Nội dung

Defending your dissertation You can prepare for your orals by responding to these questions, explaining in great detail the evolution of your thinking. Writing notes to bring with you on the day of your orals may be useful. Certainly, you are free to refer to your dissertation as you respond to questions which are posed. Many students place color-coded tabs at key points in the dissertation to facilitate access to specific issues. Some remember the questions posed as being “picky.” For one candidate the comment that a particular researcher’s work was not mentioned “got my dukes up. I couldn’t understand why that was so important.” If that happens to you, try to consider what you know about that researcher’s work and connect it with yours, offering that you could/should have included the name and will! If, on the other hand, you are unfamiliar with the person’s work, acknowledge this and inquire about the connection to your own work. (You’re not expected to be all-knowing. In fact, admitting that you do not know everything is considered an appropriate stance.) The oral is not totally focused on the candidate, although most candidates assume this to be the case. Rather, orals are a unique time in the academic calendar when professors come together to talk with faculty colleagues about scholarly matters. This coming together contrasts with the virtual isolation of faculty with their students during the major portion of the academic year. For some faculty this is a cherished opportunity to talk with peers about important scholarly matters, trying, for example, to understand evolving paradigms or new perspectives in their discipline. For others, a student’s orals offers an opportunity to “get back” at a faculty colleague in a public forum for some perceived professional or personal offense, or long-standing competition or jealousy. To move beyond any personal disputes, candidates explain in elaborate detail their understanding of the issues which are addressed. They acknowledge conflicts in the field (every field has conflicts!) and carefully present their reasoning for advancing one position over another. It would be prudent to acknowledge your biases and the bases for these, while recognizing the possibility of other perspectives on the same issue. Avoid polemics; try to accommodate a wide range of perspectives. You know this is probably the final hurdle in the process. Being successful at your orals will be based on your knowledge and diplomacy. At your orals you can expect a fairly formal structure. On the day of your orals, the person who will chair them informs you of the procedures to be followed. You will probably be asked to start the conversation, providing an overview of the issue you researched, why you researched it, how you went about conducting your research, and what your findings were. Some students prepare overhead transparencies or a PowerPoint presentation of an initial “overview” of the study, finding it easier to face the screen than the faces of the inquirers at the start. (If this is comfortable for you and acceptable at your university, you may need to assure yourself that the appropriate equipment will be available.) 140 Defending your dissertation At the oral defense I was asked both technical and theoretical questions. After the congratulations were offered me, the conversation took a different quality. Different, more in-depth questions were asked of me. It seemed as if the door had opened and I moved into the room of professionals and was accepted as belonging to the club. That was memorable and disturbing. After the questioning ends, the candidate is asked to leave the room temporarily for the committee “to decide.” Typically each professor present at your orals has the opportunity and responsibility to vote on whether or not you “pass.” In most instances, the candidate needs to obtain positive votes from a majority of those participating. The faculty individually complete forms in which they record a grade of “pass,” or “re-do,” or “fail.” They then collectively discuss changes, if any, they will require before the dissertation is officially accepted by the university. After what seems like a long time, but usually is only about five minutes, they invite the candidate to return to the room and share their collective decision. It is not unusual for a successful candidate to be invited back into the room, and reintroduced to the orals committee as Dr. —! At this point there is much congratulating: the committee congratulates the student, the student offers thanks to the committee, and then they each go on to other things. The Outcome Each faculty member votes on whether or not the candidate has successfully completed the orals. In most cases, the vote is predictable: there is at least a majority, if not a unanimous vote to approve. There may also be requests for clarification, revision, or expansion of the text. Usually, the dissertation chair is charged with insuring that these requests are addressed in the finally approved document. In the rare case where there are a majority of negative votes, several different recommendations may be made. For example: • redo the dissertation and reschedule orals; • schedule a second orals; • or terminate matriculation. These are unusual, but they do happen. Many people who have received these evaluations complete their degrees, either at this institution or at another place. But, in the main, most people who have their orals, graduate from that institution. The chances are good that if you have taken the time to read this book, and to understand the apprenticeship process, you will succeed and complete your dissertation. Once you have completed your dissertation, three feelings are generally experienced: exhilaration, exhaustion, and dejection. Finally getting to the 141 Defending your dissertation end of the trail, you get a feeling of accomplishment. Your tension exhausts you, and then you feel alone. All those who had been concerned about getting you to this point may have no further role in your life: “There was no champagne toast after the defense. There was nothing. The committee congratulated me and rushed off to another event.” Some relate this last letdown to post-partum depression. To avoid this, many doctoral students contemplate their lives-after-dissertation while preparing for orals, if not before. They make plans to get involved in new projects immediately after the orals, particularly those they deferred while working on the dissertation. At some institutions there is a ritual “sherry-sharing” time following the orals, which helps to ease the experience. As the faculty and new doctor sip sherry, they discuss new projects, and issues such as publication of the dissertation and finding new employment. Oftentimes, the new doctor continues working with some of the committee members transforming her or his dissertation into a journal article. Clearly the respect which all the members develop for each other’s work makes the prospect of continued collaboration very attractive. Once you get to this point, you have three essential responsibilities: 1 Honor those who supported your progress 2 Help others to succeed and 3 Promote the reconceptualization of the entire dissertation process. Good luck! 142 Appendix A Doctoral Students’ Experiences: Expectations of Doctoral Studies1 Although doctoral programs and doctoral recipients implicitly value research, there is little systematic investigation on the effects of the doctoral process on those who participate. To address this issue, in part, this study focused on one specific aspect: the expectations of doctoral students. The objective of the research was to obtain the participants’ perspectives on their experiences as these connected with their expectations. University Bulletins give little or no explanation of what enrollment in a doctoral program entails. I sought assistance in understanding a process which has been seemingly “cloaked in darkness and secrecy.” By studying and reflecting on the expectations of doctoral students, we can, as professionals, ascertain the match between our students’ expectations and the activities we require in the process of completing a doctoral program. Participants in the study were either currently enrolled or previously enrolled in doctoral programs across the USA, leading to either EdD or PhD degrees. Theoretical Perspective Several perspectives informed this study. One issue was the large number of students who “drop out” of doctoral programs (Lovitts, 1996). Although numbers are difficult to obtain, with clear differences across universities and programs within each university, the generally agreed number is 50 per cent. At universities where doctoral students are funded for their programs, enrolled as full-time, residential students, the graduation rate is significantly higher than at universities where students’ personal savings are the basis for their tuition, and where students frequently enroll as part-time, commuter students. Bowen and Rudenstine’s (1992) study, In Pursuit of the PhD, documents that: The percentage of students [in Arts and Sciences programs in selected American universities] who never earn PhDs, in spite of having achieved ABD status, has risen in both larger and smaller programs. …The direction of change is unmistakable, and the absolute numbers are high enough to be grounds for serious concern. (Bowen and Rudenstine, 1992, p. 253) 143 Appendix A A related issue is whether the number of students who do not complete their programs is higher for female participants than for their male counterparts. This issue is a potential concern since we know that doctoral students in education programs are more likely to be female. Holland and Eisenhart (1990), for example, provide important perspectives on the social pressures facing women’s academic achievements which may affect their commitment to complete an academic program. While Holland and Eisenhart were studying undergraduate women, the issues are similar, and perhaps even more intense for women pursuing advanced degrees. Faculty in academic institutions need to know the participants’ perspectives of what is expected and experienced in the process of acquiring the doctoral degree. Ted Sizer (1997), a leader in education reform, recently commented on the frequency with which doctoral students wisely drop out of doctoral programs. He believes this is due to the realization that the program routinely requires a “retrogressive model of inquiry” which is so alien to the students’ inductive and interactive methods of inquiry that they find no value in going through the process. Clearly he has offered us a challenge that we dismiss at our peril. Lovitts (1996) and Vartuli (1982) documented the disjuncture many participants find between academic programs and their real-world experiences and needs. In addition to addressing concerns within the academy, there has been a call from the public at large to study the PhD process, as evidenced by a recent article in The New York Times Magazine (Menand, 1996). There is clearly a concern for the autonomy of doctoral programs which show no evidence of accountability to the profession or the students who enroll. The purpose of this study is to provide some baseline data to understand the expectations of students who enroll in doctoral programs. Modes of Inquiry Open-ended questionnaires were mailed to graduates of doctoral programs, requesting their typewritten, anonymous responses as well as their distribution of the questionnaire to others holding the doctoral degree, those pursuing the doctoral degree, and known ABDs. Included with the instructions for responding to this questionnaire was an invitation to participate in informal roundtable discussions or conversations. In addition, faculty members at a wide array of institutions distributed questionnaires in their doctoral courses and to colleagues, enlarging the data pool. The researcher received written responses to the open-ended questionnaires and responses of individuals interested in participating in the roundtable discussions. Three small roundtable discussions, each of approximately three hours’ duration, and ten one-hour interviews provided additional data for this inquiry. The data include written responses to the open-ended questionnaire and transcribed tapes from the roundtable discussions and interviews. In all, close to 200 individuals responded to the open-ended written questionnaires, and 144