Next Generation Learning Conference 2012
Dalarna University in collaboration with KTH Royal Institute of Technology invites you to submit session proposals for the Next Generation Learning (NGL) conference, a conference on the implications for learning and education of the digital revolution. The conference is aimed at development and research projects on NGL in both educational and professional settings. Call for papers: http://bit.ly/mCEc1m Stefan Hrastinski, associate professor Media Technology KTH Royal Institute of Technology Lindstedtsv. 3 SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden Office: +46 8 790 65 68 Mobile: +46 739 75 17 47 stefanhr@kth.se http://hrastinski.posterous.com
Hi everyone I am currently writing a report on a PhD dissertation from a European university. The dissertation <!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } -->consists of a general introduction (50 pages), four articles which have already been published in peer-reviewed journals, and an appendix consisting of an additional article. I have to admit that I am little surprised by what is for me a new kind of Dissertation. Whilst the benefits are clear in terms of publications – when candidates obtain their doctorate they already have at least four publications in peer-reviewed journals – it raised some questions in my mind regarding the nature of the work. First, since it is the final, published version of the peer-reviewed articles which is presented these articles have (presumably) been peer reviewed. That is to say, candidates are not presenting strictly speaking their own work, with input from a supervisor, but rather work which may have been substantially benefited from a multi-person process of revision, negotiation, revision, etc. Can these articles be said to represent a candidate's best solo effort? I know people could ask friends and contacts for comments but here articles have been for want of a better word 'professionally' edited and proofread... Second, despite the introduction which attempts to pull everything together the papers remain heterogenous articles and may suffer both from repetition (the same point can appear in one or several articles as well as in the introduction) and from the lack of a clear overall structure. When you write a traditional Dissertation (say 100,000 words) you really need to go from A to Z, learn to build a point over time and length... Maybe it is a useless skill. This is not an isolated phenomenon, I received a published version of a really interesting PhD from someone a few months ago who did the same - from a different European country. Anyway, I am curious as to how prevalent this practice is, and what people think about it – is a PhD like this the same as a traditional one? Does it matter? cheers Mathieu
I am not an expert and have dropped out of my master's recently but I did read about formats for dissertations and from what I remember in the natural sciences this type of Ph.D. with published papers on one theme is one possible format. Peter Timusk at571@ncf.ca ptimusk@sympatico.ca web: www.crystalcomputing.net blogs www.cyborgcitizen.org -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu ONeil Sent: July-05-11 1:20 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] PhD dissertation format Hi everyone I am currently writing a report on a PhD dissertation from a European university. The dissertation <!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } -->consists of a general introduction (50 pages), four articles which have already been published in peer-reviewed journals, and an appendix consisting of an additional article. I have to admit that I am little surprised by what is for me a new kind of Dissertation. Whilst the benefits are clear in terms of publications when candidates obtain their doctorate they already have at least four publications in peer-reviewed journals it raised some questions in my mind regarding the nature of the work. First, since it is the final, published version of the peer-reviewed articles which is presented these articles have (presumably) been peer reviewed. That is to say, candidates are not presenting strictly speaking their own work, with input from a supervisor, but rather work which may have been substantially benefited from a multi-person process of revision, negotiation, revision, etc. Can these articles be said to represent a candidate's best solo effort? I know people could ask friends and contacts for comments but here articles have been for want of a better word 'professionally' edited and proofread... Second, despite the introduction which attempts to pull everything together the papers remain heterogenous articles and may suffer both from repetition (the same point can appear in one or several articles as well as in the introduction) and from the lack of a clear overall structure. When you write a traditional Dissertation (say 100,000 words) you really need to go from A to Z, learn to build a point over time and length... Maybe it is a useless skill. This is not an isolated phenomenon, I received a published version of a really interesting PhD from someone a few months ago who did the same - from a different European country. Anyway, I am curious as to how prevalent this practice is, and what people think about it is a PhD like this the same as a traditional one? Does it matter? cheers Mathieu _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
At the Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo, we have through several years been encouraged to apply this dissertation format alternative to a monograph. Our PhD-programme is described here: www.hf.uio.no/english/research/doctoral-degree-and-career/ Knut Lundby Dept. of Media and Communication University of Oslo, Norway Den 5. juli 2011 kl. 19.20 skrev Mathieu ONeil:
Hi everyone
I am currently writing a report on a PhD dissertation from a European university. The dissertation -->consists of a general introduction (50 pages), four articles which have already been published in peer-reviewed journals, and an appendix consisting of an additional article. I have to admit that I am little surprised by what is for me a new kind of Dissertation. Whilst the benefits are clear in terms of publications – when candidates obtain their doctorate they already have at least four publications in peer-reviewed journals – it raised some questions in my mind regarding the nature of the work.
First, since it is the final, published version of the peer-reviewed articles which is presented these articles have (presumably) been peer reviewed. That is to say, candidates are not presenting strictly speaking their own work, with input from a supervisor, but rather work which may have been substantially benefited from a multi-person process of revision, negotiation, revision, etc. Can these articles be said to represent a candidate's best solo effort? I know people could ask friends and contacts for comments but here articles have been for want of a better word 'professionally' edited and proofread...
Second, despite the introduction which attempts to pull everything together the papers remain heterogenous articles and may suffer both from repetition (the same point can appear in one or several articles as well as in the introduction) and from the lack of a clear overall structure. When you write a traditional Dissertation (say 100,000 words) you really need to go from A to Z, learn to build a point over time and length... Maybe it is a useless skill.
This is not an isolated phenomenon, I received a published version of a really interesting PhD from someone a few months ago who did the same - from a different European country.
Anyway, I am curious as to how prevalent this practice is, and what people think about it – is a PhD like this the same as a traditional one? Does it matter?
cheers Mathieu _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Glad I used Google Realtime when I did. This change makes the LOC Twitter archive that much more important. If only Twitter would hurry up and release its archive to them: Google shuts down Realtime Search as Twitter deal expires http://t.co/pGCEi4D Best, @stevenjmay Toronto, Canada
I know of several programs in Geography that were using this model in the 1990s, because my doctoral program interviewed at last two candidates who completed their dissertations this way. Darren -------------------------------------------------------- Darren Purcell Assistant Professor and Undergraduate Adviser Dept. of Geography and Environmental Sustainability University of Oklahoma SWAAG Secretary : http://www2.geog.okstate.edu/swaag/ Email: dpurcell@ou.edu Skype: profpurcell (405) 325-9193 http://ags.ou.edu/~dpurcell/ http://ou.academia.edu/DarrenPurcell On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Knut Lundby <knut.lundby@media.uio.no>wrote:
At the Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo, we have through several years been encouraged to apply this dissertation format alternative to a monograph. Our PhD-programme is described here: www.hf.uio.no/english/research/doctoral-degree-and-career/
Knut Lundby Dept. of Media and Communication University of Oslo, Norway
Den 5. juli 2011 kl. 19.20 skrev Mathieu ONeil:
Hi everyone
I am currently writing a report on a PhD dissertation from a European university. The dissertation -->consists of a general introduction (50 pages), four articles which have already been published in peer-reviewed journals, and an appendix consisting of an additional article. I have to admit that I am little surprised by what is for me a new kind of Dissertation. Whilst the benefits are clear in terms of publications – when candidates obtain their doctorate they already have at least four publications in peer-reviewed journals – it raised some questions in my mind regarding the nature of the work.
First, since it is the final, published version of the peer-reviewed articles which is presented these articles have (presumably) been peer reviewed. That is to say, candidates are not presenting strictly speaking their own work, with input from a supervisor, but rather work which may have been substantially benefited from a multi-person process of revision, negotiation, revision, etc. Can these articles be said to represent a candidate's best solo effort? I know people could ask friends and contacts for comments but here articles have been for want of a better word 'professionally' edited and proofread...
Second, despite the introduction which attempts to pull everything together the papers remain heterogenous articles and may suffer both from repetition (the same point can appear in one or several articles as well as in the introduction) and from the lack of a clear overall structure. When you write a traditional Dissertation (say 100,000 words) you really need to go from A to Z, learn to build a point over time and length... Maybe it is a useless skill.
This is not an isolated phenomenon, I received a published version of a really interesting PhD from someone a few months ago who did the same - from a different European country.
Anyway, I am curious as to how prevalent this practice is, and what people think about it – is a PhD like this the same as a traditional one? Does it matter?
cheers Mathieu _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
This type of dissertation is very common in some social science programs, less-so in others. I have colleagues in econ and in the more econ-driven subfields of political science for whom this is the norm. It seems the main distinction is whether you are entering more of a book-driven or article-driven subfield. I'd dismiss your first concern, that these are peer-reviewed articles, btw. Yes, solo peer-reviewed articles can be said to represent an individual's best solo effort. This is the case because *all* of our work in academia is eventually peer-reviewed. The process of managing those multiple inputs, engaging with their critiques, and crafting responses to them is fundamental to a "solo" effort. Or put more plainly, there is no such thing as a truly lone scholar. We are all participating in a discourse, and one's contribution is shaped passively through the books they read, semi-passively through the questions and methods they select, and actively through the peer reviews and conference discussants we encounter along the way. (As for traditional dissertations going from A to Z and building a point over time... well, having just recently converted my traditional dissertation into a book manuscript, I'd humbly suggest that it's always a work-in-progress. What I thought was comprehensive in 2009 felt woefullly inadequate in 2010/11.) Bottom-line: the article compilation route is a good choice for fields that emphasize articles over books. The traditional dissertation route is a good choice for fields that emphasize books over articles (or treat them equally). And in all cases, follow the prevailing norms of whatever departments you hope will one day hire you. Regards, Dave On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Darren Purcell <dpurcell@ou.edu> wrote:
I know of several programs in Geography that were using this model in the 1990s, because my doctoral program interviewed at last two candidates who completed their dissertations this way.
Darren -------------------------------------------------------- Darren Purcell
Assistant Professor and Undergraduate Adviser Dept. of Geography and Environmental Sustainability University of Oklahoma
SWAAG Secretary : http://www2.geog.okstate.edu/swaag/
Email: dpurcell@ou.edu Skype: profpurcell (405) 325-9193 http://ags.ou.edu/~dpurcell/ http://ou.academia.edu/DarrenPurcell
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Knut Lundby <knut.lundby@media.uio.no
wrote:
At the Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo, we have through several years been encouraged to apply this dissertation format alternative to a monograph. Our PhD-programme is described here: www.hf.uio.no/english/research/doctoral-degree-and-career/
Knut Lundby Dept. of Media and Communication University of Oslo, Norway
Den 5. juli 2011 kl. 19.20 skrev Mathieu ONeil:
Hi everyone
I am currently writing a report on a PhD dissertation from a European university. The dissertation -->consists of a general introduction (50 pages), four articles which have already been published in peer-reviewed journals, and an appendix consisting of an additional article. I have to admit that I am little surprised by what is for me a new kind of Dissertation. Whilst the benefits are clear in terms of publications – when candidates obtain their doctorate they already have at least four publications in peer-reviewed journals – it raised some questions in my mind regarding the nature of the work.
First, since it is the final, published version of the peer-reviewed articles which is presented these articles have (presumably) been peer reviewed. That is to say, candidates are not presenting strictly speaking their own work, with input from a supervisor, but rather work which may have been substantially benefited from a multi-person process of revision, negotiation, revision, etc. Can these articles be said to represent a candidate's best solo effort? I know people could ask friends and contacts for comments but here articles have been for want of a better word 'professionally' edited and proofread...
Second, despite the introduction which attempts to pull everything together the papers remain heterogenous articles and may suffer both from repetition (the same point can appear in one or several articles as well as in the introduction) and from the lack of a clear overall structure. When you write a traditional Dissertation (say 100,000 words) you really need to go from A to Z, learn to build a point over time and length... Maybe it is a useless skill.
This is not an isolated phenomenon, I received a published version of a really interesting PhD from someone a few months ago who did the same - from a different European country.
Anyway, I am curious as to how prevalent this practice is, and what people think about it – is a PhD like this the same as a traditional one? Does it matter?
cheers Mathieu _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- Dave Karpf, PhD Assistant Professor Journalism and Media Studies Department School of Communication and Information Rutgers University, New Brunswick www.davidkarpf.com davekarpf@gmail.com
Well, I understand what you are saying and agree that all articles have external input, but what I was getting at is how do you compare (not just in terms of job prospects, but also as a measure of intellectual accomplishment) someone who has gone that route to someone else who produced 100,000 words with a few sympathetic comments from a supervisor? Its just a completely different experience in terms of what you go through, in terms of conceptual effort, in my view. cheers Mathieu On 07/06/11, Dave Karpf <davekarpf@gmail.com> wrote:
This type of dissertation is very common in some social science programs, less-so in others. I have colleagues in econ and in the more econ-driven subfields of political science for whom this is the norm. It seems the main distinction is whether you are entering more of a book-driven or article-driven subfield.
I'd dismiss your first concern, that these are peer-reviewed articles, btw. Yes, solo peer-reviewed articles can be said to represent an individual's best solo effort. This is the case because *all* of our work in academia is eventually peer-reviewed. The process of managing those multiple inputs, engaging with their critiques, and crafting responses to them is fundamental to a "solo" effort. Or put more plainly, there is no such thing as a truly lone scholar. We are all participating in a discourse, and one's contribution is shaped passively through the books they read, semi-passively through the questions and methods they select, and actively through the peer reviews and conference discussants we encounter along the way.
(As for traditional dissertations going from A to Z and building a point over time... well, having just recently converted my traditional dissertation into a book manuscript, I'd humbly suggest that it's always a work-in-progress. What I thought was comprehensive in 2009 felt woefullly inadequate in 2010/11.)
Bottom-line: the article compilation route is a good choice for fields that emphasize articles over books. The traditional dissertation route is a good choice for fields that emphasize books over articles (or treat them equally). And in all cases, follow the prevailing norms of whatever departments you hope will one day hire you.
Regards, Dave
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Darren Purcell <dpurcell@ou.edu> wrote:
I know of several programs in Geography that were using this model in the 1990s, because my doctoral program interviewed at last two candidates who completed their dissertations this way.
Darren -------------------------------------------------------- Darren Purcell
Assistant Professor and Undergraduate Adviser Dept. of Geography and Environmental Sustainability University of Oklahoma
SWAAG Secretary : http://www2.geog.okstate.edu/swaag/
Email: dpurcell@ou.edu Skype: profpurcell (405) 325-9193 http://ags.ou.edu/~dpurcell/ http://ou.academia.edu/DarrenPurcell
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Knut Lundby <knut.lundby@media.uio.no
wrote:
At the Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo, we have through several years been encouraged to apply this dissertation format alternative to a monograph. Our PhD-programme is described here: www.hf.uio.no/english/research/doctoral-degree-and-career/
Knut Lundby Dept. of Media and Communication University of Oslo, Norway
Den 5. juli 2011 kl. 19.20 skrev Mathieu ONeil:
Hi everyone
I am currently writing a report on a PhD dissertation from a European university. The dissertation -->consists of a general introduction (50 pages), four articles which have already been published in peer-reviewed journals, and an appendix consisting of an additional article. I have to admit that I am little surprised by what is for me a new kind of Dissertation. Whilst the benefits are clear in terms of publications – when candidates obtain their doctorate they already have at least four publications in peer-reviewed journals – it raised some questions in my mind regarding the nature of the work.
First, since it is the final, published version of the peer-reviewed articles which is presented these articles have (presumably) been peer reviewed. That is to say, candidates are not presenting strictly speaking their own work, with input from a supervisor, but rather work which may have been substantially benefited from a multi-person process of revision, negotiation, revision, etc. Can these articles be said to represent a candidate's best solo effort? I know people could ask friends and contacts for comments but here articles have been for want of a better word 'professionally' edited and proofread...
Second, despite the introduction which attempts to pull everything together the papers remain heterogenous articles and may suffer both from repetition (the same point can appear in one or several articles as well as in the introduction) and from the lack of a clear overall structure. When you write a traditional Dissertation (say 100,000 words) you really need to go from A to Z, learn to build a point over time and length... Maybe it is a useless skill.
This is not an isolated phenomenon, I received a published version of a really interesting PhD from someone a few months ago who did the same - from a different European country.
Anyway, I am curious as to how prevalent this practice is, and what people think about it – is a PhD like this the same as a traditional one? Does it matter?
cheers Mathieu _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- Dave Karpf, PhD
Assistant Professor Journalism and Media Studies Department School of Communication and Information Rutgers University, New Brunswick
www.davidkarpf.com davekarpf@gmail.com _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- **** Dr Mathieu O'Neil Adjunct Research Fellow Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute College of Arts and Social Science The Australian National University email: mathieu.oneil[at]anu.edu.au web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php
Ah, I see. That's a fair point. Of course the mediating factor is that both supervisor-interaction and peer reviewer-interaction are unknown variables. On average, multiple anonymous reviewers may yield tougher commentary than a dissertation committee. The variance is likely to be huge, though. Some dissertation committees will provide far, far deeper challenges. Regards, DK On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil@anu.edu.au>wrote:
Well, I understand what you are saying and agree that all articles have external input, but what I was getting at is how do you compare (not just in terms of job prospects, but also as a measure of intellectual accomplishment) someone who has gone that route to someone else who produced 100,000 words with a few sympathetic comments from a supervisor? Its just a completely different experience in terms of what you go through, in terms of conceptual effort, in my view. cheers Mathieu
On 07/06/11, *Dave Karpf * <davekarpf@gmail.com> wrote:
This type of dissertation is very common in some social science programs, less-so in others. I have colleagues in econ and in the more econ-driven subfields of political science for whom this is the norm. It seems the main distinction is whether you are entering more of a book-driven or article-driven subfield.
I'd dismiss your first concern, that these are peer-reviewed articles, btw. Yes, solo peer-reviewed articles can be said to represent an individual's best solo effort. This is the case because *all* of our work in academia is eventually peer-reviewed. The process of managing those multiple inputs, engaging with their critiques, and crafting responses to them is fundamental to a "solo" effort. Or put more plainly, there is no such thing as a truly lone scholar. We are all participating in a discourse, and one's contribution is shaped passively through the books they read, semi-passively through the questions and methods they select, and actively through the peer reviews and conference discussants we encounter along the way.
(As for traditional dissertations going from A to Z and building a point over time... well, having just recently converted my traditional dissertation into a book manuscript, I'd humbly suggest that it's always a work-in-progress. What I thought was comprehensive in 2009 felt woefullly inadequate in 2010/11.)
Bottom-line: the article compilation route is a good choice for fields that emphasize articles over books. The traditional dissertation route is a good choice for fields that emphasize books over articles (or treat them equally). And in all cases, follow the prevailing norms of whatever departments you hope will one day hire you.
Regards, Dave
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Darren Purcell <dpurcell@ou.edu> wrote:
I know of several programs in Geography that were using this model in the 1990s, because my doctoral program interviewed at last two candidates who completed their dissertations this way.
Darren -------------------------------------------------------- Darren Purcell
Assistant Professor and Undergraduate Adviser Dept. of Geography and Environmental Sustainability University of Oklahoma
SWAAG Secretary : http://www2.geog.okstate.edu/swaag/
Email: dpurcell@ou.edu Skype: profpurcell (405) 325-9193 http://ags.ou.edu/~dpurcell/ http://ou.academia.edu/DarrenPurcell
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Knut Lundby <knut.lundby@media.uio.no
wrote:
At the Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo, we have through several years been encouraged to apply this dissertation format alternative to a monograph. Our PhD-programme is described here: www.hf.uio.no/english/research/doctoral-degree-and-career/
Knut Lundby Dept. of Media and Communication University of Oslo, Norway
Den 5. juli 2011 kl. 19.20 skrev Mathieu ONeil:
Hi everyone
I am currently writing a report on a PhD dissertation from a European university. The dissertation -->consists of a general introduction (50 pages), four articles which have already been published in peer-reviewed journals, and an appendix consisting of an additional article. I have to admit that I am little surprised by what is for me a new kind of Dissertation. Whilst the benefits are clear in terms of publications – when candidates obtain their doctorate they already have at least four publications in peer-reviewed journals – it raised some questions in my mind regarding the nature of the work.
First, since it is the final, published version of the peer-reviewed articles which is presented these articles have (presumably) been peer reviewed. That is to say, candidates are not presenting strictly speaking their own work, with input from a supervisor, but rather work which may have been substantially benefited from a multi-person process of revision, negotiation, revision, etc. Can these articles be said to represent a candidate's best solo effort? I know people could ask friends and contacts for comments but here articles have been for want of a better word 'professionally' edited and proofread...
Second, despite the introduction which attempts to pull everything together the papers remain heterogenous articles and may suffer both from repetition (the same point can appear in one or several articles as well as in the introduction) and from the lack of a clear overall structure. When you write a traditional Dissertation (say 100,000 words) you really need to go from A to Z, learn to build a point over time and length... Maybe it is a useless skill.
This is not an isolated phenomenon, I received a published version of a really interesting PhD from someone a few months ago who did the same - from a different European country.
Anyway, I am curious as to how prevalent this practice is, and what people think about it – is a PhD like this the same as a traditional one? Does it matter?
cheers Mathieu _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- Dave Karpf, PhD
Assistant Professor Journalism and Media Studies Department School of Communication and Information Rutgers University, New Brunswick
www.davidkarpf.com davekarpf@gmail.com _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- **** Dr Mathieu O'Neil Adjunct Research Fellow Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute College of Arts and Social Science The Australian National University email: mathieu.oneil[at]anu.edu.au web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php
-- Dave Karpf, PhD Assistant Professor Journalism and Media Studies Department School of Communication and Information Rutgers University, New Brunswick www.davidkarpf.com davekarpf@gmail.com
I went the even less traditional case-study format -- this format frustrated a number of faculty in the department. Getting the format accepted in addition to the work was tough. Like Dave, with some adaptation my dissertation was later published in book format. I'm not aware of any other dissertation from the department that became a book. I'm pleased that I took the harder and more productive path that resulted in a greater expansion of our body of knowledge. That said, your goal is to get out of there. I've been on a number of hiring committees in several fields and I've never looked at any applicant's dissertation beyond reading the title in their CV. Your experience may vary. Best regards, Charlie Charles V. Balch PhD -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Dave Karpf Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 5:15 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-L] PhD dissertation format This type of dissertation is very common in some social science programs, less-so in others. I have colleagues in econ and in the more econ-driven subfields of political science for whom this is the norm. It seems the main distinction is whether you are entering more of a book-driven or article-driven subfield. I'd dismiss your first concern, that these are peer-reviewed articles, btw. Yes, solo peer-reviewed articles can be said to represent an individual's best solo effort. This is the case because *all* of our work in academia is eventually peer-reviewed. The process of managing those multiple inputs, engaging with their critiques, and crafting responses to them is fundamental to a "solo" effort. Or put more plainly, there is no such thing as a truly lone scholar. We are all participating in a discourse, and one's contribution is shaped passively through the books they read, semi-passively through the questions and methods they select, and actively through the peer reviews and conference discussants we encounter along the way. (As for traditional dissertations going from A to Z and building a point over time... well, having just recently converted my traditional dissertation into a book manuscript, I'd humbly suggest that it's always a work-in-progress. What I thought was comprehensive in 2009 felt woefullly inadequate in 2010/11.) Bottom-line: the article compilation route is a good choice for fields that emphasize articles over books. The traditional dissertation route is a good choice for fields that emphasize books over articles (or treat them equally). And in all cases, follow the prevailing norms of whatever departments you hope will one day hire you. Regards, Dave On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Darren Purcell <dpurcell@ou.edu> wrote:
I know of several programs in Geography that were using this model in the 1990s, because my doctoral program interviewed at last two candidates who completed their dissertations this way.
Darren -------------------------------------------------------- Darren Purcell
Assistant Professor and Undergraduate Adviser Dept. of Geography and Environmental Sustainability University of Oklahoma
SWAAG Secretary : http://www2.geog.okstate.edu/swaag/
Email: dpurcell@ou.edu Skype: profpurcell (405) 325-9193 http://ags.ou.edu/~dpurcell/ http://ou.academia.edu/DarrenPurcell
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Knut Lundby <knut.lundby@media.uio.no
wrote:
At the Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo, we have through several years been encouraged to apply this dissertation format alternative to a monograph. Our PhD-programme is described here: www.hf.uio.no/english/research/doctoral-degree-and-career/
Knut Lundby Dept. of Media and Communication University of Oslo, Norway
Den 5. juli 2011 kl. 19.20 skrev Mathieu ONeil:
Hi everyone
I am currently writing a report on a PhD dissertation from a European university. The dissertation -->consists of a general introduction (50 pages), four articles which have already been published in peer-reviewed journals, and an appendix consisting of an additional article. I have to admit that I am little surprised by what is for me a new kind of Dissertation. Whilst the benefits are clear in terms of publications – when candidates obtain their doctorate they already have at least four publications in peer-reviewed journals – it raised some questions in my mind regarding the nature of the work.
First, since it is the final, published version of the peer-reviewed articles which is presented these articles have (presumably) been peer reviewed. That is to say, candidates are not presenting strictly speaking their own work, with input from a supervisor, but rather work which may have been substantially benefited from a multi-person process of revision, negotiation, revision, etc. Can these articles be said to represent a candidate's best solo effort? I know people could ask friends and contacts for comments but here articles have been for want of a better word 'professionally' edited and proofread...
Second, despite the introduction which attempts to pull everything together the papers remain heterogenous articles and may suffer both from repetition (the same point can appear in one or several articles as well as in the introduction) and from the lack of a clear overall structure. When you write a traditional Dissertation (say 100,000 words) you really need to go from A to Z, learn to build a point over time and length... Maybe it is a useless skill.
This is not an isolated phenomenon, I received a published version of a really interesting PhD from someone a few months ago who did the same - from a different European country.
Anyway, I am curious as to how prevalent this practice is, and what people think about it – is a PhD like this the same as a traditional one? Does it matter?
cheers Mathieu _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- Dave Karpf, PhD Assistant Professor Journalism and Media Studies Department School of Communication and Information Rutgers University, New Brunswick www.davidkarpf.com davekarpf@gmail.com _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
I think they key issue is not so much the format rather than the candidate's contribution to the body of knowledge. Should the contribution be substantial, I do not see how a ''creative'' presentation of the research findings could be a problem :) cheers, Michael On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Charlie Balch <charlie@balch.org> wrote:
I went the even less traditional case-study format -- this format frustrated a number of faculty in the department. Getting the format accepted in addition to the work was tough. Like Dave, with some adaptation my dissertation was later published in book format. I'm not aware of any other dissertation from the department that became a book. I'm pleased that I took the harder and more productive path that resulted in a greater expansion of our body of knowledge.
That said, your goal is to get out of there. I've been on a number of hiring committees in several fields and I've never looked at any applicant's dissertation beyond reading the title in their CV. Your experience may vary. Best regards, Charlie
Charles V. Balch PhD
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Dave Karpf Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 5:15 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-L] PhD dissertation format
This type of dissertation is very common in some social science programs, less-so in others. I have colleagues in econ and in the more econ-driven subfields of political science for whom this is the norm. It seems the main distinction is whether you are entering more of a book-driven or article-driven subfield.
I'd dismiss your first concern, that these are peer-reviewed articles, btw. Yes, solo peer-reviewed articles can be said to represent an individual's best solo effort. This is the case because *all* of our work in academia is eventually peer-reviewed. The process of managing those multiple inputs, engaging with their critiques, and crafting responses to them is fundamental to a "solo" effort. Or put more plainly, there is no such thing as a truly lone scholar. We are all participating in a discourse, and one's contribution is shaped passively through the books they read, semi-passively through the questions and methods they select, and actively through the peer reviews and conference discussants we encounter along the way.
(As for traditional dissertations going from A to Z and building a point over time... well, having just recently converted my traditional dissertation into a book manuscript, I'd humbly suggest that it's always a work-in-progress. What I thought was comprehensive in 2009 felt woefullly inadequate in 2010/11.)
Bottom-line: the article compilation route is a good choice for fields that emphasize articles over books. The traditional dissertation route is a good choice for fields that emphasize books over articles (or treat them equally). And in all cases, follow the prevailing norms of whatever departments you hope will one day hire you.
Regards, Dave
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Darren Purcell <dpurcell@ou.edu> wrote:
I know of several programs in Geography that were using this model in the 1990s, because my doctoral program interviewed at last two candidates who completed their dissertations this way.
Darren -------------------------------------------------------- Darren Purcell
Assistant Professor and Undergraduate Adviser Dept. of Geography and Environmental Sustainability University of Oklahoma
SWAAG Secretary : http://www2.geog.okstate.edu/swaag/
Email: dpurcell@ou.edu Skype: profpurcell (405) 325-9193 http://ags.ou.edu/~dpurcell/ http://ou.academia.edu/DarrenPurcell
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Knut Lundby <knut.lundby@media.uio.no
wrote:
At the Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo, we have through several years been encouraged to apply this dissertation format alternative to a monograph. Our PhD-programme is described here: www.hf.uio.no/english/research/doctoral-degree-and-career/
Knut Lundby Dept. of Media and Communication University of Oslo, Norway
Den 5. juli 2011 kl. 19.20 skrev Mathieu ONeil:
Hi everyone
I am currently writing a report on a PhD dissertation from a European university. The dissertation -->consists of a general introduction (50 pages), four articles which have already been published in peer-reviewed journals, and an appendix consisting of an additional article. I have to admit that I am little surprised by what is for me a new kind of Dissertation. Whilst the benefits are clear in terms of publications – when candidates obtain their doctorate they already have at least four publications in peer-reviewed journals – it raised some questions in my mind regarding the nature of the work.
First, since it is the final, published version of the peer-reviewed articles which is presented these articles have (presumably) been peer reviewed. That is to say, candidates are not presenting strictly speaking their own work, with input from a supervisor, but rather work which may have been substantially benefited from a multi-person process of revision, negotiation, revision, etc. Can these articles be said to represent a candidate's best solo effort? I know people could ask friends and contacts for comments but here articles have been for want of a better word 'professionally' edited and proofread...
Second, despite the introduction which attempts to pull everything together the papers remain heterogenous articles and may suffer both from repetition (the same point can appear in one or several articles as well as in the introduction) and from the lack of a clear overall structure. When you write a traditional Dissertation (say 100,000 words) you really need to go from A to Z, learn to build a point over time and length... Maybe it is a useless skill.
This is not an isolated phenomenon, I received a published version of a really interesting PhD from someone a few months ago who did the same - from a different European country.
Anyway, I am curious as to how prevalent this practice is, and what people think about it – is a PhD like this the same as a traditional one? Does it matter?
cheers Mathieu _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- Dave Karpf, PhD
Assistant Professor Journalism and Media Studies Department School of Communication and Information Rutgers University, New Brunswick
www.davidkarpf.com davekarpf@gmail.com _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- Dr. Michael Baron CEO, Baron Consulting "My Body is my Temple" "Be The Change You Want to See In The World." Gandhi
participants (9)
-
Charlie Balch -
Darren Purcell -
Dave Karpf -
Knut Lundby -
Mathieu ONeil -
Michael Baron -
Peter Timusk -
Stefan Hrastinski -
Steven James May