Well, since I have been
really busy, I just would like to share some texts with you guys. This one may
be interesting for those who like reading about Ph.D programs and the like.
I hope you enjoy it!
At
a recent dissertation defense at the University of Michigan, a colleague and I
were musing about the ways the word defense is a misnomer for much of what
happens at these events in our Ph.D. program. I’ve been thinking back on this
conversation this weekend as I fly back from Sweden, where I was honored to
have the opportunity to be the faculty opponent for a thesis defense at Uppsala
University.
Now if
defense sounds oppositional in nature, what about opponent?
At
some level the word defense usefully suggests that a Ph.D. candidate is being
asked to explain and justify their work — theoretical approaches, methods,
conclusions drawn from analysis, and the like. The event is designed to
demonstrate a candidate’s ability to talk about their research, including
responding to questions they may not have anticipated.
That
said, as a dissertation committee member, I do not see my job in this venue as
trying to “attack” a Ph.D. candidate’s work, such that they would need to
“defend” it from my criticisms. I want to allow a candidate to be as smart and
creative as possible in this setting and to stretch their thinking in new ways,
with the full committee there and fully engaged in their work for two
hours. A great defense, to me, is when a
candidate comes to a new understanding or insight as part of the conversation,
building on what is already written down in the dissertation.
This
is not to say that I will not raise concerns at a defense if I have them, but I
do so in the spirit of trying to help the candidate think through the issue —
perhaps in collaboration with the other members of the committee — in order to
strengthen the work. I do expect the candidate to be able to talk through a
problem I might raise, but not necessarily to solve it on the spot. A defense,
it seems to me, should model rigorous scholarly conversation where everyone at
the table is invested in making the work better, not shooting it down. A
candidate who is feeling defensive will struggle more to participate fully and thoughtfully
in this conversation.
Of
course there is an assumption underlying my approach: that I would not allow a
dissertation to reach the stage of the defense if I was concerned it couldn’t
pass. I don’t think this makes the defense less rigorous — or, frankly, less
scary for the candidate. It is still a public event (at least in our program,
and I am a strong advocate for public defenses) where colleagues, friends, and
family are going to watch a candidate respond to challenging questions from
experienced faculty. For all of us who suffer from impostor syndrome (I count
myself squarely in these ranks — and have throughout my career), the defense
seems like yet another high-stakes moment when one could be exposed. The drive
to prepare, the nerves, and the adrenaline do not, for most of us, rest on the
question of whether we as a candidate are going to pass or fail the defense in
the administrative sense.
I
will admit I was then a little thrown off to be called a faculty opponent for
the defense in Uppsala. I admire the protocol of bringing in an outside scholar
who has not worked with the candidate in writing the dissertation to engage
with the candidate about the work and provide the committee with an evaluation.
The process, in this way, captures the spirit of peer review for academic work.
It is also an impressive investment in a Ph.D. candidate’s work. But did I know
what it meant to be the “opponent”? After the invitation, I asked lots of
questions about the expectations. While I wanted to make sure that I would meet
their standards for a defense, I also wanted the defense to feel more like a
rigorous conversation than a lopsided hierarchical examination.
At
the defense on Friday morning, it was just the two of us at the front of the
room, with microphones, with the committee and advisers in the front row and
about 30 other people looking down from the auditorium’s seats and listening
in. How could any conversation for a Ph.D. candidate in this setting not be a
test of their scholarly mettle, no matter the questions? I certainly did ask
probing questions about methods and about the wording of specific assertions to
ensure that the candidate could explain methodological decisions and aspects of
the argument — or see how one might revise them. I took more seriously, though,
my job of challenging the candidate’s thinking in this setting, and to do that,
I don’t think it works well to think of one’s role as an opponent. (And the
main adviser had confirmed that “opponent” didn’t have to be taken as oppositional.) I tried to pose questions that asked the
candidate to think through, for example, a theoretical issue with me — an issue
raised by the dissertation — to see where that might get us. I wanted to make
the conversation to be lively and stimulating for both of us if I possibly
could.
In
the end, a defense is the moment where a Ph.D. candidate is fully becoming a
colleague in the academy. As colleagues in the academy, we regularly focus the
spotlight on each other’s work and ask rigorous, challenging questions — be
that at workshops or conference presentations or job talks. We’re trying to
push our scholarship, as colleagues, and we know defensiveness can get in the
way.
PORTAL DA
LÍNGUA INGLESA has no responsibility for the
persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-partly internet websites
referred to in this post, and does not guarantee that any context on such
websites are, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
In some
instances, I have been unable to trace the owners of the pictures used here;
therefore, I would appreciate any information that would enable me to do so.
Thank you very much.
Is something important missing?
Report an error or suggest an improvement. Please, I strive for accuracy and
fairness. If you see something that doesn't look right, contact me!
Your feedback is welcome. Please
direct comments and questions to me at bruno_coriolano@hotmail.com
Did you spot a typo?
Do you have any tips or examples
to improve this page?
Do you disagree with something on
this page?
Use one of your social-media
accounts to share this page:
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário