the field, history, and/or humanity; points out new, interesting, and exciting possibilities for future research

Very Good


Very Good

APPENDIX A

Outstanding

31

Introduction/Statement and Clarification of the Problem Very Good

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Clear, crisp, focused, interesting; well written and well organized; motivates the problem; explains and clarifies the problem very effectively; lays the problem out quickly in an original, interesting, and imaginative way; shows that the problem is compelling; sums up a grand, important position in couchable terms; positions the dissertation in relation to other work that has been done on the topic; specifies what points are going to be advanced; provides an indication of the strategy; talks about choices and philosophical methods and why they are going to be employed; provides guidance on the structure of what is to come; discusses how the different parts of the dissertation contribute to the treatment of the problem; provides a complete answer to the “So what?” question

Comprehensive but not exhaustive; reasonably succinct; reasonably well written; very clear; provides a novel and original statement of the problem; does a good job of laying out the problem; covers all the bases; provides a good sense of where the dissertation is going; has a good road map of the problem space and of the major components

Provides an off-the-shelf characterization of an established, usually small problem; a little turgid; student is unable to clearly distinguish between a couple of different problems; gives the reader a sense of where the dissertation is going; shows appreciation for the issues; makes a small point that is vague or imprecise

Not clear or succinct; question is ambiguous or not understandable; student misunderstands or misrepresents the problem; does not clarify the problem

12/5/08

Outstanding

8:53 AM Page 32

Demonstration of Knowledge of the Literature Outstanding

Very Good

Acceptable

Comprehensive but not exhaustive; reasonably succinct; laid out for easy comprehension; literature is selected wisely and judiciously; shows command of most of the relevant literature; may have missed an important argument in an article; may not have taken into account other things that people have been saying

Workmanlike; lacks original insight; student reads and basically understands the right texts; omits some important literature; includes literature that is not particularly interesting or worthwhile; does not quite get the most interesting insight or perspective on a particular part of the relevant literature; treats the literature uncharitably; problems with

Unacceptable Student reads the right literature but does not understand it very well; does not understand or address something important; gets the literature wrong; ignores some literature; deliberately misinterprets some literature; provides caricature versions of important philosophers or texts; does not call

APPENDIX A

Clear, crisp, lucid; original, imaginative, and thorough coverage and review of the literature; runs through the entire dissertation; shows sweeping grasp of the literature, including things that might not be obviously relevant at first; shows good judgment; not comprehensive, rather identifies the most appropriate,


32

Table A.3 Tasks of the Philosophy Dissertation by Quality Level

Acceptable arguments and interpretations throughout; critiques are easy or pointless

upon primary sources completely or adequately; relies on secondary sources

12/5/08

interesting, and important works, critics, and points; identifies conceptual categories and uses them to classify the literature; pulls things together; sees relationships between two philosophers or works; student knows when distinctions matter, when not to go after an idea, and when to back up and fill in; anticipates objections and deals with them effectively; uses the literature to advance the field

Unacceptable

8:53 AM

Development/Defense of the Thesis(es) Very well done; has a developed, mature, distinct voice and point of view; student has arrived at own positions; develops the arguments in defense of the thesis; presents effective convincing arguments that have not been made before; shows where student’s positions differ from the standard and what is new; makes interesting points; demonstrates that seemingly implausible points are plausible; presents a serious new argument as a dialectic

Very Good Not quite as clear; the whole structure does not progress with the same kind of clarity, rigor, and fullness

Acceptable Well developed but not interesting; does not make all the arguments needed to deal with the problem effectively; arguments are less convincing; provides some arguments for the thesis and then does not consider some of the plausible objections

Unacceptable

Page 33

Outstanding


Very Good

APPENDIX A

Outstanding

Unclear; not well articulated; has mistakes in logic; not clear what is being argued or how the pieces fit together; makes claims that are not particularly plausible and does not provide adequate support for them; leaves claims hanging; examples are not relevant; the conclusion does not follow from the argument

33

(continued)

Recognition and Response to Possible Objections Outstanding

Acceptable

Gets most of the objections; has something reasonable to say about most of them; says something that balances the scales against objection

Workmanlike; misses some objections that the student should have seen; does not fully answer the objections; answers are not convincing

Unacceptable Student is unaware of obvious objections; does not see potential objections; does not understand the objections; response to objections raises additional objections; the student thinks he or she has answered an objection but has not; has nothing to say about objections; cannot see what another person would argue or what anyone could possibly say against the position; cannot imagine anyone disagreeing

12/5/08 8:53 AM Page 34

Exhibits a degree of sophistication in dealing with particular objections and in understanding what it is to object and respond appropriately; shows a good sense of how to weigh objections and responses; raises potential objections, responds to them and sets parameters for what is reasonable to consider; takes on really big objections and gives plausible responses to them; is alert to the objections in the literature and makes them stronger; impressively answers seemingly unanswerable objections; turns up something deep and important

Very Good


34

Table A.3

Conclusion Outstanding

Very Good

Sums up what has been done and what it means; proves the point; arrives at some interesting, novel, and important conclusions; the conclusions are clear; identifies what has been accomplished or settled and what has not been; identifies the contribution; identifies questions that need to be raised; discusses next steps; opens up a whole new set of issues

Interesting but is not quite as interesting or important; well stated; well developed, shows how it relates to the argument; is not going to change the literature or affect the field significantly

Acceptable Mildly interesting; follows from the argument; restates what has been accomplished but is a little muddy; does not place the summary into a larger context or meaning; does not identify the next steps

Unacceptable Uninteresting; very short; not well done or well articulated; just a summary; student claims to have accomplished all kinds of things that were not accomplished

APPENDIX A


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 35

Appendix B Advice for Writing a Humanities Dissertation Table B

Writing the Humanities Dissertation

Literature Review • • • • • •

Be selective and critical in your choice of sources. Understand and discuss the history and context of your problem. Use the literature to position your argument and interpretation relative to other sources. Integrate your sources into your argument. Engage in a conversation with the leading scholars. Show empathy for and appreciation of other’s work.

Theoretical/Conceptual Approach • Select a theoretical or conceptual approach that is appropriate for your problem. • Let the approach guide your selection of sources. • Use the approach to guide and structure your argument and analysis. Approach to Methods/Sources • • • • •

Discuss what material is going to be used, why, and how. Explain what material is going to be eliminated and why. Acknowledge the biases and limitations of your sources and their interpretation. Integrate your sources into your argument. Exhibit command and authority over your sources.

Analysis/Argument • Provide evidence in support of your arguments. • Answer your research question. • Prove your thesis or, if necessary, revise your thesis and argument to fit the evidence. Discussion and Conclusion • • • • • • • • •

Take a deep breath and find the time and energy to write a solid conclusion. Connect your conclusion to your introduction. Tie all the pieces of your dissertation together. Highlight the major points and findings of your work. Discuss the significance and implications of your work. Place your work in a larger context and discuss what it means for your field or society. Identify the shortcomings of your research. Anticipate and respond to criticism. Identify new questions or next steps.

35


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 36

APPENDIX B

36 DOS

DON’TS The Dissertation as a Whole

• Master your discipline’s subject matter. • Learn and internalize the professional standards of your discipline. • Come up with a clearly defined researchable question or problem whose answer will be important to your field. • Present a convincing thesis and be able to sustain your argument for 200 or more pages. • Know the literature in your field and in related fields, especially as it relates to your dissertation topic. • Take the initiative to explore new ideas and new literatures. • Look at other fields and other disciplines for ideas. • Do what you say you are going to do in your dissertation proposal or something very close to it, but remember, ideas evolve and so should your research. • Take the time necessary to fully develop your ideas. • Find your voice and express an independent point of view. • Present your ideas clearly, concisely, and persuasively. • Anticipate and answer readers’ questions and criticisms. • Make the revisions your advisor and committee members ask you to make or provide them with good justifications for not making them.

• Think of your dissertation as the biggest or best thing you will ever do in your life. • Set an unreasonable quality level for your dissertation. Outstanding dissertations are rare. Faculty expect most dissertations to be very good. You can always expand and polish your work after you receive your degree. • Expect your advisor to do your research or write your dissertation for you. • Misrepresent other peoples’ views. • Submit a manuscript containing spelling and grammatical errors • Misinterpret or oversell your results. • Push for a defense if your advisor does not feel you are ready to defend.

Introduction • State your question or problem clearly and concisely, and articulate your thesis. • Discuss the importance of your problem. • Provide an overview of your argument(s). • Position your problem in the context of contemporary scholarship on the topic. • Introduce your sources and approach/method. • Identify your contribution and its significance. • Review and rewrite your introduction as necessary after writing your conclusion.

• Put in a lot of extraneous material.

Literature Review • Be selective and critical in your choice of sources. • Understand and discuss the history and context of your problem. • Use the literature to position your argument and interpretation relative to other sources. • Integrate your sources into your argument. • Engage in a conversation with the leading scholars. • Show empathy for and appreciation of other’s work.

• Discuss everything that has been written on your topic. • Omit or ignore important works. • Present a descriptive summary of the literature devoid of critical analysis of it. • Plagiarize or misuse your sources.


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 37

APPENDIX B

37 DOS

DON’TS Theoretical/Conceptual Approach

• Select a theoretical or conceptual approach that is appropriate for your problem. • Let the approach guide your selection of sources. • Use the approach to guide and structure your argument and analysis.

• Omit a theoretical or conceptual approach. • Use the theory(ies) or conceptual approach(es) incorrectly or inappropriately.

Approach to Methods/Sources • Discuss what material is going to be used, why, and how. • Explain what material is gong to be eliminated and why. • Acknowledge the biases and limitations of your sources and their interpretation. • Integrate your sources into your argument. • Exhibit command and authority over your sources.

• Make your sources fit your research question or theoretical/conceptual approach.

Analysis/Argument • Provide evidence in support of your arguments. • Answer your research question. • Prove your thesis or, if necessary, revise your thesis and argument to fit the evidence.

• Make implausible, unsubstantiated claims.

Discussion and Conclusion • Take a deep breath and find the time and energy to write a solid conclusion. • Connect your conclusion to your introduction. • Tie all the pieces of your dissertation together. • Highlight the major points and findings of your work. • Discuss the significance and implications of your work. • Place your work in a larger context and discuss what it means for your field, the larger world, or humanity. • Identify the shortcomings of your research. • Anticipate and respond to criticism. • Identify new questions or next steps.

• Omit the conclusion. • Blow it off and write an insufficient conclusion. • Repeat your introduction.


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 38


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 39

Making the Implicit Explicit: About the Study

is based in large part on a study conducted during 2003–2004 at nine doctoralgranting universities. The study included focus groups with 276 faculty in 74 departments across 10 disciplines representing the sciences (biology, electrical engineering, computer engineering, physics/physics and astronomy, mathematics), social sciences (economics, psychology, sociology), and humanities (English, history, philosophy). The faculty were selected because they had advised many doctoral students and served on many dissertation committees. The average faculty member chaired 11 dissertations and served on 37 dissertation committees. Faculty from the following universities participated in the study:

T

• • • • • • •

• University of Kansas • University of Southern California

HIS BOOKLET

The faculty were asked to describe dissertations in their disciplines, and, specifically, to describe dissertations and the tasks of dissertations at four different quality levels: outstanding, very good, acceptable, and unacceptable. They were also asked to explain the purpose of the dissertation and what it means to make an original and significant contribution in their discipline. At the time of the focus groups, as a group, the 89 humanities faculty whose responses are featured in this booklet had chaired about 1,108 dissertations and served on about 2,782 dissertation committees across 25 English, history, and philosophy departments, individually chairing, on average, 13 dissertations and serving on 32 dissertation committees. For a complete treatment of the each discipline’s focus group discussions, see chapters 14, 15, and 16 in Barbara E. Lovitts, Making the Implicit Explicit: Creating Performance Expectations for the Dissertation (Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, 2007).

Duke University Michigan State University Northwestern University Stony Brook University Syracuse University University of Colorado at Boulder University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

39


12/5/08

8:53 AM

Page 40

About the Authors

Barbara E. Lovitts is an independent higher education researcher. She was formerly Senior Program Officer in the Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Education at the National Academy of Engineering, and is the author of Leaving the Ivory Tower: The Causes and Consequences of Departure from Doctoral Study. She has worked at the University of Maryland, the American Institutes for Research, the National Science Foundation, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Ellen L. Wert, a former program officer at The Pew Charitable Trusts, is a freelance writer and editor who has been involved for nearly two decades with national efforts to improve U.S. graduate education, including Preparing Future Faculty, the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate, and the Survey on Doctoral Education and Career Preparation. Past clients include the American Association for Higher Education, The Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, and the Education Policy Institute.

40

Developing Quality Dissertations in the Humanities: A Graduate Student's Guide to Achieving Excellence

Developing Quality Dissertations in the Social Sciences: A Graduate Student's Guide to Achieving Excellence

Developing Quality Dissertations in the Sciences: A Graduate Student's Guide to Achieving Excellence

Achieving Excellence in Fundraising

Money for Graduate Students in the Humanities, 2001-2003

Money for Graduate Students in the Humanities, 2001-2003

Achieving Excellence in Stakeholder Management

Coaching in the Library: A Management Strategy for Achieving Excellence

Achieving Inventory Accuracy: A Guide to Sustainable Class a Excellence in 120 Days

Achieving Excellence in Medical Education (2006, 2007)

Achieving Competence, Success and Excellence in Teaching

Achieving Excellence in Medical Education, Second Edition

Succeeding in Graduate School: The Career Guide for Psychology Students

Mastering Endovascular Techniques A Guide to Excellence

Achieving Software Quality Through Teamwork

Total Organizational Excellence: Achieving World Class Performance

Developing Organizational Simulations: A Guide for Practitioners and Students

Project Management: Best Practices: Achieving Global Excellence

The humanities: a selective guide to information sources

A students guide to vectors and tensors

Total Organizational Excellence: Achieving World Class Performance

A Guide to eTMAs for Students

A Subject Guide to Quality Web Sites

Achieving Service Excellence, Second Edition (Ache Management)

A companion to digital humanities

The Guide to graduate environmental programs

Students Guide to Indonesian Grammar

A Practical Guide to Quality Management in Clinical Trial Research

The Students' Guide to Research Ethics

Money for Graduate Students in the Social & Behavioral Sciences 2001 2003 (Money for Graduate Students in the Social Sciences)

Sociology Projects: A Students' Guide

Developing Quality Dissertations in the Humanities: A Graduate Student's Guide to Achieving Excellence

Developing Quality Dissertations in the Social Sciences: A Graduate Student's Guide to Achieving Excellence

Developing Quality Dissertations in the Sciences: A Graduate Student's Guide to Achieving Excellence

Achieving Excellence in Fundraising

Money for Graduate Students in the Humanities, 2001-2003

Money for Graduate Students in the Humanities, 2001-2003

Achieving Excellence in Stakeholder Management

Coaching in the Library: A Management Strategy for Achieving Excellence

Achieving Inventory Accuracy: A Guide to Sustainable Class a Excellence in 120 Days

Achieving Excellence in Medical Education (2006, 2007)

Achieving Competence, Success and Excellence in Teaching

Achieving Excellence in Medical Education, Second Edition

Succeeding in Graduate School: The Career Guide for Psychology Students

Mastering Endovascular Techniques A Guide to Excellence

Achieving Software Quality Through Teamwork

Total Organizational Excellence: Achieving World Class Performance

Developing Organizational Simulations: A Guide for Practitioners and Students

Project Management: Best Practices: Achieving Global Excellence

The humanities: a selective guide to information sources

A students guide to vectors and tensors

Total Organizational Excellence: Achieving World Class Performance

A Guide to eTMAs for Students

A Subject Guide to Quality Web Sites

Achieving Service Excellence, Second Edition (Ache Management)

A companion to digital humanities

The Guide to graduate environmental programs

Students Guide to Indonesian Grammar

A Practical Guide to Quality Management in Clinical Trial Research

The Students' Guide to Research Ethics

Money for Graduate Students in the Social & Behavioral Sciences 2001 2003 (Money for Graduate Students in the Social Sciences)

Sociology Projects: A Students' Guide

Recommend Documents