Challenging Dissertation News
Aug. 27th, 2004 11:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sabrinamariMy committee members do not agree on what they want in dissertation. My advisor, P. (imagine him as, say, a Realist painter) urged me to utilize a structure and style reminiscent of clinical and health policy writing. My mentor and guide of some time, L. (imagine her as an Expressionist painter) just got to the chapter that most reflects this style. She hates it. She is a theory-driven, post-modern anthropologist who works from a very sophisticated self-reflexive perspective. For her, the structure of the chapter is wooden, list-like and lacking in ethnographic details and compelling theoretical material. P., however, urged me to refrain from setting up my whole argument early in the dissertation---limiting the complexity I could introduce---and in fact asked me to introduce my theory and my model in toto only in the conclusion.
To do what L. wants me to do, I must introduce my argument earlier, in contrast to what P. wants. I must also take an approach that up to now, P. has rejected at every opportunity in my earlier drafts.
My other two committee members, A. and C., are much more Expressionist than Realist and will likely support L.
When L. pointed out her concerns to P., P. did not say, "But this is what I asked her to do." He said, "Well, if you think it's important, it should be addressed." In other words, he is backing down from what he has pushed me to do all along and making the poor lack of fit my problem, instead of pointing out that this is a difference related to the styles and approached that characterize different subdisciplines.
This is further complicated by the fact that I am much more Expressionist than Realist and have been torturing my writing *all along* to make it fit P.'s more clinical model.
The uptake: I will not defend in September. I will probably defend in late October. I must split the Treatment Universe chapter into three smaller chapters, introduce my argument much earlier and add more ethnographic stories and more Expressionist interpretation to all three of them.
The good news: L. does not feel that this must be completed before the dissertation is defended, but thinks that it must be started and well underway by then. Additionally. these changes will be much more appropriate for inclusion in the future book than will P.'s original format.
Additionally, I discovered today that P. failed to mention several useful details to me: The defense date must be announced three weeks before the defense itself, and a copy of the dissertation must be put on reserve at the department two weeks before the date. Until this afternoon, P. thought we were still possibly looking at a Sept. 10 defense. However, since the date was not announced a week ago and I did not put a copy on reserve today, that would have been impossible anyway. I only know about this because L. told me about these requirements *this afternoon* and was very surprised that P. had not told me about them weeks ago.
Now, these are my options:
1. I can freak out, blaming P., blaming L., blaming whoever seems a likely candidate at the moment.
2. I can kick myself for not attempting to bring together P. and . on this issue earlier--I KNEW it was going to come up in some form.! I can beat myself up about why didn't addrss this sooner. I can kick myself about not doing research into the department's administrative requirements prior to the defense earlier this summer myself.
3. I can rage against the universe, the department, grad school, and my committee. I can allow bitterness about this new set of challenges to seep into every part of my life and I can keep my fury at this going and going.
4. I can go into complete denial, refusing to think about any of it.
These options are all part of what Pema Chodrow describes as being stuck in "Shenpa". Shenpa is what David Schnarch calls *regression*: getting so "hooked" into something emotionally that you are overwhelmed by negative feelings and you get stuck in a state of repetetive toxic thoughts and start acting out so that all the people around you are pulled into your anger and misery, and you perpetuate your own anger and misery.
When you are regressed, you can't think straight. You blame, you rage, and you get bitter. Mostly, you make your life a living hell and then point to those other people who did this to you---who put you in this hell.
Getting "really good at Shenpa"---or living in a state of almost constant regression---is called samasara in Tibetan Buddhist thought.
Buddhist meditation practice is designed to help you develop the ability to catch yourself as you are getting "hooked"---as you are regressing---and giving you a practice option that keeps you from getting swept up in the whole Shenpa thing. David Schnarch does not say that you need to meditate to stop your regression from continuing, but he does say that you need to learn to "self-sooth". This is just Buddhist thought stripped of its spiritual overtones.
Knowing all of this, I am going to skip the Shenpa and keep myself out of samasara.
I am going to relax into my new life and have a good weekend. Then, next week, I'll start gradually making the changes L. wants to the Treatment Universe chapter. Recognizing that rage and misery will not accomplish a damn thing, I am simply going to chill and do what I can, gradually, to revise this thing.
And remembering that P., L., A. and C. are all acting out of a desire to avoid pain themselves, I am not going to take any of this personally. They aren't questioning my worth; they are defending the paradigms that they hold dear.
So there it is. No defense till October, complex revisions, staying calm and centered and maintaining my spiritual practices---that's the new agenda.
And now, to a nice, snuggly bed.
To do what L. wants me to do, I must introduce my argument earlier, in contrast to what P. wants. I must also take an approach that up to now, P. has rejected at every opportunity in my earlier drafts.
My other two committee members, A. and C., are much more Expressionist than Realist and will likely support L.
When L. pointed out her concerns to P., P. did not say, "But this is what I asked her to do." He said, "Well, if you think it's important, it should be addressed." In other words, he is backing down from what he has pushed me to do all along and making the poor lack of fit my problem, instead of pointing out that this is a difference related to the styles and approached that characterize different subdisciplines.
This is further complicated by the fact that I am much more Expressionist than Realist and have been torturing my writing *all along* to make it fit P.'s more clinical model.
The uptake: I will not defend in September. I will probably defend in late October. I must split the Treatment Universe chapter into three smaller chapters, introduce my argument much earlier and add more ethnographic stories and more Expressionist interpretation to all three of them.
The good news: L. does not feel that this must be completed before the dissertation is defended, but thinks that it must be started and well underway by then. Additionally. these changes will be much more appropriate for inclusion in the future book than will P.'s original format.
Additionally, I discovered today that P. failed to mention several useful details to me: The defense date must be announced three weeks before the defense itself, and a copy of the dissertation must be put on reserve at the department two weeks before the date. Until this afternoon, P. thought we were still possibly looking at a Sept. 10 defense. However, since the date was not announced a week ago and I did not put a copy on reserve today, that would have been impossible anyway. I only know about this because L. told me about these requirements *this afternoon* and was very surprised that P. had not told me about them weeks ago.
Now, these are my options:
1. I can freak out, blaming P., blaming L., blaming whoever seems a likely candidate at the moment.
2. I can kick myself for not attempting to bring together P. and . on this issue earlier--I KNEW it was going to come up in some form.! I can beat myself up about why didn't addrss this sooner. I can kick myself about not doing research into the department's administrative requirements prior to the defense earlier this summer myself.
3. I can rage against the universe, the department, grad school, and my committee. I can allow bitterness about this new set of challenges to seep into every part of my life and I can keep my fury at this going and going.
4. I can go into complete denial, refusing to think about any of it.
These options are all part of what Pema Chodrow describes as being stuck in "Shenpa". Shenpa is what David Schnarch calls *regression*: getting so "hooked" into something emotionally that you are overwhelmed by negative feelings and you get stuck in a state of repetetive toxic thoughts and start acting out so that all the people around you are pulled into your anger and misery, and you perpetuate your own anger and misery.
When you are regressed, you can't think straight. You blame, you rage, and you get bitter. Mostly, you make your life a living hell and then point to those other people who did this to you---who put you in this hell.
Getting "really good at Shenpa"---or living in a state of almost constant regression---is called samasara in Tibetan Buddhist thought.
Buddhist meditation practice is designed to help you develop the ability to catch yourself as you are getting "hooked"---as you are regressing---and giving you a practice option that keeps you from getting swept up in the whole Shenpa thing. David Schnarch does not say that you need to meditate to stop your regression from continuing, but he does say that you need to learn to "self-sooth". This is just Buddhist thought stripped of its spiritual overtones.
Knowing all of this, I am going to skip the Shenpa and keep myself out of samasara.
I am going to relax into my new life and have a good weekend. Then, next week, I'll start gradually making the changes L. wants to the Treatment Universe chapter. Recognizing that rage and misery will not accomplish a damn thing, I am simply going to chill and do what I can, gradually, to revise this thing.
And remembering that P., L., A. and C. are all acting out of a desire to avoid pain themselves, I am not going to take any of this personally. They aren't questioning my worth; they are defending the paradigms that they hold dear.
So there it is. No defense till October, complex revisions, staying calm and centered and maintaining my spiritual practices---that's the new agenda.
And now, to a nice, snuggly bed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Yes!
Date: 2004-08-28 12:14 pm (UTC)Re: Yes!
Date: 2004-08-29 04:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-29 07:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-29 08:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-29 05:22 pm (UTC)Hugs from us to help you through this unbelievable twist of events! As per my lovely wife, we are uploading lots of Hugs, Chocolate, Jasmine Oil and Sheldrake's Raspberry Splash!!!!! <<< HUG >>>
no subject
Date: 2004-08-30 10:58 am (UTC)Also I wouldn't be able to not mention to mr P that as an advisor he's *supposed* to be the one ~advising~ you about:
the defense date needing to be announced three weeks before the defense itself,
and a copy of the dissertation needing to be put on reserve at the department two weeks before the date.
So how he thought you were still possibly looking at a Sept. 10 defense without telling you about these manditiory requirements is beyond me!
(makes me shudder to think what other important little tidbits required for you to get out of PhD hell he has managed to allow to slip-his-mind...)
Stay strong!