Living in Liminal Space

Unconventional approach to a paper about blogging | LEARNEROSITY | re:design for learning

One day someone convinces you to try Twitter. You don’t like it. You are not interested in reading about Ryan Giggs and his sleeping habits. You don’t like Facebook, why would you like this. But you persist. You respect your friend and they say it is not like Facebook.

via learnerosity.com

Interesting reflexive blog post about social media and classic academic writing.

Development of an idea

 Inger and I were using Twitter to discuss a new book: Mapping Your Thesis: The comprehensive manual of theory and techniques for masters’ and doctoral research, which is being sold at $89.95, far out of the reach of most students. I suggested it could have been offered online for less.

 

Interesting workshop and symposium

Doctoral writing in the visual and performing arts: Challenges and diversities

Sydney College of the Arts, University of Sydney
17 and 18 November 2011
 
17 November:
A half-day workshop on doctoral writing for research students in the visual and performing arts. This will be led by Professor Brian Paltridge (University of Sydney), Associate Professor Sue Starfield (University of New South Wales) and Associate Professor Louise Ravelli (University of New South Wales).
 
18 November:
A full day symposium on current research and practice in doctoral writing in the visual and performing arts. The opening speaker for the symposium will be Professor Su Baker, Director of the Victorian College of Arts at the University of Melbourne. The closing speaker for the symposium will be Merilyn Fairskye, Associate Professor of Media Arts at the Sydney College of Arts at the University of Sydney.

 

 

DPhil-stuff » Blog Archive » Well, I’ve got some data - what now?

For some months, one of my concerns has been what to do with my interview data. I have read lots of material on qualitative data analysis and many different articles, and even books, which have used qualitative approaches of one sort or another.  Some of what I read resonated, but a great deal didn’t and I think I am only now beginning to understand where my personal sticking point is.

via lizit.me.uk

A blog post by a PhD student that is negative about using NVIVO.

A landmark

After a week of working every day on my annual leave I've finished the first draft of a section on PhD examination (8008 words, if it matters) and sent it to my supervisors. Now I need a little lie down.

The bliss of a PhD week

I've taken a week of my holidays to work on my PhD and I'm really enjoying it. I am aiming to get my section on examination into a first draft stage. So far it's been very interesting, and my ideas are forming well and my initial impressions and ideas are being nicely bolstered by what I'm reading, but as usual there are more questions than answers.

I suppose you could say that the thesis is the key to leaving liminal space: submission is the putting of that key into the lock that is the examination process. In most cases it will turn successfully (in some cases more work is required to turn it, but for most people it does turn eventually) and the doctoral door will open, releasing the candidate into the sunlight of the status of 'doctor',

Writing about PhD examination

It's a bit weird, writing about how the PhD is examined and how that is perceived by students, knowing that possibly the only people who will ever read what I'm writing (apart from supervisors) will be the examiners. In The Reflexive Thesis, Malcolm Ashmore begins his thesis by quoting from the Regulations of his University on the form of an Introduction to a thesis, then deconstructing that in the form of an address to his readers (ie the examiners):

The first task of my Introduction is to introduce my readers into my text: You're welcome. The text is now yours. The second task of your introduction is to consider whether what follows (preceding the first chapter of the thesis) is a contravention of the Regulation quoted above.

I don't think I'm that bold (or that confident!)

So I will start by looking at the academic literature on examination in Australia (surprisingly broad), then the Regulations at Sydney. Then there are my notes from the session Prof Jones gave us on thesis examination, and I also need to check the interviews to see what my key informants have said.

Page to search for all relevant links and get pdfs of the latest policy (search on Phd): http://fmweb01.ucc.usyd.edu.au/FMPro?-db=POL_Main.fp5&-format=/pol/pol_search.html&-lay=www&-view

Relevant links from the online calendar:

Rule 2004 (regarding the PhD)

For the thesis and examination process:

http://www.usyd.edu.au/calendar/06a_resolutions.shtml#phddeg

Have saved all pdfs that look relevant.

It feels a bit fraudulent, writing about examination first, because it's probably the easiest part of the thesis. It's dealing with probably the most measurable issues, and there's been lots written about it. But isn't that what I've been telling students for years: begin with what you know best.

Talk on what examiners want

Excellent talk this morning from Prof Philip Jones, who has been on PhD awards subcommittee for a long time.. Emphasised the importance of strong conceptualisation, writing early and often, and attention to detail in finishing. The talk was really well-attended and some good questions were asked. His talk was really a good summary of the literature that I'm reading.

Maybe the sense of powerlessness that is often manifest in the PhD process by students really comes to the crunch around examination. This is when you let your work go, send it out into the world to be judged by unknown forces. When I was teaching writing in Palmerston North, Karen Rhodes used to say how Freudian writing was: like a baby's shit, it comes from an unknown place within the self, is extruded to the outside - sometimes in pain and with some difficulty, and is then instinctively clung to - its removal seems to cause resentment and even fear as it symbolises a lack of control over the product. It does feel about right...

Overwhelmed...

I had no idea when I enrolled how much material about the PhD would become available to me. Part-time candidature has both pluses and minuses: the longer period of time means that lots of stuff gets published while you are reading, writing, and thinking, and some of it will inevitably reflect what you have been thinking but hadn't yet got out there. And it gets increasingly difficult to keep ahead of what is being published.

Apparently the topic of the PhD itself reached critical mass in the zeitgeist of academia just before I enrolled. Who knew?

Gilbert in Boud&Lee (2009): Excellent deconstruction of curriculum, discussion of meaning of knowledge economy, and survey of intent statements of unis in Aus, including AVCC committee. Also points out how lack of criteria, or confusing criteria between institutions, make examination very idiosyncratic.

Discuss marking articles (Newcastle team) against this one. Excellent.

Research relationships

Reading 'Research as Relationship' (Ceglowski, 2002) I note that I need to discuss my research relationships: with my participants, with my mentors, with the wider community of PhD blogging. This needs to be early in the thesis.