Disagreable Dissertation Subject

I am curious to know people's thoughts and any experience with writing a dissertation that takes the side of the subject that opposes the popular thoughts of most in that field of study or flies in the face of the field's current trend or "theory of the day". For instance, (this is not my topic) if I were a political science major and I wrote a dissertation supporting the totalitarian state or refuting the free state.

Knowing that it would get a lot of people hot under the collar, would it affect my ability to get a PhD? or defend the diss? etc...

 

If the candidate could put together a dissertation committee based upon the proposal, s/he should have no problem getting it approved. This is the key element, not how many people get ticked off.

Using your example, there are classical philosohpical schools of thought that would supprt the idea of a totalitarian state.... "Divine Right of Kings", "Dictatorship of the Proletariate", and so on...

Regards,

Dick

 

Theoretically, the pursuit of knowledge and science is pure, so the pursuit of an unpopular hypothesis should have no bearing on your ability to do your dissertation and have it accepted. It's called academic freedom. That said, it isn't really true.

First, you have to consider the leanings of your department. Some schools and/or departments have distinct "takes" on certain subjects. An attempt to take a subject into a different direction might find you out in the cold, unsupported by the very department tasked with supervising and approving your work. Not good.

Second, the same can be said for your doctoral advisor. You need to be doubly sure you're in tune with him/her.

Third, what about funding? If you're looking for funding sources, you'll have to consider the sources' interests, biases, etc. Getting the Anti-Defamation League to kick in a grant supporting a "Hitler was misunderstood" thesis might be a bit of a sticky wicket.

My advice is the same offered by David Sternberg in his book, How to Complete and Survive a Doctoral Dissertation. In it, Sternberg spends a great deal of time cautioning the reader about attempting an unresearchable topic. Whether the topic is unpopular, access to the population is limited, or even if the topic is of a "faddish" or temoral nature, the key is to remember that your goal is to graduate. THEN write your magnum opus.

 

You might want to avoid defending cold fusion...

Nosborne, JD
(Who is NOT a physicist!)

 

There is a real tradeoff here. On the one hand as a student you should be pursuing truth - whether popular or not. On the other hand you want to graduate. As noted academic freedom should allow for free exploration of unpopular material, but it is easier said then done.

One faculty member I worked with said it this way "If you want to study green grass, consider studying a blade of green grass in your front yard." Narrow topics are typically less controversial and easier to complete. Once you have graduated, as RIch points out, you can then pursue your controversial topic.

Also, the issue may well vary by topic. Religion and political science may have more than their share of controversy. Engineering and business tend to be less controversial.

Regards - Andy

 

Making the best of a disagreable tesis topic

The key is to

a) Secure your base: enroll with a strong institution likely to be sympathetic to your argument and unlikely to bow to opposition or pull your funding.

b) Know thine enemy: clearly identify the people who are likely to be offended or adversely affected by your research.

c) Look to the future: decide if you will be looking to them or their allies for later employment.

d) Make yourself fire-proof: choose your committee with care.

e) Demonstrate that the members of your committee are qualified in your inevitably narrow field: cite their publications and, if necessary argue against them, politely but persuasively, and show you are advancing the field.

f) Keep your eye on your ultimate goal: the aim of your thesis is merely to get a PhD. Keep the arguments which will make you notorious for later, when they will be backed by your PhD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
For my University of Warwick PhD thesis in Politics and International Studies, I examined the trajectory of US higher education over the previous 150 years and compared it to that of English HE in the 15 years which followed the Thatcher (and later John Major) legislation. This made universities adopt entrepreneurial methods, renamed polytechnics as universities, caused them to compete in an educational marketplace, and launched the new colonialism, e.g. in Athens, Greece, where no less than 46 UK institutions of HE opened branch offices/campuses.

I predicted that this would result in a lowering of standards and the bankruptcy and de-accreditation of the weaker institutions. The UK Economic and Social Research Council (a government funded body) approved my topic and gave me full-time funding.

I identified a highly entrepreneurial US College: when it became apparent where my research was going, I was promptly excluded, although by then the cat was out of the bag. I then identified a comparable college which had gone bankrupt whilst following similar policies, located the college records, dissected the corpse and made comparisons with the living.

In the UK, my target institution refused me access, even denying the undeniable, and other similarly weak institutions also declined to cooperate. I was forced to be an outsider looking in, but by going to branch campuses in Athens I was able to get the insight I needed.

As I was writing up my thesis, my original prediction came true and my target institution hit rock bottom. The highly entrepreneurial “President” resigned and his successor welcomed my approach, recognizing that my research could serve his purpose. I was given full access to records, faculty and staff, but only on condition that my thesis would not be published for five years.

I negotiated this down to three and gained the concession that an elided version of the thesis, from which all significant references to the target institution had been removed, could be placed in the University of Warwick Library. In the event this amounted to two and a half chapters and sundry sentences elsewhere. In each case the elision was noted.

I defended in December 1999. My examiners were from ‘strong’ institutions and they accepted the thesis on first submission. The ban on publication expires this December.

 

Thanks to all for your comments and I will try to keep my eye on the prize. I guess I will have to find a topic associated with a current business theory that I actually believe or at least write about one that will not upset so many people. Thanks again.

 

Academic prejudices

Menger's description of his PhD is more than a trifle tendentious. I have great respect for Warwick University, but I am surprised that a PhD graduate from there displays so many prejudices about the pre-determined conclusions, which seem more political to me than warranted. To sum up the changes in university education in the manner as written, including the misuse of 'colonialism' for education projects abroad (whatever might be thought of their quality), and the code word 'Mrs Thatcher' to colour the images of the period, is more than indicative of a limited 'contribution to original knowledge' - the supposed purpose of a PhD thesis.

UK Universities were not ruined by an attempt to bring some market disciplines into their operations. Some universities fail or are failing at any moment in time. Many spend most of their time spending budgets rather than generating incomes - many spend budgets before they receive them, and cumulative debts pile up into huge losses, involuntarily paid for by taxes.

Commercial discipline is not automatically a road to academic failure, nor can such a conclusion be 'predicted' by even a bright student before a thorough knowledge of the university system has been researched - or, better still, has been experienced by a stint in running an institution of higher learning. I sometimes admire the certainties with which people declaim their 'predictions' about things they have little claim to be expert in. A sample of two, supported by a sample of third or fourth tier institutions associated with the two, seems a trifle fragile for robust conclusions, spoken off with such passion and certainty, when there are over 100 institutions in the population outside the data used to confirm the preconceived 'political' prejudices implied in the message.

I work in a highly commercial business school within a public sector British University. I do not recognise the image presented by Dr Menger as in any way - even remotely - applying to EBS or to a dozen other UK Business School with which I am familiar (in 31 years I have taught fulltime in 3 of them, plus part-time and occasionally in over a dozen more). Over 6,000 MBA students have graduated from over 100 countries from EBS, most by distance learning, and far from seeing this experience as one of 'colonialism' (a highly offensive term I might add), I think bringing so many into the great Republic of the Intellect is worthy of a modest congratulation
rather than a political rant. I take it Dr Menger's PhD was based on a sounder pedagogy than evidenced in his contribution.

 

In academic life, to be ignored is death, to be attacked is heaven.

I therefore welcome Professor Gavin Kennedy’s contribution to the debate, although I would have been more flattered had his attack been executed with some degree of competency.

First, he mis-cites and tilts at windmills: it is Dr Martin G. Spillane, not Dr Menger whom he should cite and attack.

Second, as my PhD is in Politics and International Studies, it is not too surprising that my conclusions were “political.”

Third, as was made plain in my posting, my research was confined to England and so did not involve Edinburgh Business School or, for that matter, any Business School. However Professor Kennedy’s extreme sensitivity and his hasty and vigorous defence of EBS could indicate that there is scope for similar research there.

(For the benefit of our non-UK readers, who might otherwise be misled, Edinburgh Business School has no connection with the illustrious University of Edinburgh. It is in fact an integral part of the lesser known Herriot-Watt University, but, presumably for good reason, it is not called the Herriot-Watt Business School.)

Third, my posting was not my thesis and was merely intended to explain how I coped with people who are eternally on the defensive and who, in jumping at shadows, impeded my progress.

Fourth, as regards “educational colonialism,” the relevant UK Higher Education Quality Council reports of the period make interesting reading and more than justify my comment.

Finally I can only congratulate Professor Kennedy on his apt description of the outcome of the “commercial discipline” which Mrs. Thatcher introduced into Higher Education: “Some universities fail or are failing at any moment in time. Many spend most of their time spending budgets rather than generating incomes - many spend budgets before they receive them, and cumulative debts pile up into huge losses, involuntarily paid for by taxes.” I do wish his description had been available for me to quote in my thesis.

Incidentally Professor Kennedy is to be congratulated on his excellent and extensive resume, http://www.ebs.hw.ac.uk/ebs/people/gavin.html , although it does make his hasty, misplaced and ill-judged attack appear all the more mysterious.

 

Deflection is not defence

Apologies to Menger - I have not quite got the hang of using this system yet and do not know how to keep the letter in view while replying.

However, your message refers to the 'UK' not 'England', which is a constituent part of the UK but not synonimous with it (a common mistake of some English based academics). Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the diatribe against Mrs Thatcher applied to Scottish (and, presumably, Welsh, and Northern Irish universities too) given that Mrs Thatcher (and John Major) were Prime Ministers in Scotland too. Your message also referred to a proposed study in the US, which did not come off for the reasons explained (which is not part of the jurisdiction of a UK Prime Minister, at least since 1783). It is reasonable to conlude you proposed a comparative study of the phenomenon you attribute to Mrs Thatcher's policies - some of which were unrelated to your point. It follows, that an obvious failing in your research was to compare failing instances of the policy of commercial rather than bureaucratic pressures, but not successful ones - to which I offered EBS (and could mention several others, including Warwick's distance MBA).

A neat one to refer to 'politics' as an academic study when cleary from the context I referred to 'politics' as a less reputable form of behaviour - they see the world from a single perspective, identify the demons, implicate them in the dialogue of the deaf and assert the conclusion before the research is begun. Academics in University Politics departments are not immune from 'political' behavior.

If Dr Spillane wshes to visit EBS and conduct his investigation (though he appears already to have drawn similar - and sinister - conclusions that there is 'scope' here for his predetermined prejudices) and I would be pleased to make the necessary arrangements for access and interviews. The mind set of a 'witch finder general' is not a good basis to conduct research.

Taking statements out of context is curious in an academic, though not a journalist. Our commercial approach was not born of Mrs Thatcher (we have no political party allegiances). I was making a general statement about commercial discipline not one about transient party political government. Some universities are failing at any one moment in the educational world - before, during and after Mrs Thatcher. Look at their finance reports. Look at their being sued by stduents. Look at internal staff dissent and factional conflicts. My point it has ever been thus and no doubt will continue for as long as the government pumps cash into them and their professors and administrators spend budgets without any commercial discipline - ofgten ebfore they receive them. That was neither a defence of any UK government or a particular Prime Minister's policies (you should know that she and her party are still not, er, popular in Scotland).

As for the name of Edinburgh Busines School, when this name was adopted (in 1982) Heriot-Watt was sited in the middle of the city (adjacent to Edinburgh University). It is not uncommon at all for a university to adopt the name of its location for its Business its Business School. The imputed slur is unworthy. Is it a characteristic of this site that many of you seem over sensitive about the pecking order of the institutions you are in or attended? While I defer to my friends at the University of Edinburgh in many things, I do not defer in matters of running a business school. My wonder is why is Dr Spillane so sure he is right in everything he says; where is his sense of caution about matters he has not researched (the subject he says, was not his thesis - what was then); what experience does he bring to the party about running a major institution - finance, staff and student programes; and why is he so dismissive of what he does not (yet) understand? I will always change my mind if driven to do so by evidence of the facts - 'goood reason, of force, must give way to better'. Many Businesse Schools have succeeded using commercial not budgetary pressures. I would have thought Dr Spillane might want to broaden out from the failures in his sample, just in case he missed something. Or is a case, my prejudices right or wrong!

 

"A man must be orthodox on most things or he will never have time to preach his own heresy." (G.K. Chesterton)

 

From Professor Kennedy’s impassioned, if erratic, response, it would appear I struck several of his more sensitive spots. Our exchange could well be the starting point for a case study of academic sensibilities and its adverse effect on research into the academy.

If he actually reads my original posting he will see that I said that I had “examined the trajectory of US higher education over the previous 150 years and compared it to that of English HE in the 15 years which followed the Thatcher (and later John Major) legislation.”

Note: I wrote “English HE.” No, not “Scottish” or “British,” just “English.”

I was also fascinated to learn why Herriot-Watt called its business school “Edinburgh Business School” rather than “Herriot-Watt Business School,” for Professor Kennedy tells us: “As for the name of Edinburgh Busines School, when this name was adopted (in 1982) Heriot-Watt was sited in the middle of the city (adjacent to Edinburgh University).”

Ho hum. I presume that Herriot –Watt was also adjacent to, or rather concentric with, itself, so I would suggest that his explanation speaks for itself.

Returning to the primary purpose of this thread, a few final words to those who are new to academic research (and debate): always read something before you critique it. Always verify your references. Don’t flee when no one is pursuing. Remember that attack is only a valid defence when based on facts and logic. Don’t assume that fellow researchers know nothing, they may well do. If someone squeals, you may be on to something: either they have been hurt or they seriously fear that they are about to be. Go boldly where no one has gone before, but watch your back and always document your journey. If you are in a hole and going nowhere, stop digging.

 

Back to the issues - not evasions

You wrote:

"In the UK, my target institution refused me access, even denying the undeniable, and other similarly weak institutions also declined to cooperate. I was forced to be an outsider looking in, but by going to branch campuses in Athens I was able to get the insight I needed. "

If you interest was only in 'England'why write 'UK'? Unless you consider UK and England are the same. But you do not have to go to Scotland - country on the same island you list as where you are located to see successful adaptations of commercial disciplines in academic institutions in the UK (and numbering many more than your sample of one failure in your PhD research - though you are ambiguous about whether this was at PhD level or a journalistic piece for a 'radical' monthly). I refer you to Warwick's own MBA by distance learning - a thriving commercial/academic partnership (add in Imperial College, London; Leicester; Manchester; City, London; Durham; Aston; Birmingham; Henley College, and, of course, the Open University).

For readers interested in PhD research methodology (I have supervised a dozen PhD students, plus a score of MSc students - I asked Dr Spillane what he had done but received no reply) we should be wary of research from a pre-determined conclusion (Mrs Thatcher was an ogre; anything she proposed was 'bad'; commercial pressures are therefore bad, and I will research a failure and 'prove' it). Elementary students would spot the fallacy, and if they missed it or proposed it, competent faculty would draw their attention to it. Are there any examples of successful partnerships between commercial pressures and academic excellence? Pardon, you have not included them in your research! Go away and come back with the full evidence.

The trivia he has raised, I will ignore though it saddens me for it to be displayed in public. Finding the 'right' supervisor is a good idea, though it ought not to be based on their sympathy with the pre-determined conclusion. If research students only go to supervisors who have solid views about the subject and who are not prepared to have a bright (or even a pedestrian but assiduous) student research their prejudices with scepticism, they are unworthy of being taken seriously. That so many of this type of academic is around is regrettable (and a product of tenure).

I repeat my genuine offer to Dr Spillane for him to visit EBS and speak to whomsoever he wishes, including senior people in the University (of which we are proud not apologetic to belong to) and students. I suggest he also goes to some of the others I have mentioned. His supervisors should have suggested the same. A sample of one is the first mistake we all learn about in Reseaarch Methodoly 1.

 

You might also avoid Piltdown Man and Crop Circles as research subjects...

Nosborne, JD

 

This is going to be my final contribution to this thread as I believe that by now those who count will have drawn their own conclusions.

However, for the benefit of Professor Kennedy:

a) I was not researching business schools.

b) Methodology II teaches us that a case study will often contain one sample, which is then placed in context.

c) I have no interest in the Herriot-Watt Business School and, as I was not even aware of its existence, it did not feature in my research;however, Professor Kennedy’s extreme anxiety to defend it in the absence of an attack is telling.

d) Finding the right supervisor is not only a matter of finding one likely to be sympathetic to your research, but of avoiding one who can’t tell the difference between a brief posting to a newsgroup and an 80,000 word thesis.

 

Samples of one

I too will abstain from further comment as we are not connecting at all.

You write: 'Methodology II teaches us that a case study will often contain one sample, which is then placed in context.'

I agree, sometimes we only have a sample of one. However, when a context includes a sample of several score counter-examples to the one you selected to ensure a conclusion you can agree with, credible faculty tutoring Methodology III will suggest (often gently, sometimes irascibly) that you widen your data to include the data you disregarded and then re-submit your essay for grading.

Perhaps, those students (and faculty) reading this thread having tasted two academics in dispute might consider the important methodolgical issues in contention. My intention is only to help identify the need for you to get right the fundamentals you must get right to be worthy of a PhD, or the authority to write articles on subjects, in which other people are also knowledgeable, in whatever field of your choice and whatever your perspective.

Nothing personal in my critique of Dr Spillane was intended or implied.

 

I just wish to say, "thank you" to Professor Kennedy. I appreciate his sentiments.

 

Menger: now that the big guns have had at it, here's a pome.
I don't care if it rains or freezes
long as I got Boehm-Bawerk and Mises
sittin' on the dashboard of my car...

 

Menger: now that the big guns have had at it, here's a pome.
I don't care if it rains or freezes
long as I got Boehm-Bawerk and Mises
sittin' on the dashboard of my car...

Uncle Janko...an Austrian economist (classical liberal) poet? Nice start but how does it continue?

 

That's up to the market...