A Microanalysis of Doctoral Dissertations &
Committees
Within the RPI Department of Science & Technology
Studies
|
|
|
Version 0.1
Last Update: November 25, 2007
|
Table of Contents |
Introduction
Audience
This document will be of interest to graduate students in the
Department of Science & Technology Studies at Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute (hereafter, "the program"), particularly those
still in their first three years of graduate study. It may
also
be of some interest (if less utility) to students who are further along
in that program or who have finished.
Objectives
The purpose of this document is to provide a complete, empirical
snapshot of a single (albeit crucial) dimension of the program: coarse,
material specifics on the dissertations the department has passed and
the committees that passed them. My opinion (which is likely
controversial) is that this information, while susceptible to
misinterpretation or misuse, can also enrich and expedite the processes
of committee formation and dissertation planning (not to mention foster
a sense of community history).
I entered the program in August of 2000 as an MS/PhD
student, finishing
my MS in 2004 and defending my dissertation in time to graduate in
August 2007. One observation over my time there was that
certain details on dissertations and committees—obviously a key
product of any doctoral program—were either difficult to find,
were incomplete, were
scattered among various documents, or generally were not summarily
advertised to incoming students as a resource. This
always
seemed counter-intuitive to me: not only would it make sense for these
products to be prominently displayed by a proud department, their
utility as a resource to newer students planning their own trajectories
seemed forgone. Perhaps the initiative here is best left to the grad
students themselves, and no doubt I remain ignorant of the
complexities of
institutionalizing the collection and update of all the details I have
in mind, but I feel compelled to adopt a well-worn tradition of my
predecessors—serial reciprocity—by
routing my own obsessive-compulsive proclivities into a document of
some potential use to the future graduates of the program.
Data Coverage and Sources
This document considers all doctoral dissertations formally submitted
under the Department of Science & Technology Studies, beginning
with its first in Spring (May) of 1993 and continuing up through those
completed in Summer (August) of 2007 (the cycle in which the author
completed his own). The dataset includes 47 dissertations and
their committees.
I only consider 13 faculty in this analysis, specifically those who 1)
were still part of the department's faculty as of August 2007, and 2)
had been around long enough to have served on a dissertation committee.
All of the data presented here was obtained from publicly available
sources: the dissertations themselves (both electronic and print),
faculty CVs or websites, and occasional verbal corroboration by
specific individuals (see here for more
detail on sources).
Caveats
Unless otherwise noted, assume that any opinions offerred are mine (the
author's) and mine alone. Hopefully it's clear enough what's opinion
and what's something else.
Also, take special note of the "Last Update" date at the top of the
document (summaries of any changes will be kept at the end of this page).
Take all of the information provided here with a grain of salt (and
maybe a quick scan of Huff's How
to Lie With Statistics).
Keep in mind that 1) there are many reasons why an academic's
record might show a dearth (or preponderance) of doctoral advisees, and
2) several of the faculty have also served on doctoral committees
outside our department (e.g. Prof. Layne has served on many within
LL&C). There's a great (and complicated) conversation to be
had
about what an "appropriate" advising load is!
Reports of errors or omissions in this document are always
welcomed (these can be sent to me by email at denicola@alum.rpi.edu).
As you begin the dissertation-writing process yourself (assuming you're within my primary audience), this document
would profit from the addition of any questions you come up with that
aren't currently addressed. After you have finished, any observations,
suggestions or comments you might have (both critical and otherwise)
can likewise be sent to me, and subsequent readers will owe you one.
Good luck, and I hope the information presented here is helpful!
Colophon
This document was written using Nvu,
a cross-platform, open source web authoring package started by
Linspire,
Inc. All charts and tables were prepared using NeoOffice
(a Mac port of the OpenOffice suite), and I made some
use of TextWrangler (a free/closed source
text editor for the MacOS) for prettifying the dissertation lists.
Changes
Version 0.1 (November 25, 2007): original version
Licensing
This work (including charts, tables, and guidance on
searches on the Folsom Library OPAC) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.