I'm aiming to have the first draft of my dissertation done next month.  I have concluded that writing a dissertation is no longer a useful part of doctoral education.  The format of a dissertation seriously limits its usefulness to others.  Writing several journal articles, or even a book would be a better measure of proving competence in the field.

I'm attending the American Academy of Religions annual conference this November, in Chicago.  I've registered, booked a hotel and flights and I have  my valid passport and a cute travel bag.  I now face the daunting task of whipping up a Statement of Teaching Philosophy, revising my CV and revamping my website.  I aim to do this while my committee reads my first dissertation draft.  Luckily I have a web designer friend who will help with the website.

I've also applied for a course that the University of Toronto is offering called THE500, essentially a course about how to teach university. It will cover learning styles, instructional strategies and methods, feedback techniques, assessment methods.  The assignments include writing a Statement of Teaching Philosophy, designing a course and a syllabus, and creating an electronic portfolio.

I've also met with a woman at the Career Centre, and she's been very helpful in preparing me for the AAR interviews and for approaching particular...

I recently applied for a renewal of my ethics review approval.  At my school an ethics approval is required whenever one works with human beings, particularly if the work may have negative consequences.  Although the stage where I actively interview women is completed, the ethics review committee considers the study ongoing until I've published the report (in my case, my dissertation). It seems odd to have to get an ethics approval for what is essentially now me sitting at my computer or going to the library. 

On the other hand, the idea that contact, responsibility, or study ends completely at some point seems to be based on the idea that you're an outsider interviewing insiders - people you will likely never see again after the study.  When you're studying your own community, the line seems less clear. I'll be seeing these women all the time; many of them are my friends.

I find it interesting that we're expected to apply for the review without having training in what makes for ethical research.  Part of this is that many people would view my project as a sociology project.  I assume that were I a sociology student ethical research methods would have been covered during an undergraduate degree.  None of this is done in theology, which is geared towards preparing people either for ministry or (as in my case) the academic study of religion....

I am finally close to transcribing the one live interview I did during the interview stage of my dissertation.  It is long and daunting.  Compared with the email responses, I feel there's no contest.  The email replies are consise, easier to cite, and on topic.  Email responses contain complete sentences.  In person, people begin a sentence, backtrack, and begin the sentence again, making for a very scattered and fragmented quotation.

The live interview, if accurately reported in text, distorts the communication.  I interviewed an intelligent and eloquent bisexual activist, but her use of affirmation-seeking phrases such as "you know?" or "right?" seem to communicate an insecure and tentative woman when they appear as text.  In the live interview they perform quite a different role, but the decision of whether or not to weed them out of the text is, it seems to me, a slippery slope.  Do I type what she said or what I think she meant to say?  And where does that go in terms of my creative imagination overriding her intention or misunderstanding her entirely?

As a journalist, I have always preferred email interviewing.  It quotes well in print, and it provides a hard copy of the transmission in case there are issues of the quote's accuracy.  As a person who had been interviewed, I again prefer emeail. It gives me a time to compose my...