As I sit and work through the Results and Findings chapter of my thesis, I take a break to peruse the course offerings for next spring (not that I need to, my regular courses are done so now it’s a nostalgic distraction!).

This gets me thinking about Ian Lamont’s enthusiasm for the Bond brothers’ proseminar (he took it several years ago and it’s being offered this fall). I can see why he’s a fan. If you compare their syllabus with a couple others in the government/history group (under Social Sciences), there is a real difference.

You could ask the ALM office for their advice about which prosem to take, which one might be better for you, but I doubt they’ll be straight with you — not wanting to privilege one instructor over another and in my experience, they haven’t been strong in academic advising, etc. etc. So, here’s my seasoned opinion: which one you take does matter, which one you take can make your thesis project easier or harder. If you have experience in doing a research thesis coming into the ALM, it probably won’t matter as much.  I like the Bond brothers syllabus because they keep their eyes on the prize of educating you on the process. They make it clear they’ll be spending a great deal of class time discussing how you do the thesis and what approaches you could take. The process won’t be an add-on to the content.

Look at their syllabus. It has several books just on the process, from Research Design by Cresswill (a copy can be found in Gutman) to the statistics book (More Damned Lies). The syllabus directly addresses quant/qual/mixed methods, surveys/interviews/modeling, case studies, and data analysis for the social studies. These topics matter. Even if you don’t have a particular thesis subject in mind at that point, it’s a great place to learn about and begin discussing possibilities.  If you have covered these aspects of a thesis in the proseminar, you will, quite possibly, save yourself some headaches, back-filling, additional learning, time, and sleep when you get to the Thesis Proposal, research, analysis, and writing.

Let me be clear: I am not saying the other proseminars aren’t good, aren’t worth it. I am saying that from the syllabus comparison, my own Proseminar experience and Ian’s comments about his, I think anyone reading this who is wondering which proseminar to take and is there really any distinction between them…think carefully about what I’m saying here and what your needs are going into the program, which ultimately is about doing/finishing a thesis. (The thesis may be the biggest obstacle to completing the degree so it’s not trivial how you prepare for it).

For those who might be intimidated by the research rigor implied in the Bond brothers’ syllabus, keep in mind that if you took their class as a precursor to applying and didn’t like the course material, you might not like the thesis either! Better to find out early and save a lot of money, time, and effort. The ALM, the thesis in particular, is not for everybody.

It seems that all other prosems, such as the one I took and the ones being offered now, offer a syllabus which places the emphasis more on the content. There is no standard syllabus with each class getting equal exposure to the various options, methods, etc., that can then be adjusted by faculty for their particular subject. Each prosem has practice in working with primary and secondary sources, writing a book review, a lit. review, a research question and a final paper…for the most part. These various elements will come up over and over throughout the program. However, the thesis prep supplied by the proseminar is not equal across all prosem offerings.

Therefore, I urge those of you who have not done a research thesis previously, also those who have been out of school for some time, to take the Bond brothers’ class.

Harvard libraries have a new, live service “Ask Us Live”. Great idea. Gave it a try today.  As I write up my second chapter (Literature Review), I needed a good definition of “cognate literature”. I wanted to be sure I knew what it meant specifically. So I used their IM service. One caveat: they say it’s primarily for Harvard students, faculty, etc. but since I didn’t have to do via my Harvard email account, just sent it on their website, how would they know?

Anyway, it wasn’t as helpful as I’d hoped. Initially, I stumped them and they had to take a few minutes to check around. When the answer came back, it was mostly what I’d already found in the online (Harvard login required) reference materials. They pasted an Oxford Dict. definition of “cognate”. But they took a stab at the application to a lit. review and it made sense to me: “literature that expands on my subject or that describes related situations”.

They say you can ask anything, so it’s definitely worth a shot if you’re in the midst of writing and need a quick fact.

The ‘bible’ of thesis writing, Kate Turabian’s manual, talks about storyboarding as a way to line up your evidence for your argument and to work through your arguments. She recommends it as a method before doing an outline, esp. in the early stages of the research: “an outline can force you to specify too much too soon and so lock up a final form before you’ve done your best thinking”. (21) The storyboard is more specific than an outline in its own way by focusing only on the heart of the thesis (the evidence and rebuttals), forcing you to name the evidence and see how strong each of your hypotheses really is.

When I first heard the term ’storyboard’ I thought of the movie and ad agency technique that puts the narrative up in visual form. This idea of conceiving of the thesis as a narrative appeals to the ‘intuitive’ and creative aspects of my personality which naturally rebels against the drier, academic style of writing. An outline is a linear, left-brain method that includes the whole thesis (from title to appendices) whereas the storyboard narrows in to the key elements. The traditional definition of storyboard dovetails with process tracing as a technique; a narrative is what process tracing creates.

I have an outline (in my TD’s hands awaiting approval next week) but I’ve begun the storyboard for the “main theory” and “contributing factors” of my thesis.

I modified Turabian’s process to make it work best for me. So I’ve got a page for each hypothesis – each has a section for evidence, possible rebuttals, and my counter-argument. Storyboarding is akin to taking a bright light and shining it on your work: either you have the evidence or you don’t. If it’s non-existent or slim, you figure out just where you need to find more, maybe give it up, or move that idea to the bottom rung. Whatever you do, get a working hypothesis sooner rather than later then see what stats, quotes, official reports, observations, facts, etc. you can garner in its support.

(a brief sidenote about timing — without a cohort to check your progress against, it’s hard to tell if you are ‘behind’ at a certain point. I just had lunch with a friend who graduated from the ALM in June. She said she didn’t start writing her draft up until October last year; her deadline was late February. Her advisor had her reading new material and conceptualizing for the first couple of months of her thesis time and she also was traveling for a month over the summer).

Just received a couple of notices about the upcoming convention. One in particular – Grad Student Happy Hour – made me smile. So…does this mean grad students have only one hour in which to be happy?

Couple of panels of personal interest:

Aug. 29: Roundtable: Realism Redux: What does it mean to be a Realist in the Contemporary World? (One of my favorites will be there, Steve Walt).

Aug. 30: Military Effectiveness

Aug. 30: Norms, Weapons, and War

Aug. 30: Roundtable: Comparing the Iraq and Viet Nam Wars

Aug. 30: The Control of Private Security (a recent acquaintence of mine, Ulrich Petersohn, will be a panelist).

Aug. 31: Basing, Power Projection, and America’s Presence in the Asia-Pacific (bunch of US Naval Academy guys! What do you think their take on this will be?)

There are social events, networking, job search, etc. along with the professional panels. Since the event is in my hometown, Boston, I couldn’t pass it up this year.

Here’s a quick list from the APSA site of related graduate student links:

Association for Support of Graduate Students
ASGS is a service organization of graduate students, graduate-student organizations (GSOs), and graduate-degree-granting institutions. ASGS services and products assist students to complete their theses and obtain their degrees, produce the highest quality of theses, and improve their lives during the thesis process.
http://www.asgs.org

Chronicle of Higher Education
Contains job postings, career talk, and advice columns which are geared towards graduate students and recent graduates. Updated weekly.
http://www.chronicle.com

Council of Graduate Schools
Sponsors awards programs, publishes pamphlets and booklets for grad students.
http://www.cgsnet.org

National Association of Graduate-Professional Students
http://www.nagps2.org/

Hope to have a de-brief here of the panels I go to — may be posted the first week of September.

As I embark on the thesis work with my newly-assigned Director, a friend asked me today if I was interested in joining a thesis support group! Good idea, actually since there is only a small nod to this kind of vital support within the ALM program (for a variety of reasons, I suspect). Here’s one I just came across – Phinished! “The Phorum is the place for exchanging ideas, information, helpful tips, support, and advice with your fellow thesis and dissertation travelers.”

I gathered about seven ALM Social Sciences proposals (including the Manual’s examples) to review during this phase of the thesis. That’s been very helpful. I can see how other students put their thoughts on paper; created a coherent, interesting flow for their ideas; organized them; wove in the scholars, other experts, and reports and/or data on their topic. There are some typos and foonote goofs (proofreading wasn’t perfect) but anyone who’s written a long paper, thesis, etc. will appreciate that after a while you can’t proof your own work — it’s too familiar. Apparently, even the faculty member didn’t pick up the errors. They are few and far between — this isn’t a criticism, it’s actually a bit heartening to see that no one’s work is perfect (and these are small problems).

There are several sections in the Proposal. The two key parts: the Research Problem (should be no more than 2-3 pages) and the Background (varies in length, 5-10 pages). I have my draft of the Research Problem out for critique by colleagues. I’ve got the Background section half done. The next few days I’m away for a brief vacation. When I get back, I will finish the Background draft and send it out to the same readers for feedback. Then it’s off to Dr. O for the initial submission by the second week of May.

As I read over my lit. reviews (sooo many), I have been able to eliminate ones that aren’t on point and focus on those related to my question. But researching my topic (armed contractors on the battlefield in OIF) over several months meant that I read a LOT on various aspect of military contracting: the history of it in the U.S., esp. since Viet Nam and the end of the Cold War; the rise of private military firms in the 1990s; the reasons why the U.S. military turned to contractors in the 1990s; military doctrine, instructions, regulations, guides, etc. on contractors (for both military personnel and the contractors themselves); and, military articles and theses as well as scholarly materials (Singer, Avant, Isenberg) on the topic. All that as mere background for the main show: OIF, the first use of armed security contractors by the U.S. on the battlefield. There’s plenty of reading on that now but almost none yet that focuses on operational coordination. (I’ve also been interviewing a mix of civil-mil folks for background, context, and OIF experiences — more fun than working alone with my books).

One thorn in my side has been the bibliography – mine has been long-ish (9 pages) and Dr. O has cautioned me to cut it down to 4-5. Yet, as I look at ALM Proposal examples and my friend’s finished thesis (250 pages with a 10 page biblio), I’m feeling better with the 7 pages it’s at now. I’m convinced the ALM Manual examples, with their 1.5 – 2 page biblios, have been intentionally cropped so students will think that’s appropriate. Typically, when I write a 20 page paper, I have a page and a half (approx) biblio. So for a 100 page thesis, I can see that 4-5 pages is not ridiculous or bloated. (All of this is relative, of course. It depends on your topic, how complicated it is, how much material you need to make your points, etc.).

Twice this week, as I’ve skimmed my lit. reviews and drafted up half of the proposal, I’ve felt renewed confidence in the project. Back in Feb. and March, slogging through all the lit. reviews was like slowly going through a long tunnel. Not fun and seemingly never-ending. It’s great to pick up speed again and exercise my writing skills more. For the first time, as I put the proposal together, I have a concrete product to show for my efforts that will go out into the world.

This is a funny experience. Not funny “ha, ha”; funny peculiar. One day you’re burdened under a task that feels sisyphisian (look it up, everyone has days like this). A few days later, you’re free of the weight and cruising along! Up and down it goes. For a while, I thought the lit. review phase would never end. The important point is that you do break free eventually. If you keep plugging away at it and keep your mind open to ways of working smarter, then things really do move forward. Sometimes suddenly. The fact it’s spring and things are going from brown to green in a day…also lifts my spirits.

Went to this month’s thesis writers’ group last night. Couple of tidbits:

1. a question that has come up a few times: should the thesis writer copyright her thesis? The consensus (and Dr. O.’s advice) – not necessary but if it makes you feel better, put the © symbol, along with the date, on the second page.

2. a friend of mine just handed her in final thesis for Dr. O.’s formatting review. It is 250 pages. I asked her how long her biblio was — 10 pages. So my struggle to cut mine down to 4 may not be necessary.

3. Dr. O. reminded everyone that a good way to approach the thesis work is to try to actively refute your argument. That way you’ll find the flaws and if it holds up, so much the better.

4. Dr. O. said there have been forty theses submitted in the past three graduation cycles and he has over seven to read for this June. This kind of amazes me since it doesn’t jibe with the ‘graduation rate’ data we’ve heard. I believe Dr. O.’s numbers so I’m actually encouraged; seems the number of grads is higher than we think.

5. Anyone hoping to graduate in June, 2009 should have attended the February meeting. That’s the first meeting of the semester which also is the one in which Dr. O. outlines, in-depth, the thesis time line and process, from initial idea to final submission. He covers a broad range of issues and answers all kinds of questions. If you only go to one meeting a semester, go to the first one (Sept. or Feb.).

6. Two items not mentioned last night but good to know:

a) the ALM Manual is several years old with some advice that should be updated. For instance, in the proposal section where it instructs you to include a paragraph covering “my anticipated conclusion is…” — scratch that. Instead, talk about why this study is important. It’s not great form to talk about your anticipated conclusion when you’re still in the thick of it.

b) remember to annotate the “works consulted” section of your biblio in the proposal. One line per item is fine.

My blogger friend, Ian, at Harvard Extended, had a very different research experience from mine when he delved into his topic — so I wanted to share his POV:

I had a different sort of challenge for my thesis — identifying existing research for an obscure topic, and whittling down the focus to something manageable and testable. Primary sources weren’t a problem (I used thousands of articles from the Xinhua News Agency) but there wasn’t much recent literature on the foreign policy issues involved — in fact, the two sources that I tested my data against were a journal article from the late 1980s and a book from the early 1990s. And while the computer content analysis literature is quite extensive, I was unable to find any specific studies that were based on Xinhua’s English-language service.

Ian picked a quantitative approach, which is unusual in Social Science ALMs, so I think that may have compounded his trouble. But I think the ‘take-away’ message from both of us: the research process is not easy or predictable. Steel yourself!

NYU’s Center for Law and Security is sponsoring a half-day seminar called “Privatizing Defense: Blackwater,  Contractors, and American Security”. They will discuss “the outsourcing phenomenon and its ramifications for American institutions, the future of the military, and for the national security community.”

It’s free and open to the public. Details:

Date: Thursday, April 3, 2008
Time: 1:45-5:45 p.m.
Location: Lipton Hall, 108 W. 3rd Street

They have a very good speaker list. (I just spoke to them about podcasting it and they assure me they will put the whole event up as a podcast about 2 weeks later. So, if attending is not possible, look for the podcast by late April.)

Another group at NYU focusing on this issue – The Project on Private Military and Security Companies. They have compiled a targeted bibliography.

The International Peace Academy has a database (updated Feb. 2008) of over 150 researchers around the world who are studying private security issues.

Their website describes the purpose for the database:

” The database will facilitate the effective regulation of international private security by improving coordination of research, commentary and civil society input into existing and new regulatory processes.”

Furthermore,

“Listing in the database is open to all independent researchers from academia and civil society organizations, anywhere in the world, writing in any language.”