I just received a judicious review of my 2003 doctoral dissertation by Chris Jeynes. This review makes it necessary for me to revisit this treatise and the Tripartite Theoretical Model (TTM) developed therein if I am to continue using these items as a basis for further scholarship (which I fully intend to do). It therefore occurred to me that it would be useful for RG to encourage RG scholars to post as “Contributions” their reviews of FULL-TEXT DOWNLOADS (from the RG network) of the UNPUBLISHED DISSERTATIONS of other RG scholars. This would benefit the academic endeavor in three ways:
1) It would provoke the authors of the unpublished dissertations to engage in critical conversations with their own work in that the reviewer will no doubt provide a fresh look at material that the author’s dissertation committee was only perusing with “glazed over” eyes (after so many reads).
2) It would (presumably) provide an objective and critical analysis of the probative value of the dissertation for the graduate students on RG who are the most likely scholars to engage in full-text downloading of doctoral dissertations falling within their fields of research (and, in fact, may themselves write reviews with “a fresh eye”).
3) It would encourage seasoned scholars to engage in the critical review of unpublished work that despite its potential for providing insight into ongoing scholarly debates (or not) is lying dormant in university libraries around the globe.
If RG were to begin serving as the repository for these reviews, I think it would be appropriate for it to index them in a way that would allow RG to note the review just like it notes citations of publications appearing on RG. Admittedly, RG does a poor job of finding citations (a constant source of irritation); but, it would presumably have no difficulty finding reviews posted in its own network. However, as a backup, RG could ask authors of unpublished dissertations with full-text made available on RG, “Has this dissertation been reviewed by an RG scholar?” What do you think?
Gwen
Thank you, Charles, for responding to this question. Your response has got to be a classic – you have EVEN surpassed yourself in terms of delivering line-after-line of erudition, wit, and humor. And yet, in the midst of my laughter I gleaned the valid objections that can be raised to allowing reviewers to post their reviews of unpublished dissertations on RG for 3 million or more scholars to view. I had not given sufficient thought to the chilling effect this might have on the willingness of dissertation authors to post their dissertations on RG. Thank you for pointing that out as I need to be constantly reminded that, “not everyone is a glutton for punishment” (as my mother used to say). It will be interesting to get input from someone who can apply a costs/benefits analysis to my suggestion and also from someone who can suggest solutions/refinements that might make this idea of posting reviews on RG fly. I will change a couple of RG topic headings for the question to see if that entices some scholars with pragmatism as a “strong suit” to respond to the question.
Gwen
Actually Charles, I am not so amused. In my view brevity is a virtue. As it happens, the thesis in question was good enough to persuade me to write an extended review of it. And dissertations ARE reviewed (by the examiners) so they should have some quality, hopefully (and yes, I have seen counterexamples of this too!).
I am quite happy to post my review on RG if Gwen wants. Dissertations are usually thought of as "unpublished", but the diligent can always get to them. Sometimes this is essential, but often it is also interesting. Moreover, were dissertations to be properly published (on RG), more depth of knowledge (or discussion) would be accessible.
In re: Posts by Chris Jeynes and Charles Herrman,
Gentlemen, I hereby respectfully request that both of you post your most helpful reviews on RG so that they can be shared with the intellectual community here on RG.
(Like Chris, Charles sent me, privately, a thorough and insightful review of the "AFTER SHAME" article that I co-authored with Economist Steve Pressman, another scholar on RG.)
Since both my dissertation and the "After Shame" article have been downloaded by other RG scholars (for whatever reason), I think it only fair that they be made aware of the valid criticisms that have been made of these papers.
Being at least 18 years of age, of sound mind, and under no duress, I hereby agree to hold Chris Jeynes and Charles Herrman harmless from liability to me for libel and slander based upon the posting of their reviews of my work on RG. Subscribed and averred to on this 22nd day of October, 2013.
Gwendolyn Yvonne Alexis, Esq.
Attorney at Law
P.S. Charles, I will also ask Steve to give you a waiver from liability so wait for that before you post your review. Gwen
Thank you Chris. With your permission, I have now uploaded your Review as "Supplementary Material" to LEGISLATIVE TERRORISM: A Primer for the Non-Islamic State." It appears as a "Data Set" to my dissertation.
Gwen
Dear Gwen:
I think the comments you do about it if it is a repository or not, I think RG has very good background for it to be useful for the purposes of "Knowledge Management". To have or not a repository, is another step.
Obviously you can add a way to find the references to the style "e-prints" or "bibsonomy.org" as well as many universities do.
Perhaps the greatest merit of RG is that when you ask a research question you meet professionals like you who can bring ideas and materials or references, I think, hence the name of RG.
Obviously that would effectively make RG is considered as a platform for knowledge management and thus the knowledge spiral of Nonaka and Takeuchi [1] to be effective in transforming tacit knowledge into explicit.
I hope to have been useful. A hug.
[1] Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H., The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medical Science Nursing
- Dissertations