These are, in fact, rhetorical questions. I do have a sketchy answer for them [sketchy in the outlined, sort of questionable sense, not in the highly questionable sense]. But if you want to take a stab at either, or both, feel free; comments are below. My questions are more of the why, as in ought it to be this way?
I have managed to get myself into my usual conundrum. I have found a “topic” that really appeals to me and about which I want to learn as much as I can. Of course, the amount that I want to learn easily eclipses the length of a semester and a seminar paper. My usual course of action is to finally carve out a small portion of my interest, write a paper that only addresses a small part of the subject (after seriously over-researching), and then move on [due to circumstance, not choice]. Well, it seems I am here again.
I was up in one of our departmental libraries getting a book I needed on “meaning in language” the other day when the librarian working (a former classmate) asked me what I needed that book for. When I told them that I was working on a paper that was just too big for a semester because I prefer getting an education versus doing just what’s required, I was told, “But it’s a new year, you could learn to do better.”
Do better? What the heck does that mean? I should change my belief in the value of an education—for its own sake—just to write papers that show I learned … something? Not happening! Do not be mistaken; although I have found myself in this situation, repeatedly, over the last 8+ years, I still manage to get almost all As on my papers. So I seem to be accomplishing the “evaluative” portion of higher ed just fine.
But is higher education, or any education for that matter, only or mostly about the evaluation? Most certainly not! I do agree that evaluation is a necessary evil, in many cases. But evaluation, especially formal, is not the purpose of education.
And for those friends of mine and others who routinely give me crap about getting a PhD, is this just another one of those indicators that you use to tell me that I should be in a PhD program? Of course it is. It’s not like I don’t recognize the things you use about me to make your claims. But before you begin, just stop. PhD students still have to write papers, including one generally very big one. And the PhD is about jumping through even more, often specious hoops, than even a Masters. My problem might not be worse in a PhD program, but it certainly wouldn’t get any better either. I care about learning and using my learning, and not about “proving” it. I will not sacrifice the quality of my education just to learn to write papers for someone else.
This time I may not “just move on,” though. First, I need to get this paper finished for Dr. Palmer—whatever the grade may be. But Wednesday I spoke with my advisor about continuing this work in an independent study this Spring. By doing so, I will certainly not learn everything about this topic; actually several highly complex and interrelated topics. But I hope to learn enough—breadth and depth—to satisfy my “habitually probing generalist” tendencies. Maybe by taking a “big(ger) picture” approach I may even be able to say something useful by bringing together sources and communities that are yet to have the many conversations they need to. [Walt, I swear I am working on my hpg t-shirt design but I need to learn something about text graphics first, and perhaps even find a new program to use. Re: C&I 7 (1), p. 11]
As soon as I get this paper finished (sigh), I will start fleshing out my proposal for my independent study. I have a great start on a reading list, and have already read many of the items at least once. I also have a (for me) fairly detailed vision of what I want to cover.
I have already promised several of you a copy of my paper for Carole and I will (probably) make it available here in full. But let me get it written first. Maybe I’ll only be happy enough with it to give it to those already promised a copy.
What you should really be interested in (if at all), though, is the one I want to write. I hope to get the chance.
Because. I, too, want “lexicographic privileges” (Johnson, 143 and 150). Just kidding. Sort of.
Besides, I already have lexicographic privileges. Directly so at IFSI, and less directly in other areas.
Seriously, what I want is to understand thesauri (and other controlled vocabularies, a bit) both historically and currently, theoretically, experimentally, practically and pragmatically. I want to see a world with embedded controlled vocabularies, most of which would be freely available, and easily accessible via the Web and even when off-line [See Johnson on this. Or JISC Terminology Services. Or OCLC Terminology Services.].
I want to curl up with ANSI/NISO Z39.50-19 2005 Guidelines for the Construction, Format, and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies. Again. I want to read the multilingual thesaurus standard, along with the British/ISO monolingual and multilingual thesauri standards. I want to read (all of) Lancaster and Aitchison, et. al. I want to put what I’ve seen so far into some sort of coherent whole.
I have no doubt this little offshoot of my interests began long ago and in many ways, but it mainly started in LIS590TC Thesaurus Construction this past summer. My work for our group presentation on interoperability and merging of thesauri really sent me off in this direction. But then I left it (or so I thought) as another semester began. Many of these ideas came up again—directly or indirectly—in LIS590CS Seminar in Classification Systems, and I am now incorporating some of them into my paper for LIS590TR Information Transfer and Collaboration in Science.
Overall, I am highly interested in “classificatory structures,” be they controlled vocabularies, authority control, classification systems, and so on. I am particularly interested in the structures we will use to organize, implement and use these various classificatory structures [See for example: ADL Thesaurus Protocol].
In Spring, I will be taking LIS590ON Ontologies in the Humanities and LIS590RO Representing and Organizing information Resources, along with whatever independent study I work out. Ontologies will give me a foot in the door with other controlled vocabularies, and may go a long way to addressing what I see as the main (theoretical) limitation of thesauri. Representing and Organizing will allow me to continue my work in most any way I desire. Seeing as my advisor is the professor for RO, and that she is big on students being able to integrate coursework into other studies in the same semester or on a continuing basis, and that she seems excited about my desire to do this, I imagine I might well be focusing some of my RO efforts on this topic also.
Will this turn into my CAS project? I don’t know. At the moment, I kind of hope not. As I have said before, and as vastly intriguing as this topic is to me, I am pretty sure this is a lot like looking over the cliff with one leg dangling in space. But if I were to change my mind, I would certainly be well on my way to doing something “useful” and interesting for my project.
Johnson, Eric H., “Distributed Thesaurus Web Services.” In The Thesaurus: Review, Renaissance, and Revision. Sandra K. Roe and Alan R. Thomas, eds. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Information Press, 2004, pp. 121-153. Or: Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 37 (3/4), 2004, pp. 121-153.
As one of your PhD crap-givers (and I hope you consider me a friend, or at least a friendly acquaintance) … I have to defend the PhD process. I think for the vast majority of programs it’s not like hoop jumping that you do to get a professional degree. It’s more like a long path of mentorship and independent growth. It’s not about getting papers done for assignments but apprenticeship with master researchers to learn to do research and to learn to learn. It’s the first place where you really have to stand on your own independently. As for proving and defending your ideas/work, that is how science works. Conference papers, boards, etc., are about social construction of knowledge. You reading and writing on your own without defending or explaining to the world does not further the science. IMHO.
Yes ma’am, I do. In fact, I think I consider all of the folks who have given me “crap” about how I should be a PhD student to be friendly, and most *are* friends. Not sure how well I’d tolerate it otherwise. By the way, I *do* take it as a compliment that these folks think this of me.
I do generally agree with your overview of the PhD process; as an ideal anyway. What you have said is certainly the avowed purpose of a PhD education. But it is just that, the avowed purpose and ideal.
I am glad to hear that your program seems to mostly work that way. But I have observed too many PhD students over the past decade plus, in many different disciplines, to agree that it actually or generally works that way. But, I have no doubt that on occasion it does.
Maybe once they are done and have some distance on the process they will think more as you do. But the ones I interact with currently feel like they are doing a lot of hoop jumping. And I can see that they are doing just that. Yes, I can often see that they are doing what Christina says also, in varying degrees.
Many of those things can be accomplished in other ways, though. In fact, I have no doubt that I am being better mentored than large numbers of PhD students over the years. I many even be being better mentored than some of our current PhD students. This is because the process of mentoring is dependent on so many variables and the quirks of humanity. Many professors are incapable of mentoring, while many students are incapable of being mentored. Of course, the range runs to both extremes as in any other variable of human difference.
And it certainly isn’t about getting papers done (neither is the Masters), but they still must get done. As for being “the first place where you really have to stand on your own independently,” I’ll let that stand, at least regarding the “typical” 22-24 year old, or so, entrant to a PhD program. But even for those of us who had to stand on our own long before we entered a grad program, your point is taken in that we need to learn to stand on our own in ways peculiar to scholarship at this level.
Mentorship, independent growth, learning to learn. I certainly am doing all those things. Learning to do “real” research; that one’s a bit more sketchy in my case. But I could change that all by myself.
I agree with you in your statements regarding science and its social construction. But then I’m not doing science. I’m writing papers for classes, at the moment. And in my humble opinion, almost no one in LIS is doing “science” either. The use of empirical methods does not a science make! Before one reacts too strongly to that statement, consider that I also include things like state-of-the-art particle physics as not being a science either. Sciences such as those have long passed the point of anything that could remotely be called “observation.” And, yes, I am well aware of the fact that much of what I do accept as science is done with various instruments that affect/allow/afford observation. It may be hazy, but there is a line somewhere that demarcates what is truly observed and that which is “operationally declared” into being. And, no, I am not willing to draw that line for anyone but myself.
These are fairly heretical statements, I know. But no use arguing with me as I will not likely change my mind. I am sure my view will continue to evolve just as it always has. But I seriously doubt I can ever go back to the naiveté of previous years.
As for my reading or writing on my own not affecting science—or whatever we call it—I would certainly agree. My point is not to be a lone “scholar” doing my own thing, but being able to do it at my own pace.
I love higher ed as much, or more, than most. But, as with most things I value, I also am critical of it. One thing I would ask of anyone, please remember that these are my views and that I do not want anyone to base their decisions on programs based on what I may write here. In fact, seeing as I am not, nor ever have been, in a PhD program they are, or should be, pointless to anyone but me. This is not to say that I have nothing of value to say on the topic, but that must come from real dialogue and not from a blog posting.
I do want to join this profession and make a contribution to it and to the larger world in which we find ourselves. My point, I guess, is that I could better prepare to do this in a somewhat different format than the semester system. But it must not be a total loss to me as I am still in school.
Christina is correct that I could have nuanced my comments a bit more. But if I added all the nuance needed in these sorts of discussions I would never finish writing them, and no one would read them even if I did.
I do agree with Christina’s characterization of the PhD process. I just don’t think that it is fully actualized by everyone who gets a PhD. I also don’t think that PhD programs are intentionally, nor always, about jumping through hoops. Besides, hoop jumping can be very good exercise.