This article by Gary Olson provides a compelling counterpoint to arguments in favor of drastically reconfiguring PhD programs. His primary argument concerns the traditional dissertation, and he responds to calls which are growing increasingly vocal to alter radically the type of work doctoral students could submit instead of a dissertation. While I for one would like to see modifications to the traditional PhD program, Olson reminds would-be reformers that there are some important elements to the current system that should not be sacrificed in the process. Three main points he makes are 1) in our ADHD society, we shouldn’t forget that there is a place and a need for the kind of extended investigation that requires patience and time, and that a dissertation provides an unparalleled chance for a student to develop the research and critical thinking skills that come when considering a problem in such depth; 2) peer review is important. Correlated to that, he points out that scholarship is about more than just “sharing.” It is important to have a vetting process, instead of just throwing out untested ideas. He points out how absurd it would be in the field of medicine to have someone propose a new treatment that hadn’t been tested, and yet in the humanities, this is the sort of thing that’s being proposed by some; 3) there are real dangers, especially in terms of future employment, to having an overly innovative PhD program and an “alternative” dissertation. When looking for a job, it is possible, if not probable, that potential future employers will be skeptical about an alternative format dissertation.
|
AuthorI am an associate professor of French literature and culture at the University of Kansas. The opinions expressed here are my own. They do not in any way, shape, or form represent the views of my department or university. Archives
September 2015
Categories |