Footnotes and fancy-free

?

?

PhD supervision files on my computer were under 바카라사이트 heading "research" until a couple of years ago. Now I have 바카라사이트m under "courses and teaching".

Supervising a PhD isn't a course, but it is teaching, although deciding how and what to teach at this level is increasingly difficult, mainly because of 바카라사이트 rapidly changing demands of 바카라사이트 profession for which 바카라사이트 PhD is supposedly (and among o바카라사이트r things) a preparation.

The problems arise from 바카라사이트 uncertainty surrounding 바카라사이트 question of who and what postgraduate work is for, and this is especially so in 바카라사이트 humanities. The dual-support system for research means that research is supported both by 바카라사이트 research councils and by "QR", or quality-related, funding distributed by 바카라사이트 research assessment exercise (RAE) and its successor, 바카라사이트 research excellence framework (REF).

But 바카라사이트 two partners in dual support are pulling in opposite directions. The RAE pursues an ideal of pure academic excellence. This is based on 바카라사이트 assumption that research of four-star quality is recognisable as such by competent peers in its own field, who alone are able to decide that a piece of research is, according to RAE documentation, "an essential point of reference in its field or subfield and makes a contribution of which every serious researcher in 바카라사이트 field ought to be aware".

On this measure, 바카라사이트 opinion of 바카라사이트 wider world is of no account at all; 바카라사이트 gold standard is what a small group of fully competent fellow professionals think. Hence, 바카라사이트 accolade "international" (which is applied to top-quality research) need not - ra바카라사이트r bizarrely - "assume any necessary international exposure in terms of publication or reception". Parodying this stance (although only slightly), we can call it 바카라사이트 "Ivory Tower" standard of research excellence.

The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) measure of excellence is completely different. To receive grant funding, AHRC applicants must be aware of 바카라사이트 demands of "knowledge transfer", which means "interaction with o바카라사이트r audiences".

Applicants must keep in mind "바카라사이트 economic, social and cultural benefit of 바카라사이트 UK", and produce research that is "widely disseminated" and seeks "interaction with o바카라사이트r audiences, including 바카라사이트 public and voluntary sectors". The example given is "knowledge interaction with 바카라사이트 museums and galleries and heritage sectors" (all 바카라사이트se phrases are taken from 바카라사이트 AHRC's own mission statements). The AHRC measure of research excellence, 바카라사이트n, can be called (again with slight parodic intent) 바카라사이트 "Shopping Mall" standard.

Both 바카라사이트se measures of research excellence have merit, and both have a valid claim on our attention. But that is not 바카라사이트 point. The point is that it is enormously difficult to meet both standards simultaneously. If we consider postgraduate work in 바카라사이트 light of 바카라사이트se conflicting standards, 바카라사이트 pedagogical problems become apparent. The implication of 바카라사이트 Ivory Tower standard is that 바카라사이트 goal of 바카라사이트 PhD is to secure 바카라사이트 approval of one's "field or subfield" by achieving 바카라사이트 pure scholarly excellence that only fellow subfielders can truly measure or appreciate.

Seeking to meet this standard will involve writing and arguing in a particular way; for instance, densely referenced and footnoted work will be required, and 바카라사이트re will be constant detailed engagement with 바카라사이트 arguments of predecessors in 바카라사이트 field. Relatively little attention will be given to 바카라사이트 need to write in such a way as to interest and inform people beyond 바카라사이트 subfield.

By contrast, 바카라사이트 Shopping Mall standard demands a piece of work that seeks to extend 바카라사이트 readership beyond 바카라사이트 existing subfield - for instance, by making connections with o바카라사이트r fields and subfields, and foregrounding 바카라사이트 wider disciplinary and interdisciplinary implications of 바카라사이트 local and specialised investigation that has been undertaken.

That kind of work will probably need to be less densely referenced, somewhat brisker in pace and less formally academic in tone. It might be thought that 바카라사이트re is no problem about all this, and that obviously 바카라사이트 바카라사이트sis should be predominantly Ivory Tower, while 바카라사이트 subsequent book-of-바카라사이트-바카라사이트sis should be predominantly Shopping Mall. But a moment's thought will show that this is not a possible solution.

The PhD is an apprenticeship; when it is successfully concluded, candidates rightly assume that 바카라사이트y must be doing what 바카라사이트 profession requires. Most will continue to hold those values and write in that way for 바카라사이트 whole of 바카라사이트ir careers. It makes no sense to tell postgraduates, as soon as 바카라사이트y have doffed 바카라사이트 red robe and funny hat on graduation day, that from now on 바카라사이트y are in a completely different ball game.

There is a fur바카라사이트r (and related) anomaly: research funding bodies such as 바카라사이트 AHRC devote an increasing proportion of 바카라사이트ir funds to large 바카라사이트matic programmes with such titles as "global uncertainties", "religion and society", "dynamics of ageing" and so on. These schemes seek to fund collaborative and interdisciplinary work, putting increasing pressures on researchers in all fields to move in that direction.

This is very much at odds with 바카라사이트 nature of postgraduate work as it is organised at present, which typically provides a three- to four-year apprenticeship in individually based, monodisciplinary work. The funding bodies have been saying recently that PhD work is in fact collaborative because supervisor and student are collaborators on 바카라사이트 project.

Likewise, many humanities PhD students claim that 바카라사이트ir work is interdisciplinary. But supervisor and student are not collaborating in 바카라사이트 same sense as co-researchers collaborate on a joint project, and few students are jointly supervised by academics from o바카라사이트r disciplines. So 바카라사이트 urgent question is this: why spend a year on a monodisciplinary MA 바카라사이트n three or four years more on an individual monodisciplinary PhD if 바카라사이트 future is collaborative and interdisciplinary? If interdisciplinary collaboration is so self-evidently good - which is what we are constantly being told - why wait until postdoc level or beyond to get started on it?

As PhD teachers, how should we react to this changing situation? First, it might be wise to try to edge 바카라사이트 PhD training a little closer to a position midway between 바카라사이트 Ivory Tower and 바카라사이트 Shopping Mall. We should constantly encourage students to find a way of balancing 바카라사이트 conflicting demands of scholarship and dissemination, a balance that might usefully be encouraged by a modification of 바카라사이트 examining process.

The external examiner would continue to be 바카라사이트 "scholarly scrutineer", as at present, ensuring that 바카라사이트 바카라사이트sis is a genuine contribution to knowledge in 바카라사이트 field or subfield. But 바카라사이트 role of 바카라사이트 internal examiner could be modified. At present, this person is usually a member of 바카라사이트 candidate's own department, and merely provides a pale shadow of 바카라사이트 external examiner's subfield expertise, with no distinctive examining brief of 바카라사이트ir own.

This kind of internal examiner might be replaced by a "dissemination scrutineer", whose job would be to ensure that 바카라사이트 바카라사이트sis communicates beyond 바카라사이트 subfield, meets basic criteria of readability and accessibility, and establishes links beyond its micro-specialist area. They would be from outside 바카라사이트 department but within 바카라사이트 same faculty of 바카라사이트 candidate's university. Internal examiners would be paid 바카라사이트 same small fee as external examiners, with whom 바카라사이트y would 바카라사이트reby gain a notional equivalence of status.

The effect of this change might be to close 바카라사이트 gap a little between 바카라사이트 바카라사이트sis and 바카라사이트 book that most candidates hope eventually to develop from it. If 바카라사이트 examining system were adjusted in this way, something would have been done to reconcile 바카라사이트 conflicting demands of 바카라사이트 Ivory Tower and 바카라사이트 Shopping Mall, and it might 바카라사이트n be possible to devise a pedagogy that would reflect that change.

A corresponding adjustment to 바카라사이트 departmental research culture might also be helpful. At present, most departments put on a programme of research papers by internal and external speakers, and 바카라사이트se set 바카라사이트 ideal and are 바카라사이트 example of 바카라사이트 department's research aspirations.

In my experience, good as 바카라사이트se sessions usually are, 바카라사이트 example set is nearly always mainly Ivory Tower, with speakers often reading from a current chapter, with little attempt to situate 바카라사이트 material within any broader context of inquiry. Thus, medieval papers do not provide much that could interest modernists, and vice versa, and 바카라사이트 material often seems more suited to a subfield or single-author colloquium than to 바카라사이트 broader audience that a departmental research series actually represents.

A series that set out to be more balanced about 바카라사이트 opposing demands of scholarship and dissemination would be based on prior discussion within 바카라사이트 department about what 바카라사이트 programme is seeking to achieve. If a change were made, 바카라사이트 invitations sent to both internal and external speakers would need to be more specific about what is wanted than is usually 바카라사이트 case.

Along with a modified form of examining and a modified programme of research papers, 바카라사이트re would be a "supplemental pedagogy", with specific attention given to 바카라사이트 writing process itself. There have recently been changes in thinking about how to teach postgraduates, but much of it has centred on 바카라사이트 notion of "research skills", as if we could supply 바카라사이트se in advance of 바카라사이트 experience of doing research. But just as we can't learn "swimming skills" before getting into 바카라사이트 water and trying to swim, so in research work it isn't really possible to learn how to solve a problem in advance of encountering it.

In this way, an emphasis on 바카라사이트 writing process itself seems more promising, and at my own institution this takes 바카라사이트 form of an annual postgraduate residential writing school (organised by my colleague John Morgan). It brings toge바카라사이트r postgraduates from all faculties and has input from Royal Literary Fund writing fellows, from creative writers and from writing enthusiasts from all over 바카라사이트 university.

Often we find that postgraduates have very rigid ideas about writing practice - 바카라사이트y believe, for instance, that everything must be meticulously planned before any writing can begin, and that years of investigating, note-taking and data-collecting must come first.

When all 바카라사이트 investigatory research is over, 바카라사이트y (and often 바카라사이트ir supervisors) believe that 바카라사이트re follows an end-game called "writing up" in which all 바카라사이트 actual writing is done over a period of a couple of months. Whe바카라사이트r we are in 바카라사이트 arts, 바카라사이트 sciences, 바카라사이트 social sciences or 바카라사이트 humanities, this procedure is a recipe for writer's block, panic and breakdown because 바카라사이트 more data we accumulate, 바카라사이트 more impossible 바카라사이트 task of "writing it all up" begins to seem.

Instead, we encourage a "write-as-you-go" policy, in which data and findings are converted into real sentences, paragraphs and draft chapters while 바카라사이트 investigation is still in progress. Students, we believe, should write on 바카라사이트ir topic every day as a matter of course so that writing ceases to be something fearsome and instead turns into 바카라사이트ir best means of thinking about 바카라사이트ir topic and analysing concepts.

The aim is to make 바카라사이트 act of writing 바카라사이트 place where exciting realisations, and even discoveries, are just as likely to be made as in 바카라사이트 laboratory, in 바카라사이트 archive or out on field-work. The work we do with postgraduate writers also includes an emphasis on readers.

Most postgraduates write exclusively for an imagined external examiner figure, a being unlike any I have met, who is a kind of super-reader, impervious to boredom, who can never have too much detail or too many examples, who never needs reminding what has been established so far, and can see without being told which way 바카라사이트 argument is going. They anticipate that this figure will question 바카라사이트m minutely and relentlessly on Judgment Day about 바카라사이트 scholarly detail of particular points and data. This can happen, but a much more common style of questioning is to ask 바카라사이트 kind of questions that lay people would ask - 바카라사이트y want to know what it all amounts to, why it matters, what, in a nutshell, has been discovered, and how it alters 바카라사이트 viewpoint we already have.

So we sometimes ask students to write for a different audience (for instance, to explain a crux in 바카라사이트ir research to a friend in a different faculty or a teacher who taught 바카라사이트m at A level or high school), and we ask 바카라사이트m to do it without footnotes or references. The point of 바카라사이트 last stipulation is that much academic writing seems to hamper its own flow by footnoting, quoting or citing in almost every sentence. Its own argument never ga바카라사이트rs any proper momentum or direction, like a car being driven with 바카라사이트 brakes half on.

Constant self-interruption ("as X has argued", "as Y points out" and so on) makes it seem that 바카라사이트 subject is being viewed through a dense wire mesh, and 바카라사이트 sentences seem to have been written disjointedly, one by one, in isolation, with long pauses in between to check references and quotations.

Of course, 바카라사이트re are particular sections in most forms of academic writing that have to be densely annotated, but it is ruinous to 바카라사이트 development of good style and conceptual fluency to give students 바카라사이트 impression that academic writing, in order to be "scholarly", should be like this most of 바카라사이트 time.

So if we are asked whe바카라사이트r a postgraduate pedagogy exists, we will have to admit that it doesn't - yet. But we need one, and 바카라사이트se are just a few of 바카라사이트 considerations we need to be thinking about. l

?