My latest conference with my advisor didn’t go well—it went so
poorly, in fact, that I didn’t want to face writing this update until January.
I thought I was taking the outcome of the meeting in stride; then, the next
day, I had some sudden and unmistakable anxiety symptoms (recurrent through the
weekend) which made me realize I wasn’t fine. On Kevin’s urging, I am planning
to set all this aside—to the extent that I can—and enjoy the Christmas break,
giving me a chance to rest and clear my head before taking up the dilemma in
earnest. However, I decided to go ahead and write the blog post, for two
reasons. First, getting this in writing will actually help me to set it aside
temporarily. If I don’t, fragments of this post will be chasing each other
through my head for the next ten days, and I’ll become more anxious. The act of
writing is a tangible relief and helps me transfer the worries to the
backburner of my mind. Second, I wasn’t planning to do my regular Thursday
blogging on Christmas Eve or New Year’s Eve (as festive as that would be
*cough*), and I simply didn’t want to wait for three weeks before getting this
out there.
In my
previous post, I was preparing to suggest that I
revert to my earlier topic rather than scrapping it altogether, in the hope
that I could power through the rest of the writing and still graduate in good
time. After reviewing my existing material (around 110 pages), although I could
see that it would take a lot of effort, I was reasonably hopeful that this plan
could work. So I did propose it to my adviser, sending along all the writing I
had done. However, when we met last Thursday, his assessment of my work was
very different. He said that it is still unsatisfactory, lacking the
conventions of doctoral-level research, and that he doesn’t see how a
dissertation could emerge from what I have. At this point, his recommendation
is that I voluntarily withdraw from the doctoral program. I don’t have to act
on this immediately, but he wants to reconvene by mid-January to hear my
thoughts on the situation. While he would be willing to listen to an
impassioned case for staying put, he was clearly decided in his read of
things, and I think it would take something
tremendous to get him to
reconsider.
I can’t help feeling blindsided by this. Even though I’d
been warned about running out of time before, I did not expect the option of
dropping out to be raised until the end of spring semester, if my intended
revisions went poorly. (Indeed, I’d said as much—that if I couldn’t pull it
together over the next few months, I’d be prepared to move on with my life.) My
attitude was, “What’s another four months? I’ll either finish a passable draft
or I won’t.” But my adviser’s view is that my material is in too undeveloped a
state to be reasonably finished within the next year. Therefore, another
semester isn’t going to make much of a difference, and it would be kinder to
put me out of my misery now.
He said that I’m clearly a gifted writer, but that it’s
become increasingly clear that this type of writing and academic work is not
what I was made to do. I think there is some truth in this—heck, just browse this
blog, and you’ll find many posts in which I question my long-term suitedness for
academia. As far back as 2012, I’ve wondered whether I have the passion to
sustain a career in this field, given the toll of stress, and the fact that academia
isn’t actually a haven for bookish nerds—the type of research and writing you’re
required to do doesn’t generally lend itself to the joys of learning. Even so,
I figured I would keep those vocational questions on the shelf—I was still
capable of finishing the degree, and I could worry about the rest after that.
The problems with the dissertation are many, judging from
the written summary of his comments. Most are things that have come up before:
that my writing tends toward the descriptive instead of the analytical, there
isn’t a clear flow of argument, my “argument” doesn’t teach the reader anything
that isn’t patently obvious in the sources, the literary analysis (including in
Greek) is not strong enough, it’s just too incomplete in general. Below I share
some thoughts on the manifold ways I screwed up in the way I approached my
writing. I think a lot of it comes down to my simply having no idea how to tackle
a writing task on this scale, and not getting into a sufficiently steady,
consistent research/write/revise cycle. It’s a whole different beast from the 25-page
seminar papers I’d gotten down to an art form. I’ve always had a pretty clear
picture of what I was trying to do with this project, but I can’t seem to
execute it, and that’s something you can’t mask with delightful prose.
I won’t ask that you continue reading the second half of
this post unless you’re interested, but the basic situation is: The department
is giving me the chance to cut my losses, right when I’d reached a place of
optimism about finishing well. I am not sure what it would take to convince my
adviser that it’s worth giving me a last shot, but it would need to be
unprecedentedly persuasive. And I am not sure what is the best way to respond,
given that his critiques have some merit, and I don’t think I will find any
support for writing the dissertation as I had envisioned it two years ago.
Further thoughts on how I got to this point:
I think a big fault of mine, besides getting a slow and
stumbling start on the prospectus and dissertation itself, was my naiveté about
what it was going to take. For example, I had a mistaken view of what was meant
by submitting “polished” material. I took this to mean that I needed to circulate
writing that was clean and coherent enough for others to read and offer
feedback; I didn’t interpret it as needing to have finished sections of my
dissertation, but I think that’s what was wanted.
I think this explains why I
was mystified by some of the critiques I got—it isn’t that I even substantially
disagreed with them (e.g., this terminology needs to be clarified; there needs
to be more engagement with other scholarship; there’s too little explanation of
Gregory’s context here, etc.); it’s that I assumed it was obvious those things
would make it into the final product, and I assumed it was obvious to readers,
too. So where my professor was seeing a somewhat messy and unevenly developed
section and pointing out, with some alarm, all that was missing, I was
thinking, “Why waste time pointing out obvious things? I’m a fifth-year
candidate in Historical Theology; I know that stuff needs to be added. But this is a draft!
Of course stuff is missing.” Looking back, it seems clear that I should have
submitted more completed sections, because why bother taking the time to critique
one another’s writing otherwise? But I guess I looked at the quarterly
dissertation workshops more as checkpoints, making sure we had hard deadlines
for page counts, and didn’t take the fullest advantage of them by submitting
substantially completed excerpts that could be more usefully critiqued.
This also relates to what I mentioned
last time, about my
drafting process. Since the spring of 2014, my strategy for completing the
dissertation has been “Words on Paper”—i.e., just get my ideas down, even
though this initial layer will need lots of cutting and revision, and worry in
subsequent rounds (layers two and three) about shaping the whole thing into a
concise, scholarly narrative. This seems to have been a serious mistake. Because
my initial round of drafting is relatively bare bones, it provoked the kinds of
critiques described above, which led to my getting stalled on layers one and two
while my adviser urged me to rethink the entire project, since it appeared that
I wasn’t getting far enough or deep enough with my topic. I took for granted
that we were on the same page about what I was arguing—after all, my prospectus
had gotten approved before I started the dissertation.
But you can’t assume such things, even in a
draft—you need to make the connections explicit each step of the way, rather
than leaving them implied.
What I should have done from the beginning was to take my
first workshopped draft and revise it immediately and thoroughly, addressing
every detail of every critique I was given, and submit the polished re-write,
rather than moving on to the next section of the dissertation and hoping that
next time, my adviser would “get it.” Seems pretty clear, right? It should have
been as simple as that. Then, we might have skipped some of these headaches
altogether, and I might have avoided some methodological roadblocks for myself
later on. But in the midst of things, it wasn’t obvious to me why my process
wasn’t serving me well, and why my perception of my progress was different from
my adviser’s.
Instead, it just felt like I couldn’t do anything right:
When my first submission in 2014 didn’t contain enough analysis of Gregory’s
texts, I devoted the next submission to explicating his texts. When told that
that section wasn’t sufficiently grounded in the historical context, I decided
to write the next section connecting Gregory’s theology of preaching to contemporary
debates on the Holy Spirit—and then got the response, “Why are you changing
your argument?” I was so confused and frustrated, because I thought it was
patently obvious that I was providing background and context for Gregory’s
ideas about preaching, as I’d been asked to do—not changing my topic. But,
again, I seemed to habitually assume clarity where connections were not
explicit.
I don’t know if this is clear or not. It’s not that my
writing hasn’t needed any critique; far from it—it’s that, apparently, I
haven’t been taking the right steps to get the level of critique I really need.
And there seem to have been serious disconnects at every step. (I should add
that some of my peers/colleagues did seem to understand my argument and its
significance, so I don’t think my writing was so enigmatic and opaque…)
There have also been many issues with the advising process
that would be inappropriate to get into here, and that made each step of the
dissertation harder than it needed to be. As some of these emerged, I tried
reaching out for guidance, but most of my attempts at advocating for myself
have not gotten me far. I’m not sure why this is, except that what felt like
bold steps to me might have come across as too discreet and self-deprecating to
others (though I find this slightly hard to believe). At one point, when I
expressed that something needed to be addressed in order to move forward
successfully, I got a response thanking me for my “forthrightness and honesty,”
and then . . . nothing. And when I’ve tried to push back against things that
didn’t seem quite right, I’ve most often met with dismissal or exasperation, to
the point that I’ve wondered if I’m simply crazy, or a squeaky wheel at best.
In short, you might see why I don’t feel confident of having any recourse
within the department.
Another thing that crosses my mind is the frequent,
well-meant advice I’ve gotten, that the dissertation is simply a requirement
for graduation, that “a good dissertation is a done dissertation,” because it’s
probably the worst thing you’ll ever write and only two people will read it,
etc. This is fair advice. It is legit. However, I think it only holds true
insofar as that is the culture of the Ph.D. program in question. If the
gatekeeper(s) want to see a better than crappy dissertation—something that can
conceivably find publication with a respected academic press—then those
typically helpful truisms go out the window.
That said, it might be that my dissertation is so bad that “crappy”
isn’t even on the horizon yet. I don’t exactly have a clear perspective on
things at this point.
In summary, as I see it:
- I still think I could pull through with a
passable dissertation, given another semester or two.
- It probably won’t be possible with the same
argument/topic I’ve tried to put forward for the past two years. To get my
adviser on board, I’d need to present it in a fresh way, and that has never
been successful before. I’ve spent most of 2015 trying.
- I’d need to find and implement a much cleaner, more
efficient process for getting the dissertation written.
- Either way, just because it’s possible doesn’t
mean it’s the best investment of my time and energy at this point.
- I’m really tired, my intellectual and vocational
confidence are in tatters, and nothing about this has been fun.
So, I really don’t know what to do. But thank you for reading
this far (and for all the support up to now), and I’d appreciate prayers for
peace of mind over the next few weeks, as much as anything else.