Place: gabriel's cafe, AT&T center
Attendance: 12
Facilitator: D. H.
A dozen doc students met Friday at Gabriel's (sports bar) in the new AT&T Executive Learning and Conference Center to discuss two versions of the "Qualifying Procedures" and "Qualifying research paper" sections of the new doctoral handbook and to kick off this semester's PhDBSs. This is my accounting of the meeting, and I invite those who were present Friday to comment on or correct it as they see fit.
I had released the two versions as Version X (the existing version) andVersion Y (the dean's newly-edited version) and asked the doc studentsto vet them without knowing the reason. The group at Gabriel's favored the longer, original version by seven to five. My reason for the exercise was to confirm a suspicion I had. I am one of five students inthe dean's writing class, and in class this past Wednesday the topic ofquals generated a ninety-minute discussion. In response to that discussion in class, the dean revised the quals procedure and paper sections of the handbook and asked the class if we thought the new version disambiguated the process any. I liked the leaner version, but I figured my preference was biased by my having taken part in that discussion and by my having already gone through the quals process. I wondered if others would prefer it without the benefit of knowing why or by whom it had been written. As it did in our class on Wednesday, the topic of quals generated a lengthy and lively discussion.
One of the three big questions that came out of the discussion was, What is the purpose of the qualifying research paper?
The majority of those present argued that Version X presented a better discussion of the procedure -- several liked the specificity of "four parts" -- and a more comprehensive and better explanation of the purpose and usefulness (i.e., for pubs, proposal) of the qual paper. Several noted the importance of explicitly requiring a justification for the research topic ("...why that topic is important...") in the description of the qual paper. Someone suggested that the term "literature review," explicit in Version Y, could be included in an "i.e." statement in Version X. Generally, those who favored Version X liked that it was more explicit yet more open (less strictly defined), and less focused on a specific research question. One first-year doc student said that Version Y would make her feel "boxed," that Version X was more flexible.
The "open" nature of Version X generated the second big question that came out of the discussion: What are the chair and the committee's responsibilities in the quals process?
Many felt that the difficulties in the quals procedure arise not from any particular definition of what a quals paper is but rather from miscommunication or misunderstanding among the student, chair, and committee about what is expected. The consensus was that for any given student, the rules for proceeding through the quals should not change once the student had begun. To that end it was suggested and generally agreed upon that every committee should either meet together and agree on their expectations for the quals paper, or, at least, the student and chair should put into writing the expectations for the quals paper and distribute the expectations to the committee for approval.
The third big question that came out of the discussion focused on the use of the word "comprehensive" in Version Y to describe the qualifying procedure. What does comprehensive mean? Comprehensive of what? Of the particular focus of the research? Of the entire field of LIS? The group expressed a lot of concern that to include the word "comprehensive" without defining it explicitly would lead (and has led) to conflict among students and their committees. Many felt that the purpose of the DRTs is to provide doc students with comprehensive knowledge of our field, so that to have passed DRT I and DRT II is to have demonstrated "comprehensive" knowledge. One student expressed an understanding that students were to broaden (and deepen) their knowledge of the field through directed readings but that committee chairs must be supportive in their willingness to supervise directed readings. The group recognized that the quals should be challenging but wished there were better understanding throughout the department of what students should expect from their committees, particularly of the nature of exam questions. Of those present who had already gone through quals, some reported that the exam questions helped move them toward a proposal by requiring detailed accounting of the development of a research question and of theoretical and methodological approaches to the question. Others, however, reported that the exam questions diverged from the topic of the quals paper and did not help them advance toward the proposal.
Related to concerns about the meaning of "comprehensive" were concerns about the meaning of "relevant" in Version Y, from this description of the quals paper: "...the paper should summarize the major theoretical and methodological concerns manifest in the relevant scholarly literature." Relevant to what? to whom?
One person, who had diligently reviewed the handbook when it was distributed for review, thought it disrespectful of the doc studies committee to change the description of the quals paper so dramatically at this point.
I have recommended to the dean (for what it's worth) to leave the wording of the quals procedure and paper as it is currently in the handbook and consider this first printed draft a "beta" test.
I have also asked if any consideration has been given to an electronic version of the handbook that would facilitate comments, questions, suggestions, etc. from the users.
