Karen M. Drabenstott
Associate Professor
School of Information
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1092 USA
Voice: (734) 763-3581
Fax: (734) 764-2475
karen.drabenstott@umich.edu
New topic -- "Joint Dissertations"
Many thanks to Shirley Richardson for leading our latest discussion, "Buckle Your Seatbelts: Changes Ahead in Technical Services." Our membership increased significantly during this discussion so word must have gotten out about our focus on this area. Several members made lengthy, thought-provoking comments that took much time, effort, and thought to compose. We thank you for your input and especially Shirley's periodic reviews that helped us rethink and synthesize the ongoing discussion. We should visit this topic in the future in view of its popularity the last two weeks.
Let's move onto our new topic, "Joint Dissertations," which, not surprisingly, has joint editors in Kim Gregson and Luz Marina Quiroga.
Kim is currently a doctoral student at the School of Library and Information Science at Indiana University. She is interested in the social uses of technology, such as community computer networks, and how they can be used as a vehicle for increasing political participation at the local level. Previously Kim was a computer programmer and taught high school mathematics and computer programming. She has an interdisciplinary bachelor's degree in Russian Studies.
Luz is also a doctoral student at SLIS, Indiana University, and is working on a dissertation proposal which deals with the issues of categorization and filtering for the design of personalized information systems. Luz came to Indiana's Ph.D. program with degrees in systems engineering and computer science. She has participated in several automated library systems in Latin America (e.g., Union serial catalogs in Colombia and Mexico, National bibliography in Mexico). Collaborative software design, a topic related to the discussion of the next two weeks, is an area that intrigues her. Currently Luz consulting in Chile at the National Council of Science and Technology.
Please join our joint editors for a discussion of "Joint Dissertations."
Kim Gregson
Doctoral student
School of Library and Information Science
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana
kgregson@indiana.edu
Luz Marina Quiroga
Doctoral student
School of Library and Information Science
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana
lquiroga@conicyt.cl
The dissertation represents the culmination of a doctoral student's school career. It demonstrates that doctoral students have mastered the literature, can correctly choose and use research methods, and can communicate their findings so that other researchers in the field can understand and use them.
As a field we are considering more complex research questions. We are looking at how people use information and information technology in many settings - work related and social. Elaborating on the first question we can take as example the type of usability studies frequently involved in user modeling research in IS. We are concerned in the real use of information, in the real world. We emphasize that these studies require interdisciplinary contribution and we try to gather multiple perspectives of users needs involving wide ranges of users types and data collection methods. Also, much current research is done on teams, doctoral students are team participants on research projects, and thus, they are conditioned to do research work with others.
During long conversations with our fellow doctoral students, we have asked ourselves questions such as:
However, in the moment of data analysis we rely on the single vision of an isolated researcher (e.g., a Ph.D. student). Wouldn't it be more appropriate that data analysis and interpretation were also a multi-human effort? Our field is changing, becoming more interdisciplinary as researchers look at ideas from sociology, communications, and computer science to better understand traditional topics such as information retrieval. Faculty are being hired because of their ability to bring in ideas from other disciplines. Once on the faculty they are being encouraged to work on large, interdisciplinary projects. The same may be true of doctoral students. We bring a variety of methodological skills and subject matter expertise. Each one of us could contribute with our own assets, and could serve as a check on each other concerning our own biases. It seems that collaborative analysis should enhance quality of results. Joint dissertations would allow us to take advantage of this mix of backgrounds. Multiple data collection methods could be used, multiple cases could be considered, different theories could be compared. The results might be a richer picture of the topic in question and more useful finding for other researchers to build on.
Let us now consider another question related to the joint dissertation issue.
It seems that there is some disagreement between the theory and the practice of the IS research education: During school years we continuously emphasize collaboration, team based work. However, once classes are finished, Ph.D. students are left to months or even years" of individual dissertation work. But after this long training in individual work, we become researchers and teachers that are expected to encourage, participate and even lead group projects. It seems that there is something missing in the conception of this scholar cycle.
We welcome your ideas, especially Ph.D. students, dissertation advisors, and dissertation committee members who are closely involved in the doctoral review process.
Jonathan W. Estrin
Teaching Fellow
University of Pittsburgh
School of Information Sciences
Department of Library Science
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
jwest4@sis.pitt.edu
The decision to support joint dissertations needs to take into account several factors, both educational and social.
I am a "Generation X" Ph.D. student and the victim of a long academic career of experimental educational methods, starting with open classrooms and collaborative classroom management trends of the 1970s. Instructional design in the last couple of decades has stressed the participatory aspects of learning, but has neglected to initiate corresponding evaluation techniques -- hence a generation of people to whom working together retains a competitive edge: "I will work together if I look good doing it." The same attitudes have entered the workforce, hence the implementation of project teams comprised of employees who must validate their group contributions via individual performance evaluations.
Thankfully, this is changing. Teams are becoming more independent and their productivity is motivated through more collective performance measures. Those who have been socialized to work together can now work together in a participatory rather than competitive fashion. The work of "idea people," leaders, and engineers may yet be appreciated in a context where each can demonstrate their skills. While I don't think that libraries in particular have made the transition yet, the LIS field generally is making progress in that direction.
The dissertation, I think, is based on "old school" methods of knowledge acquisition. It perpetuates the notion of "survival of the fittest," outcome as publication rather than social action, credential rather than contribution, and the image of finite disciplinary domains where we all know none exist (or the requirement that one poor human beings master them all).
I am also interested in community networks and libraries as civic institutions. The LIS field is interdisciplinary on two planes. In theory, we rely on a cross-hybridization of ideas from the technical and social sciences, as well as from the humanities. In the field, we are engaged in business, cultural, and social activities directed toward the public interest. There is only room for shared experience in today's fast-paced, innovation centered environment. Innovation requires change, and change comes more quickly (and more successfully) with participatory action.
Yes, joint dissertations are needed. "Networked information" is not just a technological concept; it is a metaphor that extends just as well to human requirements for knowledge acquisition and intellectual development. If it is so important to link computers' "brainpower," then shouldn't we share our own?
Martin J. Cohen
Media Services and Library Systems
Saint Mary's College of California
Moraga, CA 94575
Voice: (510) 631-4229
Fax: (510) 376-6097
mcohen@stmarys-ca.edu
The purpose of writing a dissertation is neither to produce original research nor to demonstrate mastery of research skills (although both are required). It is a rite of passage used to initiate members into the clan of scholars. I think that's why it's so highly individual, even in intensely collaborative fields.
Boyd Holmes
Ph.D. Student in Library and Information Science
Faculty of Communications and Open Learning
University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada N6G 1H1
Voice: (519) 661-2111
Fax: (519) 661-3506
Martin J. Cohen wrote:
"The purpose of writing a dissertation is neither to produce original research nor to demonstrate mastery of research skills (although both are required). It is a rite of passage used to initiate members into the clan of scholars. I think that's why it's so highly individual, even in intensely collaborative fields."
Manure! The entire point in producing a dissertation is to (a) make an original contribution to knowledge and (b) demonstrate an advanced command of research skills. It is such a contribution-demonstration that allows the holder of a Ph.D. to claim membership in the clan. Why else would the clan exist?
Mary K. Chelton, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
School of Library and Information Management
Emporia State University
1200 Commercial
Emporia, KS 66801
Voice: (316) 341-5071
Fax: (316) 342-6391
cheltonm@esumail.emporia.edu
Having just finished a dissertation alone, I have been thinking about this, and while I would have appreciated a review and study group of peers who understood what I was doing during the writing process (especially since I was trying to do something different than the prevailing LIS paradigmatic thinking), I can't decide whether the product would have been better or worse. I'm highly suspicious of multiple names on academic documents without being able to observe the process by which they got there, given the cutthroat pressure to publish in many places, and the varying skills brought to that task. It was hard enough to include all my committee's concerns and deal with ad hoc methodological issues without several co-authors to contend with, while still sticking to the originally proposed idea with any integrity. I've now been principal author on two very successful ALA publications that started as committee projects and never would have finished as such without a principal author, so I bring a large dose of scepticism to this idea.
I also enjoy the recognition that, however flawed, the product is MINE and can be claimed as such. Unless the writers are going to stick together like the Bobbsey Twins through life, how will potential employers know whose take on the work, and specific skills they are getting?
Of course, in my very cynical moments, I realize that the Ph.D.is just another union card to join the academic "club," and think that it doesn't matter anyway as long as you can prove you went through some sort of rigorous process directed by reputable people with the same credential.
Some muddled but sincere thoughts from a middle-aged person with a new Ph.D,
Luz Marina Quiroga
lquiroga@conicyt.cl
Due to the relevance to the discussion, I am forwarding the message from David Carr. It is very rewarding that not only Ph.D. students but also that scholars and academic managers want to share their ideas with us.
David Carr
Chair, Library and Information Studies
Department Director, Master of Library Service Program
Rutgers, the State University
School of Communication, Information and Library Studies
4 Huntington Street
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903
Voice: (908) 932-8315
Fax: (908) 932-6916
dcarr@scils.rutgers.edu
The message about joint dissertations was forwarded to Rutgers by Mary K. Chelton, so I respond to all three of you with a few words. You may forward or use this as you wish.
My subject line comes from a talk I did last year in Finland. In that talk, I spoke about the intimate collaboration that follows from a mutually encountered problem -- particularly in the library, but the process will work in any space where individuals over time assist each other toward what I call "crafted truths."
The dissertation is certainly a crafted truth. And the comments I have read echo my teaching over several years: the irony is that we admit, promote, examine, and sort out our doctoral students on the basis of how well they can answer questions they have not had an opportunity to shape. And the ultimate reward is that we ask them to ask and answer their own questions without ever really assisting them to do it artfully. So I think it is a valuable thing to ask about the purpose of the dissertation, and how it might be done better.
Over time I have also said that the dissertation allows the chair, the committee, the university, the body of scholars as a whole -- to answer one question: Is this a person whose scholarship is worthy of trust? If we agree that it is, we sign the title page.
This is why I don't support joint dissertations (one title, two authors), but I do support a joint dissertation that comprises one topic, two titles, and two authors. That is, an agreement that two doctoral students will address one problem with alternative methods and (perhaps) one chairperson. The two could work together as much as they wish, acknowledge the collaborative environment and mutuality of engagement -- but the products would be prepared and submitted separately as independent documents. Defense could be joint; subsequent publication could be joint; and the work could be easily acknowledged as a collaboration. But I think it is important to have one author per title.
I think it might be useful to suggest something like a "cluster dissertation" where an entire cohort of students undertakes one problem through multiple lenses -- that would do several things. But the most important would be to show how mutuality of this kind enhances the integrity and depth of the work submitted for approval.
I am not the sort of scholar who can contribute much to doctoral studies, but the process of the dissertation ought to be one of transformed identity. You deserve the support of faculty for new ideas in this process. Good wishes.
William Arthur Liebi
Academic librarian
Stadt- und Universitaetsbibliothek Bern
CH-3000 Bern 7 Switzerland
Voice: +41 +31 320 32 259
Fax: +41 +31 320 32 99
liebi@stub.unibe.ch
Beyond contributing to science, learning about research methods and transmitting research results to the scientific community, candidates executing a joint dissertation get also skilled in team work and communication within a team.
I guided several theses ("Diplomarbeiten") of Swiss librarians; one work among them was finished this year as joint thesis of two candidates.
The leader/coordinator and the other participants of a joint project have to observe some main principles:
At every stage of the work, input and feedback from all participants are important for the successful development of the project. At the end, the team leader as expert has a good picture of the contributions of the candidates.
Kim Gregson
Doctoral student
School of Library and Information Science
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana
kgregson@indiana.edu
We've had some interesting comments this week and I would like to take a minute to pull them together for everyone.
Several images of dissertations have been offered. Dissertations are seen as a rite of passage and indication of trustworthy scholarly research or as a way to make original contributions to knowledge and a way to demonstrate advanced command of research skills. A joint dissertation would give doctoral students experience in team work and develop shared experiences.
David Carr describes a slightly different take on joint dissertations -- his cluster dissertations -- which have some analog in the scholarly literature, the edited volume. Several students research the same topic but from different viewpoints or with different methods. They work together during the research and discussion phases and then write separate final papers. These papers though benefit from everyone's input as the question was discussed, literature was searched, and data was collected. Instead of reaching the end of the solitary dissertation and producing several questions for other researchers, the dissertation writer could refer to these other dissertations, other simultaneous research projects, in their conclusions. A much deeper understanding of the original problem might be reached.
One problem that I can see is that in smaller departments there may not be more than one person interested in a particular question at any one time. This might be overcome by students from different institutions working together. Connections might be made at conferences or on discussion lists such as this one.
Does this type of cluster dissertation have any appeal to other doctoral students? Would such a group of related dissertations represent a contribution to the research greater than individually produced dissertations on the same topic?
We look forward to the next week of discussion on this topic.
Luz Marina Quiroga
Doctoral student
School of Library and Information Science
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana
lquiroga@conicyt.cl
Reading the messages it seems that there is consensus that team work and specifically joint dissertations would enhance the quality of the product.
However, there were a couple of concerns about the evaluation of a joint dissertation:
I agree with Jonathan Estrin when he says that "Instructional design in the last couples of decades has stressed the participatory aspects of learning but has neglected to initiate corresponding evaluation techniques ..." However, I am not so optimistic as Jonathan when he says that in current times this is changing.
It seems to me that there is still a lack of procedures not only for the evaluation of cluster dissertations but even for getting involved in such a work. Much of the responsibility to promote and define this cluster work should come from faculty members, with a research agenda that include student participation not only for the dirty work of research but with opportunities and responsibilities as co-researchers with dissertation as a clear goal.
As a doctoral student I would appreciate comments from faculty members pointing to their successful or unsuccessful efforts for involving students in their own research or their experiences when trying to get together students with similar interests (well, if this is done!).
Maybe they can offer an answer to one of the questions in the opening message:
Why is a dissertation work rarely done as a joint collaborative project?
How this collaborative work could be materialized?
Could we (specially faculties and students) brainstorm on the approaches and principles given by William Liebi and David Carr for what they call joint thesis and cluster dissertations?
William Arthur Liebi
Academic librarian
Stadt- und Universitaetsbibliothek Bern
CH-3000 Bern 7 Switzerland
Voice: +41 +31 320 32 259
Fax: +41 +31 320 32 99
liebi@stub.unibe.ch
Besides the standard type of joint dissertations and the model of "cluster dissertation" as a version of joint dissertations, there exists a third model to execute dissertations in team work. This type can be found within the domain of experimental sciences (for instance in physics and biochemistry) and also in medicine; I would like to design it as model of "cooperative dissertation."
Experimental scientists developed their vision of cooperative work to perform a dissertation project (or a project to get the "venia docendi") for two distinct reasons: Experimental scientists often need to work in teams and usually communicate their results in journal articles.
As a consequence, one can see dissertations with the following characteristics:
The realization of such a cooperative dissertation type evidently demands coordination efforts and adaptability of the participants.
Perhaps the cooperative dissertation model might serve, in some cases, also as a model in the field of Library and Information Science. As an example, let us assume that a certain dissertation topic is at the same time user-, technology- and context-related. The first partial task would be to formulate, for instance, three subproblems; the second, to find or establish specialized research groups in which the author could work on the respective subproblems; a third particular task would consist in implementing the concrete work plan for the author within the team work. As last step would follow the elaboration of the dissertation topic by giving an overview, integrating and discussing what has been done and drawing conclusions.
Dr. Robert S. Butters
Director and Editor
Search: A Newsletter For Graduate Students
rbutters@naplesnet.com
Just joined the discussion group and apologize if this question has already been answered.
How is the concept of a joint or cluster dissertation different from "companion studies" which have been conducted in the past?
For example, I have included the following studies in a listing of dissertations on my home page:
Henry, Deana Lee
"Adult Education and Community-Based Participatory Action Research: A Learning Team." Texas A&M University, 1996.
A dissertation companion study with:
Henry, Kenneth Ivan
"Community Development and Community-Based Participatory Action Research: A Learning Team." Texas A&M University, 1996
You may join the discussion and look over the list of past and future topics.
 |
|