I haven't made the time to write about the process of my thesis. In a certain sense, this is good because that means I've made significant progress on the thesis itself. I believe that's true enough in my case.
What it also means is that I haven't allowed myself to sit back and examine what I've actually done since February when I began compose my first thesis draft. I haven't taken the time to figure out and comprehend what the thesis actually means.
In my proposal defense I made the comment, "No one will read this." What I meant was that I wasn't overly concerned with the notion that my work would revolutionize the field of communication. I simply lack that kind of confidence in my work. Unfortunately, my committee appeared to take great offense to that statement. As was pointed out, I made it seem as though I had asked three people to waste time sitting on a committee for a project about which I cared little.
While this is of course not the case, I do have some doubts about the overall legitimacy of my work.
In this field we are encouraged -- disciplined -- to make our work generalizable. I use discrete information to build a case study. As such, the circumstances and explanations -- the evidence -- are unique and particular. While someone could use my work as an example of department history, my findings themselves would likely be of little use.
A mentor of mine constantly asks me if I'm having fun doing whatever it is I'm doing. When I think of the alternative paths I could have chosen, the answer is "yes." Perhaps personal fulfillment is utility enough.
Hopefully you've noticed that I've taken great care not to use the word "discipline" in this post when referring to what communication study is. This is by design, as my thesis deals with the notion of communication study as a field or a discipline. Discipline has a much weightier component to it than field and there has always been a debate among communication scholars as to whether what they do and the space in which they work is a discipline or a field.
Discipline seems to be a much more desirable mark of distinction. Field seems nebulous.
What it also means is that I haven't allowed myself to sit back and examine what I've actually done since February when I began compose my first thesis draft. I haven't taken the time to figure out and comprehend what the thesis actually means.
In my proposal defense I made the comment, "No one will read this." What I meant was that I wasn't overly concerned with the notion that my work would revolutionize the field of communication. I simply lack that kind of confidence in my work. Unfortunately, my committee appeared to take great offense to that statement. As was pointed out, I made it seem as though I had asked three people to waste time sitting on a committee for a project about which I cared little.
While this is of course not the case, I do have some doubts about the overall legitimacy of my work.
In this field we are encouraged -- disciplined -- to make our work generalizable. I use discrete information to build a case study. As such, the circumstances and explanations -- the evidence -- are unique and particular. While someone could use my work as an example of department history, my findings themselves would likely be of little use.
A mentor of mine constantly asks me if I'm having fun doing whatever it is I'm doing. When I think of the alternative paths I could have chosen, the answer is "yes." Perhaps personal fulfillment is utility enough.
Hopefully you've noticed that I've taken great care not to use the word "discipline" in this post when referring to what communication study is. This is by design, as my thesis deals with the notion of communication study as a field or a discipline. Discipline has a much weightier component to it than field and there has always been a debate among communication scholars as to whether what they do and the space in which they work is a discipline or a field.
Discipline seems to be a much more desirable mark of distinction. Field seems nebulous.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home