YASMIN website: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin/
YASMIN map: http://haystack.cerado.com/yasmin
To unsubscribe: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin/unsubs.php?lid=1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
2. Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
3. Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ken.friedman@bi.no
Subject: Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 19:15:47 +0200
Friends,
At the end of a busy week, I've been struggling to catch up with this
interesting discussion. One question caught my eye.
Murat asked, "is it possible to redesign the notion of PhD degree for
arts?" I don't see why we wish to redesign the notion of the PhD
degree. The PhD is a specific kind of doctorate. It is the
philosophical doctorate, a research degree that emerges from the
philosophical faculties of the old universities. This was different
to the three great professional faculties that awarded other kinds of
degrees - theology, law, and medicine.
One of my uncles was a distinguished physician. He held an MD, like
most people who practice or teach in the profession of medicine. At
one point in his career, he decided to become a researcher, so he
went back to university to learn research skills by earning a PhD.
There are several kinds of doctorates. In some fields, this is well known.
We are still debating this in design, but I'd like to point out some
issues that seem to be reasonably well understood.
Research degrees do not appear in isolation. Good research demands a
context. Those of us active in the day-to-day work of teaching art or
design generally find ourselves immersed in a milieu oriented toward
teaching and practice. Those of us who in other research fields face
the demands and challenges of research programs in a different
context.
The context of research is vital to a field. Even in strong research
universities, the demands of teaching and practice in any field take
from the time that research requires. In the context of a research
environment, the perpetual pull of collegial challenge and the push
of the requirement for research and publication keep us active. This
has not been the atmosphere of departments in design and art
(Friedman 1983a, 1983b, 1997), or at least it has rarely been the
atmosphere of art and design departments, programs, or schools until
recently.
In design, began to identify important ranges of common concerns on
these topics a decade ago. Participants in different conferences and
debates shared diverse experiences and insights on the challenges
arising from the development of doctoral programs in design around
the world, and considered the benefits these offer to the field of
design. Beyond this, we came to realize several issues that are vital
to a growing field.
Key Issues that Affect Doctoral Education
Among these issues are,
* The way in which doctoral education is inevitably linked to the
development of a maturing research field
* The need for doctoral candidates to staff the research endeavor,
contributing their own vision to the field while building their own
research programs
* The importance of doctoral programs as a social context within we
can focus our own research
* The vital importance of a demanding research milieu to keep our
research lively and honest through the concern of colleagues who
challenge our findings and discuss our work
* The healthy effect of a lively research program on the teaching
programs, practitioner programs, and professional development
programs in a department
* The need for doctoral candidates to staff the research endeavor,
their own vision to the field while building their own research
programs
* The value of a network of doctoral programs in creating the larger field
* The central importance of such a network in hosting and maintaining
a rich network for scholarship and contribution to the larger field
* The need for a network out of which a range of field-wide activities can grow
* The need for a rich range and variety of journals, conferences,
associations, research projects, and other nodes that serve to anchor
the network and provide the content of the discipline
All of these are linked to the growth of doctoral education.
Klaus Krippendorff (1999: 213) identified the importance of a field
to doctoral education in a paper that identified a growing field with
paradigms, institutional infrastructure, new kinds of problems, jobs,
a body of literature, a community of scholars and practitioners, and
professional associations. He noted that "PhD education [is] only one
feature in these concerted developments. . . . it cannot succeed
without parallel efforts to build institutional, literary and
community support."
I will propose a parallel equation. These other attributes of a rich
field cannot succeed without doctoral education. Doctoral education
is necessary in creating the larger context required by the field and
it is necessary if we are to develop the scholars and practitioners
who will staff that growing field and become its population.
The research field specifically requires education for the PhD The
field as a whole requires other forms of doctorate. I will discuss
eight of these below.
Perhaps I should have commented earlier on an issue that caught my
eye. Stuart Laing's (2000) discusses the fact that there are many
kinds of doctorate, all serving different purposes. In this
conversation, only a few of us have addressed this fact. Laing notes
over 300 kinds of professional doctorates. If we're going to focus on
the PhD here, we've got to distinguish the fact that these other
doctorates exist. We must show how a PhD in art is different to a PhD
in other fields and we must show how a PhD in art is different to a
professional doctorate in art.
At the Milan conference on design and research, the organizers
(Manzini et al. 2000) drew frequent attention to the context of what
was then a vital new international network in design research. Within
this "network of designers, researchers, producers, and users, the
design research community constitutes a network of individuals and
institutions. This network connects individuals and creates a
platform of interaction to encourage continuing dialogue among
researchers who operate in different ways and in different domains.
What this community has in common is a commitment to building a
design research culture, which can contribute to a deeper
understanding of design itself."
The design research conferences of the era framed those issues. This
seems still to be missing in the community of fine art practice where
people intend to integrate research within the context of art. In
this comment, I wish to draw attention to the importance of a
research network and offer some background to this discussion by
comparing the art PhD with the form and structure of the different
doctorates in design.
In the last years of the 1990s, four themes repeatedly occurred in a
common context. This has partly been the case in this debate as well,
but it has not been as clearly articulated. The four themes were (1)
philosophies and theories of design, (2) foundations and methods of
design research, (3) form and structure for the doctorate in design,
and (4) the relationship between practice and research in design. In
this context, were we to articulate these issues, they would be (1)
philosophies and theories of art, (2) foundations and methods of art
research, (3) form and structure for the doctorate in art, and (4)
the relationship between practice and research in art.
In the spring of the year 2000, the DRS discussion list saw a major
debate on one variety of doctorate, the kind of doctorate offered in
the UK under the rubric of the "practice-based PhD" Because he debate
at times involved all of these themes, it makes for interesting
reading (DRS 2000). My posts addressed many specific issues on form
and structure of the doctorate.
The issue of different kinds of doctorates will help to clarify
issues. This will also explain why we don't need to ask about
redesigning the PhD. The PhD is useful as it is. The question,
rather, involves what kind of doctorate an art practitioner or
researcher might wish to take. It also involves the question of
whether an art practitioner wishes to become a full-fledged
researcher as my physician uncle did, or whether doctoral study has
another purpose.
The doctorate has different forms, structures, and meanings in
different disciplines, different fields, and different universities.
Doctoral traditions also vary by nation and region, and colleagues
from different domains may use the same words with quite different
meanings.
The task we now face is answering unanswered questions, clarifying
unclear issues, and establishing a common vocabulary of knowledge and
understanding. In this sense, I am not calling for unanimity on all
issues. I am asking for clarity and attention to meaning. There are
many ways to achieve the many goals of a community that is,
necessarily, -- as Dennis Doordan (1999: np) wrote of the design
research community - "global in extent and pluralist in character."
One foundation for the future is a basis in common understanding. It
is not necessary to agree with each other on every point. It is
necessary to understand what we are saying when we raises the points
we raise.
Challenges and questions
At this point, I want to introduce a number of challenges and
questions that deserve consideration.
1. Nature and definitions of doctoral degrees
In the literature and in debates of the 1990s on doctoral education
in design, I identified eight general models (Friedman 2000c). These
are:
1.1 The traditional or "old" PhD
1.2 The innovative or "new" PhD developed for the demands of design or of art.
1.3 The technical doctorate with a title such as Dr.Tech, Dr.Eng., and so on.
1.4 The professional doctorate in the practice of design with a title
such as D.Des.
1.5 A studio doctorate awarded for fine art or design practice with a
designation such as DA or DFA.
1.6 A practice-based PhD in art or design as a variation within the
framework of the traditional PhD
1.7 The studio PhD awarded for studio practice in fine art and design
supported by some form of explanatory essay or contextual document.
1.8 A practice-based PhD in design distinct from both the studio PhD
and the traditional PhD
Of these models, the first six are valid.
The last two are questionable. The idea of a studio PhD makes little
sense as contrasted with a degree in advanced professional practice
for studio work. I will not address the full question here -
elsewhere, I have noted the many problems in the notion of a PhD
awarded for artwork and an essay. Foremost among the problems this
involves is the idea of graduating someone with a license to
supervise research students on the basis of a degree that contains no
training in research or research methods.
Over the past decade, I have repeatedly encountered doctoral
supervisors who impair or even destroy the careers of promising
research students through bad supervision. I discussed this briefly
in my first post. What I did not say there is that this creates a
vast range of problems. Many of these improperly trained candidates
graduate from a few widely known - should we say "notorious"? -
doctoral programs that award a PhD for a series of art works or
designed objects, plus an essay.
The other degree - a practice-based PhD in design or art distinct
from both the studio PhD and the traditional PhD - doesn't seem to
exist. Every good PhD project that I have seen has specific
attributes identical to the traditional PhD, along with evidenced and
results specific to art or design.
Each of these eight kinds of degree has specific qualities,
characteristics and attributes. To develop doctoral education in art,
we must examine these. While unanimity is never possible, in this
area of defining degrees, we can and should begin to develop common
definitions.
Form and structure do not merely involve the form and structure of
the degree itself. They also involve the form and structure of the
departments and programs that offer the degree. Thus, we must
consider the challenges facing doctoral programs in art.
While this list is far from exhaustive or inclusive, we must begin by
focusing on the capacity to handle and support doctoral students
(Friedman 2000a, 2000b).
2. Supervision, advising and administrative support.
2.1 A solid, supportive faculty.
2.2 A well-trained research faculty for advising research doctorates.
2.3 General faculty support for doctoral education.
2.4 A department organized to provide proper curriculum development,
seminar management, and research supervision.
2.5 Available support from other departments and programs if needed.
2.6 An environment with senior doctoral students and post-doctoral researchers.
2.7 Rich administrative support from experienced administrative staff.
2.8 Good academic administration by program coordinators, program
heads, and department heads as well a good academic administration by
professors whose responsibilities embrace coordination and headship.
2.9 Administrative and program support at the college and university level.
Research Issues, Research Methods
Finally, we must begin to untangle the rich but difficult web of
research issues and method.
In design research, many of us distinguish three kinds of research.
This concept is common in medical research. These differ from each
other by level, by purpose and by scope. They are
1 Basic research.
2 Applied research.
3 Clinical research.
Basic research involves a search for general principles. These
principles are abstracted and generalized to cover a variety of
situations and cases. Basic research generates theory on several
levels. This may involve macro level theories covering wide areas or
fields, midlevel theories covering specific ranges of issues or micro
level theories focused on narrow questions. Truly general principles
often have broad application beyond their field of original, and
their generative nature sometimes gives them surprising predictive
power.
Applied research adapts the findings of basic research to classes of
problems. It may also involve developing and testing theories for
these classes of problems. Applied research tends to be midlevel or
micro level research. At the same time, applied research may develop
or generate questions that become the subject of basic research.
Clinical research involves specific cases. Clinical research applies
the findings of basic research and applied research to specific
situations. It may also generate and test new questions, and it may
test the findings of basic and applied research in a clinical
situation. Clinical research may also develop or generate questions
that become the subject of basic research or applied research.
Any of the three frames of research may generate questions for the
other frames. Each may test the theories and findings of other kinds
of research. It is important to note that clinical research generally
involves specific forms of professional engagement. In the rough and
tumble of daily studio practice in design, clinical research is the
most common form of research - just as it is in medicine or in law.
There isn't time for anything else.
To progress in any field, we must begin to understand the varieties
of research we undertake, and recognize the reasons for any specific
choice.
It is also vital to begin a tradition of investigating method
(Friedman 2000d). This involves not merely the study and application
of research methods, but the higher-level study of methodology.
Design is an interdisciplinary and integrative process constituting a
professional field and an intellectual discipline. The six-domain
model of design (Friedman 20001) clarifies the nature of design as a
discipline. Design draws on (1) the natural sciences, (2) the
humanities and liberal arts, and (3) the social and behavioral
sciences and as a field of practice and application drawing on (4)
human professions and services, (5) creative and applied arts, and
(6) technology and engineering. If this model is reasonable, this
also opens the design field to methods from all these sources.
To date, only one scholar has attempted a survey of the rich scope
and scale of art, craft, and design research methods. Pirkko Anttila
(1996) describes the variety of methods can be applied to art
research, demonstrating the uses of dozens of specific methods from a
wide range of disciplines. She shows their application in art
research, and she proposes a systematic series of tests and choices
on the basis of which the individual researcher can adopt, apply and
- if need be - adapt specific methods.
Anttila's pioneering work must be extended in years to come to offer
art research - and doctoral candidates - an encyclopedia of methods
on which to draw.
Beyond this, we must deepen the comparative study of methodology.
Despite a growing interest in method in our field, the study of
method in a comparative and analytical sense has barely begun.
Methodology is the study of method. Mautner (1996: 267) defines
methodology as "1. The discipline which investigates and evaluates
methods of inquiry, of validation, of teaching, etc. 2. a theory
within that discipline. Note that methodology is about method and not
the same as method."
Research is at the heart of the doctoral enterprise. To meet the
challenge of appropriate form and structure, we must establish a
solid foundation for research methods in design by developing a
systematic inventory of methods. To do that, we must also engage in
the systematic and analytical study of methodology for our field.
Concluding Notes
In this presentation, I have tried to identify the central questions
we must address in developing robust forms and structures for
doctoral education in art.
Several others have done so. What is different here is that I have
tried to bring the question of the kinds of doctorate into greater
focus than earlier comments have done.
The kind of doctorate one might earn has to do with one's goals as a
scholar. This also involves central questions of research and
research skills.
A research doctorate - the PhD - requires specific skills. There is
no point in redesigning the PhD - without the skills that define a
PhD, one has a very different doctorate indeed.
Ken Friedman
Professor
Dean, Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
--
References
Anttila, Pirkko. 1996. Tutkimisen taito ja tiedonhankinta. Taito-,
taide-, ja muotoilualojen tutkimuksen tyoevaelineet. Helsinki:
Aakatiimi Oy.
Buchanan, Richard, Dennis Doordan, Lorraine Justice, and Victor
Margolin, editors. 1999. Doctoral Education in Design. Proceedings of
the Ohio Conference. October 8-11, 1998. Pittsburgh: The School of
Deign. Carnegie Mellon University.
Doordan, Dennis. 1999. "Introduction." (In) Doctoral Education in
Design. Proceedings of the Ohio Conference. October 8-11, 1998.
Richard Buchanan, Dennis Doordan, Lorraine Justice, and Victor
Margolin, editors. Pittsburgh: The School of Deign. Carnegie Mellon
University, no page numbers given.
DRS. 2000. Archive of the DRS discussion list. Sponsored by the
Design Research Society. Conall O Cathain, moderator. Archived at URL:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/drs.html
(See archive from April 2000 through June 2000).
Friedman, Kenneth S. 1983a. Art and design programs in North American
colleges and universities. Unpublished study. Questionnaires and
notes filed in the Ken Friedman Papers, Alternative Traditions in
Contemporary Art, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Friedman, Kenneth S. 1983b. "Mis-Education by Degrees." Art and
Artists (New York), vol. 12, no. 4 (March 1983): 6-7.
Friedman, Ken. 1997. "Design Science and Design Education." In The
Challenge of Complexity. Peter McGrory, ed. Helsinki: University of
Art and Design Helsinki UIAH. 54-72.
Friedman, Ken. 2000a (000425). "Eight Theses on Advising and
Supervising the PhD" DRS. Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:47:20 +0200
Friedman, Ken. 2000b (000428). "What is required to administer a
doctoral program?" DRS. Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 16:10:11 +0200
Friedman, Ken. 2000c (000604). "2 more theses in response to Jean
Schneider [Long post]" DRS. Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 01:25:30 +0200
Friedman, Ken. 2000d (000606). "Varieties of research methods
[Response to Jean Schneider, part 3]" DRS. Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000
15:55:36 +0200
Friedman, Ken. 2001. "Creating Design Knowledge: From Research into
Practice." In Design and Technology Educational Research and
Development: The Emerging International Research Agenda. E. W. L.
Norman and P. H. Roberts, eds. Loughborough, UK: Department of Design
and Technology, Loughborough University, 31-69.
Krippendorff, Klaus. 1999. "A Field for Growing Doctorates in
Design?" (In) Doctoral Education in Design. Proceedings of the Ohio
Conference. October 8-11, 1998. Richard Buchanan, Dennis Doordan,
Lorraine Justice, and Victor Margolin, editors. Pittsburgh: The
School of Deign. Carnegie Mellon University, 207-224.
Laing, S. 2000. Future Directions in Post-Graduate and Doctoral
Research. EU-India Cross Cultural Innovation Network Project
Conference on Enterprise Innovation in Knowledge Society. Gujarat Law
Society Auditorium, GLS Campus, Ahmedabad.
Manzini, Ezio, Tomas Maldonado, Victor Margolin, and Silvia
Pizzocaro. 2000. Themes from the Milan Conference. Closing statement
of the organizers. Design (plus) Research. 18-20 May, 2000.
Politecnico di Milano
Mautner, Thomas. 1996. A Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rmalina@prontomail.com
Subject: Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 22:57:22 +0200
To Ken Friedman
I have just finished reading your very detailed
discussion on the underlying issues for the PhD design and will try to respond to many of your points.
I wanted to add a couple of other issues:
One issue that I didnt see raised in your discussion is whether the design of PhD programs is being affected by the new developments in distance education made possible by the internet.
You state:
'network of designers, researchers, producers, and users, the
design research community constitutes a network of individuals and
institutions. This network connects individuals and creates a
platform of interaction to encourage continuing dialogue among
researchers who operate in different ways and in different domains.
What this community has in common is a commitment to building a
design research culture, which can contribute to a deeper
understanding of design itself."
But the next step is to use this platform to rethink how PhD programs are designed. In my own field of astronomy it is much more common now than before to have theses co supervised by supervisors in different institutions than used to be the case, and also more common than before for PhD student to be resident in the home institution only part of their degree ( for instance a PhD student may be resident in a astronomical facility in Chile while they supervisor is in France).
A second is the PhD degree in the context of continuing education. In my field of astronomy the PhD almost always follows on from the masters or undergraduate degree without interruption and indeed the indeed the whole university hiring process puts at a disadvantage researchers who have an interruption ( of even a few years) between university and Ph D completion, I sit on hiring committees for tenured positions where if the PhD takes any longer than a nominal three years the candidate is scrutinised to understand why a 'normal' rhythm wasnt maintained. And a gap is a real penalty.
In the arts there seems to be a different situation with some artists going back into a PhD program later on in their careers. They may have positions in art and design schools, and either feel institutional pressure or personal development interests that make a period of in depth research within a Ph D of value. I have served as an external advisor of students of this type in the Plymouth networked Planetary Collegium program. PhD programs for researchers just entering their careers and programs for more advanced researchers who are re entering an educational program pose some different issues.
Finally I just want to support the point you make about:
you state
""Research degrees do not appear in isolation. Good research demands a
context. Those of us active in the day-to-day work of teaching art or
design generally find ourselves immersed in a milieu oriented toward
teaching and practice. Those of us who in other research fields face
the demands and challenges of research programs in a different
context."
This is really a key point= I am sometimes rather
bewildered to see institutions seeking to develop
new PhD initiatives within departments that dont
seem to have a deep commitment to research and researchers. As you point out teaching, practice, research have different goals and metrics= a Ph D program that is not closely coupled to an ambitious research agenda seems to have the seeds for failure
Roger Malina
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ken.friedman@bi.no
Subject: Re: To Phd or not to Phd?
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 01:37:47 +0200
Friends,
One resource that new supervisors and advanced
graduate students find help is the excellent
Tomorrow's Professor mailing list from Stanford
University Center for Teaching and Learning.
The current issue is relevant to the on-line
conference To Phd or not to Phd? A copy appears
below.
Subscriptions are free -- over 25,000 people
around the world read this outstanding resource
three times a week. Subscribers come from all
fields and disciplines.
Visit the web site to see it for yourself.
Ken Friedman
--
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 14:44:31 -0800
To: tomorrows-professor@lists.stanford.edu
From: Rick Reis <reis@stanford.edu>
Subject: TP Msg. #853 Peer Support for Ph.D. Students
"The only way to finish your dissertation is
through forward progress in the face of
uncertainty.
Fortunately, there is a secret weapon to guide
you through the confusion, improve your writing,
and
help you spend your time wisely. It comes in the form of your peers."
--
TOMORROW'S PROFESSOR(sm) eMAIL NEWSLETTER
http://ctl.stanford.edu/Tomprof/postings.html
Sponsored by The Stanford University Center for Teaching and Learning
Comments:
http://amps-tools.mit.edu/tomprofblog
--
Folks:
The posting below looks at establishing peer
support groups for dissertation writers. It is by
Michael Kiparsky, a National Science Foundation
Graduate Research Fellow in the Energy and
Resources Group at the University of California
at Berkeley. It appeared in the column CATALYST,
Career Advise for Scientists, in the Wednesday,
August 8, 2007 issue of the Chronicle of Higher
Education.
http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2007/08/2007080801c/careers.html
Copyright © 2007 by The Chronicle of Higher
Education. Reprinted with permission
Regards,
Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Faculty/TA Teaching Teams
Tomorrow's Research
-- 1,437 words --
Peer Support for Ph.D. Students
To finish a dissertation, you are expected to
move toward distant goals with few concrete
milestones. For many, the instinct is to go it
alone. Grinding it out in isolation, however, is
unlikely to produce your highest-quality work
most efficiently.
But, you may ask, what choice do you have? A
graduate student's support system can be thin.
Getting time with the busy professors who
ostensibly provide our main guidance is not easy.
Even if they are accessible, it makes sense to
use their time efficiently. They may expect to
review only polished products and engage in only
crucial conversations, rather than assist with
everyday decisions.
The only way to finish your dissertation is
through forward progress in the face of
uncertainty. Fortunately, there is a secret
weapon to guide you through the confusion,
improve your writing, and help you spend your
time wisely. It comes in the form of your peers.
Creating a dissertation-support group made up of
fellow doctoral students can enhance your
productivity. How to begin: Find one or two
colleagues who are at about the same stage of
research as you are. Meet once a week with the
goal of furthering one another's progress.
Having a regular group of people committed to
trading services with one another can pay off
hugely through collective improvement in many
areas:
* Faster progress: The insights of your peers can
be invaluable as you are developing ideas or
writing. Having an audience for practice
presentations and brainstorming sessions is
helpful as well. Let's face it: Students' time is
cheap compared with precious faculty hours.
Maximize your meetings with professors by
preprocessing with your support group the first
stages of a decision or research question.
Consistent, regular input can help you break
through stagnant periods, and harness the
productive ones
* Structure: A regular audience will force you to
set more detailed goals and periodic deadlines.
Frequent deadlines force you to break your
dissertation into more manageable, bite-sized
chunks.
* Psychological support: Strong morale in grad
school depends, in part, on a sense of forward
motion. Many of us fail to acknowledge to
ourselves the worth of the incremental work we do
toward our larger goals. An accountability group
can provide ongoing acknowledgment of your
progress, including intangible results such as
building your confidence in the direction you
have chosen for your research. A happy student is
a good student, and your peers can help to reduce
the psychological dissonance common among those
enrolled in graduate programs.
It sounds easy but needs to be done right. A
poorly structured group can end up just wasting
good hours.
I know of one group of students that ended up
dominated by one member's troubles. I know of
other groups that are little more than organized
gossip sessions. Wasting time, or just not
maximizing the effect of your group, is the
default state. If you want your group to fail,
put minimal attention into planning and goal
setting.
Execution is critical for good results; so are
being intentional about what you need and being
disciplined about sticking to those goals.
Consider the group as a means to exchange
professional services. Explicitly agree that each
member is responsible for getting what they need
out of the meetings. Ask yourself frequently, "Is
this getting me any closer to turning in my
dissertation?" If the answer is no, bring that up
with the group and then excuse yourself if things
do not improve.
Setting the Stage
Based on my experience with my own
dissertation-support group, here is how I would
recommend you proceed:
* Limit the size of your group to a maximum of
three people. Any more than three will dilute the
amount of time available for focused personal
attention.
* Choose your co-conspirators carefully. Don't
form a group with your friends. Do form a group
with people you respect and admire for their
productivity and savvy. Approach colleagues once
you have thought through your needs, and get them
on board for the goals you have developed.
* Disciplines don't matter -- much. Your
colleagues can have very different research
projects and backgrounds. Some congruence of
interest and background is helpful, of course,
but weekly discussions and shared written drafts
will quickly make the members of your group the
people who most deeply understand the ins and
outs of your work.
* Each member of the group should be at
approximately the same stage of progress in their
dissertation.
* Opposites attract. Maybe one member of your
group is unusually creative, another is highly
organized, and a third is a sharp strategic
thinker. Your varying strengths can complement
one another.
* Be businesslike. Treat your group as a
professional relationship and separate your
professional interests from your personal ones.
* Meet weekly. An ongoing understanding of the
content and process of one another's research is
the value of these meetings. That continuing
support is what you won't get through occasional
meetings with a professor, a lab group, or
journal club. Less-frequent meetings will dilute
your ability to participate in the substance of
the other members' work, as you will need to
spend more of your time catching up.
* Emphasize product. Make a point of pushing one
another to exchange written work frequently, even
before you think you want to start writing the
dissertation itself. Sharing outlines and
unfinished subsections will help you clarify your
thinking as you write.
* Limit your time. Meetings of an hour to 90
minutes are long enough, and will force you to
stay on task.
* Organize each session. You can divide up the
time so each member gets an equal share to
discuss whatever is most important to them.
Alternatively, you could focus the session on
whoever has the most pressing needs that day;
just make sure everyone feels well served over
the long run.
Week to Week
Once your group has been created, the challenge
is keeping it working well. Below I describe an
approach to the weekly meetings that has
benefited my own group.
In the first 5 to 10 minutes of each session,
each person states what they accomplished during
the previous week, what their main goals are for
the coming week, and what major items they see on
their academic horizon.
Finishing a Ph.D. can be as much a psychological
test as an intellectual one, and I have found it
useful to acknowledge my incremental progress
each week to someone other than myself in the
mirror. For unmet goals, use the group as a place
to identify reasons you are not on track, such as
sources of procrastination, lack of commitment to
the goals, overcommitment, or whether it's not
the right goal in the first place.
Next, set an agenda for the remainder of the
session. Each member should express their
immediate needs. For example, "I would like your
feedback on a choice I need to make about
research methods, and to ask your advice on how
to handle a committee member's critique of a
manuscript. Also, I'm working on a draft of a
fellowship application. Would you be able to
review it for the next meeting if I get it to you
on Thursday?" Or, "I've been studying for
midterms all week, so I don't have much to
discuss now. I'll cede my time today, but next
week I will want some group time to help plan my
spring field season."
Finally, dig into the meat of your session.
Let me pause here to comment on a popular
graduate-student pastime: complaining about grad
school. Vent if you need to at your meetings, but
do it constructively and keep a cap on it. Access
to a friendly, understanding ear can work wonders
on your stress level. But it's easy to spend more
time kvetching than making progress. Beware the
fine line between angst and depression, and see a
counselor if that is really what you need.
That's it. Now repeat each week and watch your productivity spiral upward.
Forming dissertation-support group is a
commitment to involvement in others' work. But
the members of my group all agree: Our meetings
are some of the most valuable time we spend on
our own Ph.D. work. Having a core community that
is familiar with not only the details of my
current research, but also where I came from and
how I have justified getting there, is priceless.
A less isolated research path has made for a
better graduate-school experience over all for
me. Being happy in grad school is a beautiful
thing, and that may be the most powerful secret
weapon
of all.
Michael Kiparsky is a National Science Foundation
Graduate Research Fellow in the Energy and
Resources Group at the University of California
at Berkeley.
--
NOTE: Anyone can SUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor Mailing List by going to:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor
--
tomorrows-professor mailing list
tomorrows-professor@lists.stanford.edu
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor
