The dissertation proposal

This is a reading response for discussion as part of the Research Colloquium course. The topic is quality writing and dissertation proposals. I’ll focus on an article written by Kilbourne (2006) titled The Qualitative Doctoral Dissertation Proposal. The nature of an argument is shared and the typical parts of a proposal are shared. This connects for me to the deconstruction of a dissertation proposal written by Bonnie Stewart [Reputation and Identity in Scholarly Networked Publics] for her PhD, which she shares openly on her dissertation blog site Portfolio.

As I read Kilbourne’s article, I reflect on the process and product of writing that Bonnie Stewart has experienced in her dissertation proposal. Her proposal becomes a backdrop for my reflections on the topics expressed by Kilbourne (2006). Here are three key points for consideration.

1. A map is out of the question.

Kilbourne’s article and Stewart’s dissertation proposal are sketches, done in pencil on rough paper, not detailed itineraries or explicit routes. The sketch Kilbourne (2006) provides focuses on context, content, and the writing of the dissertation proposal. It is less a map and more an outline of paths to follow. The sketch Stewart (2013) provides in her dissertation proposal delineates the research problem, theoretical perspectives, methods, ethics, plan, and timeline. These are not maps with guide posts and signs marked out. They are potential routes toward an intended location, the successful dissertation. They illuminate possibilities rather than outline directions or routes.

2. The dissertation proposal is a working document.

The dissertation proposal is an iteration from essays written in PhD courses, reflected over time. The proposal is one step in a healthy academic discussion about the claims, argument, in all its variabilities, and evidence (Kilbourne, 2006), at a specific point in time, a data stop in the PhD process. The proposal is an ending point, a starting point, an iteration of previous documents and an iteration toward the final dissertation document. Kilbourne (2006) suggests three or four drafts is normal. This process “affords a researcher the confidence to respond appropriately when unanticipated issues” arise (p. 572). Not only does the research question, the focus of the inquiry, and the research methodology shift as edits occur, but the writing shifts in texture, nuance, prose, clarity, structure, grammar, and attention to detail (Kilbourne, 2006).

There is no ‘final’ version or formal conclusion to a dissertation proposal. In most cases, suggested edits are incorporated into the dissertation document. The proposal in its final version is an agreement between candidate and committee, and is rarely published in public. Having access to Stewart’s (2013) dissertation proposal, openly published, is a gift given by one budding academic to further academic understanding. Despite the fact that it may be “naive in retrospect” (Kilbourne, 2006, p. 560), it is nevertheless a data point on a sketch map of doctoral work.

3. There are layers and complexities in the process. Navigational moves will be required.

Kilbourne (2006) outlines the nature of the dissertation proposal as a verification document that requires a beginning researcher to explicitly share and demonstrate their expertise in their field of study. This is a self-conscious justification for the research yet to come. The “actual arguments are enormously complex affairs that usually involve complicated layering and trains of logic” (Kilbourne, 2006, p. 533). These layers, as evident in my review of Stewart’s dissertation proposal, are threads that are woven together in a pattern that reveals the overall texture, design and fabric of the research study. With closer examination, Stewart reveals not only navigational elements being drawn onto her research map, but the underlying typographical and thematic maps within the research design, Outlining the elements of a proposal, the headings to be used, only provides a rough estimate of how to get from start to finish. As in the art and craft of cartography, there are many design decisions to be made as the map iterates to its final version. The type of map, or research proposal, will determine the navigational moves required. The author’s voice, word choice, organizational structure, and presentation are additional navigational decisions.

References

Kilbourn, B. (2006). The qualitative doctoral dissertation proposal. Teachers College Record,108(4), 529-576.  

Stewart, B. (2013). Dissertation proposal: Reputation and identity in scholarly networked publics [blog]. Retrieved September 7, 2019, from http://portfolio.cribchronicles.com/reputation-and-identity-in-scholarly-networked-publics/