Thesis rewrites and unexplained comments from supervisor
September 6, 2011 10:03 AM Subscribe
Thesis rewrites and unexplained comments from supervisor
I recently finished the first chapter of my (English Lit) thesis and sent it to my supervisor. He came back to me saying the following:
"I've been reading through your chapter. I can't say it's going well--and it's not "there" enough for me to add much value with specific comments at this stage. There are problems with the quality of the ideas and with the sorts of things you are saying. But it's not going to be helpful to go further down this road if the main problem is whether you have enough reading behind you."
He has suggested specific readings, some of which I have looked at before, but perhaps not in as much detail, becuase they seemed not to be resourceful in terms of the arguments I was making. But I am reading them again, nonetheless.
So, after a day of wallowing in abject failure and wondering if I actually have the skills to pull this off, I have decided to do a complete rewrite of my first chapter (7000 words). I am seeing my supervisor again in 8 days (he did not suggest the rewrite) and would like to present to him something new.
I'd be grateful to hear from those who have had similar experiences. How do I tackle notions that there are problems with the "quality of my ideas"? I have written 1000 new words today, and I realise that my supervisor was right, and I am grateful for him pointing out the facts. But saying something isn't quite "there" without elaborating is frustrating to get my head around and makes the self-doubt rather a larger pain on the nethers than it already is.
I recently finished the first chapter of my (English Lit) thesis and sent it to my supervisor. He came back to me saying the following:
"I've been reading through your chapter. I can't say it's going well--and it's not "there" enough for me to add much value with specific comments at this stage. There are problems with the quality of the ideas and with the sorts of things you are saying. But it's not going to be helpful to go further down this road if the main problem is whether you have enough reading behind you."
He has suggested specific readings, some of which I have looked at before, but perhaps not in as much detail, becuase they seemed not to be resourceful in terms of the arguments I was making. But I am reading them again, nonetheless.
So, after a day of wallowing in abject failure and wondering if I actually have the skills to pull this off, I have decided to do a complete rewrite of my first chapter (7000 words). I am seeing my supervisor again in 8 days (he did not suggest the rewrite) and would like to present to him something new.
I'd be grateful to hear from those who have had similar experiences. How do I tackle notions that there are problems with the "quality of my ideas"? I have written 1000 new words today, and I realise that my supervisor was right, and I am grateful for him pointing out the facts. But saying something isn't quite "there" without elaborating is frustrating to get my head around and makes the self-doubt rather a larger pain on the nethers than it already is.
Unless you have not mentioned some specific advise you may have received in earlier sessions, I'd say the following:
Supervisors are being paid to do supervision, not to beat about the bush. You should ask for a clarification at your next meeting. You need examples of what to do better, both in terms of "quality of ideas" and regarding the background reading. (Also, I hope when you did your rewrite of those 7000 words, you did it with a specific plan in mind, which you could discuss with your supervisor. Proceed from the feedback you get.)
Try to negotiate this in a good-faith spirit, perhaps he just didn't have his day. If the problems persist, and communication doesn't get better, I'd say, mid October should be the time to contact the head of department asking for a new supervisor. Don't rush that, though.
posted by Namlit at 10:17 AM on September 6, 2011
Supervisors are being paid to do supervision, not to beat about the bush. You should ask for a clarification at your next meeting. You need examples of what to do better, both in terms of "quality of ideas" and regarding the background reading. (Also, I hope when you did your rewrite of those 7000 words, you did it with a specific plan in mind, which you could discuss with your supervisor. Proceed from the feedback you get.)
Try to negotiate this in a good-faith spirit, perhaps he just didn't have his day. If the problems persist, and communication doesn't get better, I'd say, mid October should be the time to contact the head of department asking for a new supervisor. Don't rush that, though.
posted by Namlit at 10:17 AM on September 6, 2011
Well, it's English lit. Even professionals will sometimes say things that are, from a charitable point of view, banal and indefensible. One line of attack here is to accept that it's hard to say something new and well-considered, and you may be writing drafts of this for some time to come, working through some of the issues as class papers, if you're still taking classes, or presenting some chapters as conference papers, if this is a PhD thesis.
The other line of attack, perhaps especially appropriate for an MA thesis that just doesn't have to be that good, would be to get a new advisor.
posted by Monsieur Caution at 10:19 AM on September 6, 2011
The other line of attack, perhaps especially appropriate for an MA thesis that just doesn't have to be that good, would be to get a new advisor.
posted by Monsieur Caution at 10:19 AM on September 6, 2011
"I've been reading through your chapter. I can't say it's going well--and it's not "there" enough for me to add much value with specific comments at this stage. There are problems with the quality of the ideas and with the sorts of things you are saying. But it's not going to be helpful to go further down this road if the main problem is whether you have enough reading behind you."
He's trying to be nice, but he's saying that you haven't done enough reading on this chapter and perhaps generally and he wants you to research more vigorously. If you want more specific feedback, go ahead and ask for it in the future--however, if you spent a day wallowing in abject failure because of his (fairly padded) general criticism, you're going to have to grow a thicker skin about criticism. In fact, he might be making only general criticisms because he senses that criticism makes you wallow in self-doubt when criticized. As someone who is both a writer and an editor, I've been on both sides of the equation here. The key is to disentangle your ego from your work. Remember that both you and your supervisor are in this to produce the best thesis you possibly can.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 10:20 AM on September 6, 2011 [15 favorites]
He's trying to be nice, but he's saying that you haven't done enough reading on this chapter and perhaps generally and he wants you to research more vigorously. If you want more specific feedback, go ahead and ask for it in the future--however, if you spent a day wallowing in abject failure because of his (fairly padded) general criticism, you're going to have to grow a thicker skin about criticism. In fact, he might be making only general criticisms because he senses that criticism makes you wallow in self-doubt when criticized. As someone who is both a writer and an editor, I've been on both sides of the equation here. The key is to disentangle your ego from your work. Remember that both you and your supervisor are in this to produce the best thesis you possibly can.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 10:20 AM on September 6, 2011 [15 favorites]
Criticism makes you wallow in self-doubt, rather.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 10:21 AM on September 6, 2011
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 10:21 AM on September 6, 2011
Find another grad student, a post-doc, or a charitable professor to give the chapter a read. Your supervisor may just be not good at giving specific feedback, and a second opinion could help.
posted by auto-correct at 10:40 AM on September 6, 2011
posted by auto-correct at 10:40 AM on September 6, 2011
I think you have to be proactive in asking for what you need from your supervisor. You should ask for clarification and specific examples. Be as specific as possible in your questions. Something like, "The first section of the chapter attempts to argue X using A, B, and C evidence. Did that come across clearly? How do you think I should revise that to be more successful?" But your question has to be specific and demonstrate that you think you know what you were talking about.
I've also found it helpful to have a chair or committee member work with a detailed outline of chapters rather than a full draft, especially if your chapters are long. First, the outline forces you to really think about the structure of your argument and not just (sometimes/often) meandering points that eventually make their way into an argument. If you can't outline your own chapter effectively in a way that shows a clear argument, then you know you have work to do. Generally, the chapter should preview the main points in its intro, argue those points with specific evidence in the bulk/middle, and review their significance in the conclusion. Since you are so close to the ideas, this may feel like you're repeating yourself, but from an audience's perspective, you're demonstrating a clear grasp of your points.
I see a lot of writing where people finally figure out their points near the end of the chapter, but in the meantime, someone reading it really doesn't know where you're going. The revision process should really focus on going back and making those ideas clear in the chapter from the beginning. It's ok to write your way into your argument, but revise it so it sounds like you knew exactly what you were doing from the very beginning.
If you can do the outline AND it looks good to you AND it clearly lays out your argument and key evidence AND someone (a fellow student or other professor) else can make sense of it (can read it and parrot back your main points), send that and ask for feedback on it. Asking for feedback on specific sections would be even better. You're likely to get the feedback sooner because it's a smaller document for the supervisor to work with.
This kind of an outline may be a few pages long for a dense chapter, but it is a good way of assessing your own ideas while getting the document condensed enough that it's not just a jumble. Plus, 8 days isn't really enough to read his suggested reading and do a complete overhaul.
Anyway, outline what you have now, decide where there are gaps in your argument or evidence, make a plan for how to fill those gaps. Even if you can't do a whole revision before you meet, you'll have something to show.
Also, consider getting this chapter just "good enough" for now--good enough to move on to the next chapter. Your ideas will change (possibly a lot) as you work through later chapters and get more ideas from more reading, so don't feel like you have to get this one perfect before you move on. That impulse slows a lot of people down (ask me how I know).
However (and this is a big however), part of doing a thesis is figuring out how to fill in gaps on your own. The thesis is there so you can demonstrate that you understand your discipline, disciplinary conventions (what counts as evidence, etc.), and how to do this kind of research. It's less about your specific topic than you think, in some ways. So don't be surprised if your supervisor feels that he's given you sufficient guidance at this point. He's trying to get you to think like a researcher in your discipline, and as a result, he may expect you to figure out how to self-assess your ideas now. That process can be painful, especially when you know he knows more answers and you just wish he'd give them to you. If you find he's not giving you what you want, still ask for it, but don't be surprised if he comes back with another series of questions rather than a direct answer. That's part of his job and you should see the struggle to answer those questions, frustrating as they are, as part of your experience becoming a member of your discipline.
posted by BlooPen at 10:43 AM on September 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
I've also found it helpful to have a chair or committee member work with a detailed outline of chapters rather than a full draft, especially if your chapters are long. First, the outline forces you to really think about the structure of your argument and not just (sometimes/often) meandering points that eventually make their way into an argument. If you can't outline your own chapter effectively in a way that shows a clear argument, then you know you have work to do. Generally, the chapter should preview the main points in its intro, argue those points with specific evidence in the bulk/middle, and review their significance in the conclusion. Since you are so close to the ideas, this may feel like you're repeating yourself, but from an audience's perspective, you're demonstrating a clear grasp of your points.
I see a lot of writing where people finally figure out their points near the end of the chapter, but in the meantime, someone reading it really doesn't know where you're going. The revision process should really focus on going back and making those ideas clear in the chapter from the beginning. It's ok to write your way into your argument, but revise it so it sounds like you knew exactly what you were doing from the very beginning.
If you can do the outline AND it looks good to you AND it clearly lays out your argument and key evidence AND someone (a fellow student or other professor) else can make sense of it (can read it and parrot back your main points), send that and ask for feedback on it. Asking for feedback on specific sections would be even better. You're likely to get the feedback sooner because it's a smaller document for the supervisor to work with.
This kind of an outline may be a few pages long for a dense chapter, but it is a good way of assessing your own ideas while getting the document condensed enough that it's not just a jumble. Plus, 8 days isn't really enough to read his suggested reading and do a complete overhaul.
Anyway, outline what you have now, decide where there are gaps in your argument or evidence, make a plan for how to fill those gaps. Even if you can't do a whole revision before you meet, you'll have something to show.
Also, consider getting this chapter just "good enough" for now--good enough to move on to the next chapter. Your ideas will change (possibly a lot) as you work through later chapters and get more ideas from more reading, so don't feel like you have to get this one perfect before you move on. That impulse slows a lot of people down (ask me how I know).
However (and this is a big however), part of doing a thesis is figuring out how to fill in gaps on your own. The thesis is there so you can demonstrate that you understand your discipline, disciplinary conventions (what counts as evidence, etc.), and how to do this kind of research. It's less about your specific topic than you think, in some ways. So don't be surprised if your supervisor feels that he's given you sufficient guidance at this point. He's trying to get you to think like a researcher in your discipline, and as a result, he may expect you to figure out how to self-assess your ideas now. That process can be painful, especially when you know he knows more answers and you just wish he'd give them to you. If you find he's not giving you what you want, still ask for it, but don't be surprised if he comes back with another series of questions rather than a direct answer. That's part of his job and you should see the struggle to answer those questions, frustrating as they are, as part of your experience becoming a member of your discipline.
posted by BlooPen at 10:43 AM on September 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
I have decided to do a complete rewrite of my first chapter
Oh, and it will help you A LOT if you can move away from this kind of thinking. You probably don't need a complete, start from scratch rewrite. That's not what grad-level researchers do. You need to revise. And you will need to keep revising for the duration of the thesis and beyond if you decide to publish any of it. Some revisions will be more extensive than others, but it's all revision. Your supervisor didn't suggest a complete rewrite because you don't need one.
posted by BlooPen at 10:46 AM on September 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
Oh, and it will help you A LOT if you can move away from this kind of thinking. You probably don't need a complete, start from scratch rewrite. That's not what grad-level researchers do. You need to revise. And you will need to keep revising for the duration of the thesis and beyond if you decide to publish any of it. Some revisions will be more extensive than others, but it's all revision. Your supervisor didn't suggest a complete rewrite because you don't need one.
posted by BlooPen at 10:46 AM on September 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
He is not proffering more detailed criticism of his own accord, and is saying so. However, you can ask him.
Talk to him.
posted by krilli at 10:48 AM on September 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
Talk to him.
posted by krilli at 10:48 AM on September 6, 2011 [1 favorite]
I've been in roughly this position, in a different field. What worked for me, after the requisite day of wallowing, was to try very hard to take the criticism at face value, and try to start over without letting my feelings of defensiveness and embarrassment get in the way. Dealing with my feelings about "starting over" was a lot harder than the actual re-writing. Particularly, once I started to rewrite in an organized and intellectually rigorous way, I could see how the text I'd already written could fit into parts and be fleshed out. I'd already familiarized myself with the necessary literature, I just hadn't demonstrated that in my writing.
It also helped to feel kind of pissed at my prof and want to show him how wrong he was about my ability to write this particular document well.
posted by juliapangolin at 10:52 AM on September 6, 2011
It also helped to feel kind of pissed at my prof and want to show him how wrong he was about my ability to write this particular document well.
posted by juliapangolin at 10:52 AM on September 6, 2011
So, after a day of wallowing in abject failure and wondering if I actually have the skills to pull this off, I have decided to do a complete rewrite of my first chapter (7000 words). I am seeing my supervisor again in 8 days (he did not suggest the rewrite) and would like to present to him something new.
Don't do this. If he suggested extra reading, spend the next 8 days tackling some of that reading.
Look, I may be projecting a bit, but your plan has a bit of an I'll show HIM vibe to it — like, "He thinks my chapter sucked? I'll write a better chapter and then he'll have to respect me!" (Possibly with a side order of "I have disgraced myself! We must hide this terrible shameful first draft and never speak of it again!") I've definitely been guilty of this sort of thinking. I think most of us have. But it's an overreaction. You don't need to make any sort of big heroic gesture to Prove Yourself or Clear Your Name or whatever. Just keep plugging away.
The worst case scenario here is, you spend a week digging into the extra reading, and at the end of the week you still don't think it's relevant. If that happens, then you can go make a well-informed case to your advisor: "As I understand these books, they're only addressing X and Y, but my project here has to do with Z, and it would be a mistake to conflate those issues." Maybe he'll see things your way. Maybe he'll be able to point out connections between X, Y and Z that you can make use of. Either way, the conversation will go better if you've done the reading. So do the reading.
posted by nebulawindphone at 10:56 AM on September 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
Don't do this. If he suggested extra reading, spend the next 8 days tackling some of that reading.
Look, I may be projecting a bit, but your plan has a bit of an I'll show HIM vibe to it — like, "He thinks my chapter sucked? I'll write a better chapter and then he'll have to respect me!" (Possibly with a side order of "I have disgraced myself! We must hide this terrible shameful first draft and never speak of it again!") I've definitely been guilty of this sort of thinking. I think most of us have. But it's an overreaction. You don't need to make any sort of big heroic gesture to Prove Yourself or Clear Your Name or whatever. Just keep plugging away.
The worst case scenario here is, you spend a week digging into the extra reading, and at the end of the week you still don't think it's relevant. If that happens, then you can go make a well-informed case to your advisor: "As I understand these books, they're only addressing X and Y, but my project here has to do with Z, and it would be a mistake to conflate those issues." Maybe he'll see things your way. Maybe he'll be able to point out connections between X, Y and Z that you can make use of. Either way, the conversation will go better if you've done the reading. So do the reading.
posted by nebulawindphone at 10:56 AM on September 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
Are you referencing the readings he suggested? "AuthorA's thesis that the foo is indicative of neo-bar was co-opted by AuthorB's theory of baz, which, in my opinion abstacts away the essential notion of qux."
Also, you're using the wrong units. Rewriting a 7000 word chapter is hard! A 12 page chapter, not as hard.
posted by at at 10:56 AM on September 6, 2011
Also, you're using the wrong units. Rewriting a 7000 word chapter is hard! A 12 page chapter, not as hard.
posted by at at 10:56 AM on September 6, 2011
Also, I just want to add, in response to your last bit
But saying something isn't quite "there" without elaborating is frustrating to get my head around
Unfortunately, this is pretty much just the reality of becoming a scholar. He may not be able to give you a better answer on what he's looking for because there isn't a right answer that your work is lacking, he just sees that it isn't as novel or complex or insightful or well explained (or something else) as what he was expecting or hoping to read. As you learn to read your own work more critically, you'll start to also sense when it isn't quite "there." Its a struggle. A really frustrating struggle.
posted by juliapangolin at 10:57 AM on September 6, 2011
But saying something isn't quite "there" without elaborating is frustrating to get my head around
Unfortunately, this is pretty much just the reality of becoming a scholar. He may not be able to give you a better answer on what he's looking for because there isn't a right answer that your work is lacking, he just sees that it isn't as novel or complex or insightful or well explained (or something else) as what he was expecting or hoping to read. As you learn to read your own work more critically, you'll start to also sense when it isn't quite "there." Its a struggle. A really frustrating struggle.
posted by juliapangolin at 10:57 AM on September 6, 2011
Over the years I have learned that a large number of people in positions of authority cannot express what they want, but know what they "don't want". This is true in academe, the not-for-profit sector, the public sector, and I would wager, in the private sector as well.
If you're on reasonably genial terms with your supervisor, I'd ask for a meeting. Here's what the agenda for the meeting would look like:
1) Acknowledge criticisms without offering *any* excuses.
2) Note steps you've taken to address the criticisms.
-Reading
-Beginning work rewriting chapter
3) Specifically on the chapter undergoing rewrite, try to tease out what he was struggling with. Clarity in writing? Organization? Logical flow of arguments? Evidence of research? He may say "all of the above". OK then, you now have a list of items to address.
4) Agreement that in X days, re-written chapter will be submitted, with your new list of items addressed. You really want to make him goggle? Append a crosswalk showing areas changed based on items in your new list.
Bottom line, show him you mean business with your research, and that this was a one-time deal.
posted by LN at 11:14 AM on September 6, 2011
If you're on reasonably genial terms with your supervisor, I'd ask for a meeting. Here's what the agenda for the meeting would look like:
1) Acknowledge criticisms without offering *any* excuses.
2) Note steps you've taken to address the criticisms.
-Reading
-Beginning work rewriting chapter
3) Specifically on the chapter undergoing rewrite, try to tease out what he was struggling with. Clarity in writing? Organization? Logical flow of arguments? Evidence of research? He may say "all of the above". OK then, you now have a list of items to address.
4) Agreement that in X days, re-written chapter will be submitted, with your new list of items addressed. You really want to make him goggle? Append a crosswalk showing areas changed based on items in your new list.
Bottom line, show him you mean business with your research, and that this was a one-time deal.
posted by LN at 11:14 AM on September 6, 2011
If I read this critique, my thought process would be:
Sounds like you felt there was some truth to it, so you have set aside your ego, done some more in-depth reading, and decided to do a re-write. Good for you!
However, I'm concerned that you have already written 1000 words in that re-write. Sounds like you've moved very quickly on the feedback you received, and yet that feedback, beyond READ MOAR, was really vague and hand-wavey.
So you may, again, run into trouble with your supervisor, and I'd hate for you to do this re-write and get essentially the same criticism right back. Are you really clear about what the problem was with the "quality of ideas" you were espousing? Did you abandon them, or find more support to show him that they are perfectly valid ideas? Or (and this is what concerns me) are you just trying to say the same thing in a different way?
I'd definitely want more specific feedback from my supervisor before I wrote more. I'd probably send something to him along the lines of:
"I've been reading through your chapter. I can't say it's going well--and it's not "there" enough for me to add much value with specific comments at this stage.Now, if this is a valid critique, and you haven't been putting enough thought and research behind your arguments, PhoBWanKenobi's advice to separate your ego from your work is essential to moving forward.
Not going well? Damn. Not "there" enough for "specific comments"--Hmm. Sounds like he gets the impression from my writing that I haven't figured out myself where this is going. Maybe I need to pin my arguments down and be more specific?
There are problems with the quality of the ideas and with the sorts of things you are saying. But it's not going to be helpful to go further down this road if the main problem is whether you have enough reading behind you."
Errgh. The "quality of the ideas," "the sorts of things you are saying"--Wow, so it isn't just that I am not being specific enough, it's that he thinks my ideas themselves are either superficial or not supported by the literature.
Sounds like you felt there was some truth to it, so you have set aside your ego, done some more in-depth reading, and decided to do a re-write. Good for you!
However, I'm concerned that you have already written 1000 words in that re-write. Sounds like you've moved very quickly on the feedback you received, and yet that feedback, beyond READ MOAR, was really vague and hand-wavey.
So you may, again, run into trouble with your supervisor, and I'd hate for you to do this re-write and get essentially the same criticism right back. Are you really clear about what the problem was with the "quality of ideas" you were espousing? Did you abandon them, or find more support to show him that they are perfectly valid ideas? Or (and this is what concerns me) are you just trying to say the same thing in a different way?
I'd definitely want more specific feedback from my supervisor before I wrote more. I'd probably send something to him along the lines of:
"I've read blahblahblah, as you recommended, and I see your point about (myidea).posted by misha at 11:17 AM on September 6, 2011 [4 favorites]
I've decided to approach this from another angle, and bring in (thisaccreditedguy)'s research and (thislearnedwoman)'s perspective to introduce my argument, and then go on from there to explain why it is valid.
I hope that helps clarify where I'm coming from. Are we on the same page here? I'd appreciate your feedback, and any specific concerns you might have about my ideas for revision. Thanks--anonymous"
I have written 1000 new words today
Were they good words?
I doubt you wrote 1000 new words of polished, tight, snappy prose. I'm an academic, and behind every published word is probably 5 pages of crap I threw away. I have to write to think well, and sure, there are loads of days when I bang out 1000 words of notes. But getting from there to the polished product on which my career and reputation rests, well -- it's more than a day per 1000 words.
posted by kestrel251 at 2:52 PM on September 6, 2011
Were they good words?
I doubt you wrote 1000 new words of polished, tight, snappy prose. I'm an academic, and behind every published word is probably 5 pages of crap I threw away. I have to write to think well, and sure, there are loads of days when I bang out 1000 words of notes. But getting from there to the polished product on which my career and reputation rests, well -- it's more than a day per 1000 words.
posted by kestrel251 at 2:52 PM on September 6, 2011
Read more, write less. If you're not happy with the depth of his feedback get a new supervisor but he's basically telling you that you haven't read enough to write well enough at this point in time.
posted by mleigh at 2:58 PM on September 6, 2011
posted by mleigh at 2:58 PM on September 6, 2011
mleigh is right, more reading. I would be interested to know where you are in your studentship, starting writing too early is not uncommon - some students don't feel they have done any work until they can see writing on a page but this can often be a waste of time if the foundations aren't in place for meaningful writing.
Also, the chances are that by next week he will have forgotten what he said this week.
To address this and to avoid the problem of not knowing what you are supposed to do next, in future at the end of a supervision session you should agree with your supervisor what your next actions will be. It is good practice to then send an email to your supervisor as below. Tell him you think it is a good idea, and ask him to reply to you once you send the report. the report should be short, key points only. If you take an hour to write it you're doing it wrong.
Dear Prof,
Discussed: blah blah
Agreed: blah blah
Actions:
Student: blah blah
Supervisor: blah blah
Next meeting: XX Oct. 2011
Write this in an email, send it to supervisor. This also makes it easier for the supervisor to look at the email next time you see him and gives you a more coherent supervisory experience.
posted by biffa at 3:27 PM on September 6, 2011
Also, the chances are that by next week he will have forgotten what he said this week.
To address this and to avoid the problem of not knowing what you are supposed to do next, in future at the end of a supervision session you should agree with your supervisor what your next actions will be. It is good practice to then send an email to your supervisor as below. Tell him you think it is a good idea, and ask him to reply to you once you send the report. the report should be short, key points only. If you take an hour to write it you're doing it wrong.
Dear Prof,
Discussed: blah blah
Agreed: blah blah
Actions:
Student: blah blah
Supervisor: blah blah
Next meeting: XX Oct. 2011
Write this in an email, send it to supervisor. This also makes it easier for the supervisor to look at the email next time you see him and gives you a more coherent supervisory experience.
posted by biffa at 3:27 PM on September 6, 2011
Also, you're using the wrong units. Rewriting a 7000 word chapter is hard! A 12 page chapter, not as hard.
7000 words is more like 24 pages (plus/minus a few depending on font and margins), assuming normal double-spaced, etc, manuscript pages.
I've been on both sides of this, and can sympathize with both the asker and the professor. As a reader, there are times when someone hands you something that doesn't need small, specific comments -- it needs the response of "read more now, and rewrite later," which is what this feedback sounds like to me.
Students commonly read very narrowly:
He has suggested specific readings, some of which I have looked at before, but perhaps not in as much detail, becuase they seemed not to be resourceful in terms of the arguments I was making. But I am reading them again, nonetheless.
This sounds like you are doing that kind of narrow reading -- reading those sources looking for ways to use them for your specific arguments, rather than reading them to understand and situate your argument within a broader academic debate.
You are right that you probably have to do a full rewrite on your chapter. But if the problem is that you haven't read enough, you need to do that before doing the rewrite. I like the suggestions above of doing the reading, and then coming in to your next meeting with a proposal of how to incorporate those concepts and ideas, rather than jumping straight into the full rewrite before you are ready.
posted by Forktine at 6:09 AM on September 7, 2011 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by RogerB at 10:13 AM on September 6, 2011