Becoming most fully ourselves : gender, voice, and ritual in dissertations

The writing and defense of the dissertation serve both as demonstration one is able to do the work of a scholar and as a rite of initiation. In contrast to much academic writing, dissertations generally adhere to narrowly conceived notions of academic discourse. I explore this within the context of an academic community in which under-representation remains a serious issue. This dissertation is about women writing dissertations. I draw from conversations with fifteen women, in or beyond, the process; friends’ anecdotes; published accounts; and, autobiographically, my experience. I suggest the dissertation’s initiatory role is at least as important as its scholarly role; during the process one establishes a sense of self as scholar, writer, and researcher. Students come to the dissertation with some notion of self as writer and scholar – a culturally negotiated sense that is more, or less, congruent with the culturally established self required for successful completion of the dissertation. The degree of congruence (or alternatively, harmony and dissonance) shapes the process of doing a dissertation. I argue that both the community and the language in which dissertations must generally be written are gendered masculine. Negotiating a voice that is acceptable in a dissertation while maintain fidelity to a sense of who one is seems more problematic as one’s distance from the center of dominant culture increases. Believing that agency lies in altering the reiteration of such processes, I worked with my committee to find ways to alter the process yet still do a dissertation I write in a variety of voices – essay and poetry as well as analytical – play with visual qualities of text, and experiment with non-verbal interpretations. These don’t exhaust possibilities, but do give a sense of how the rich variety of expression found in academe cam be brought into the dissertation. I thus demonstrate that one need not reconstitute herself through characteristic academic discourse in order to be initiated into the community of scholars. I suggest both the desirability of encouraging flexibility in the language, form, and process, of dissertations, and the theoretical necessity for such flexibility if the academic community is to become diverse. The writing and defense of the dissertation serve both as demonstration one is able to do the work of a scholar and as a rite of initiation. In contrast to much academic writing, dissertations generally adhere to narrowly conceived notions of academic discourse. I explore this within the context of an academic community in which under-representation remains a serious issue. This dissertation is about women writing dissertations. I draw from conversations with fifteen women, in or beyond, the process; friends’ anecdotes; published accounts; and, autobiographically, my experience. I suggest the dissertation’s initiatory role is at least as important as its scholarly role; during the process one establishes a sense of self as scholar, writer, and researcher Students come to the dissertation with some notion of self as writer and scholar – a culturally negotiated sense that is more, or less, congruent with the culturally established self required for successful completion of the dissertation. The degree of congruence (or alternatively, harmony and dissonance) shapes the process of doing a dissertation. I argue that both the community and the language in which dissertations must generally be written are gendered masculine. Negotiating a voice that is acceptable in a dissertation while maintain fidelity to a sense of who one is seems more problematic as one’s distance from the center of dominant culture increases. Believing that agency lies in altering the reiteration of such processes, I worked with my committee to find ways to alter the process yet still do a dissertation I write in a variety of voices – essay and poetry as well as analytical – play with visual qualities of text, and experiment with non-verbal interpretations. These don’t exhaust possibilities, but do give a sense of how the rich variety of expression found in academe cam be brought into the dissertation. I thus demonstrate that one need not reconstitute herself through characteristic academic discourse in order to be initiated into the community of scholars. I suggest both the desirability of encouraging flexibility in the language, form, and process, of dissertations, and the theoretical necessity for such flexibility if the academic community is to become diverse. The writing and defense of the dissertation serve both as demonstration one is able to do the work of a scholar and as a rite of initiation. In contrast to much academic writing, dissertations generally adhere to narrowly conceived notions of academic discourse. I explore this within the context of an academic community in which under-representation remains a serious issue. This dissertation is about women writing dissertations. I draw from conversations with fifteen women, in or beyond, the process; friends’ anecdotes; published accounts; and, autobiographically, my experience. I suggest the dissertation’s initiatory role is at least as important as its scholarly role; during the process one establishes a sense of self as scholar, writer, and researcher Students come to the dissertation with some notion of self as writer and scholar – a culturally negotiated sense that is more, or less, congruent with the culturally established self required for successful completion of the dissertation. The degree of congruence (or alternatively, harmony and dissonance) shapes the process of doing a dissertation. I argue that both the community and the language in which dissertations must generally be written are gendered masculine. Negotiating a voice that is acceptable in a dissertation while maintain fidelity to a sense of who one is seems more problematic as one’s distance from the center of dominant culture increases. Believing that agency lies in altering the reiteration of such processes, I worked with my committee to find ways to alter the process yet still do a dissertation I write in a variety of voices – essay and poetry as well as analytical – play with visual qualities of text, and experiment with non-verbal interpretations. These don’t exhaust possibilities, but do give a sense of how the rich variety of expression found in academe cam be brought into the dissertation. I thus demonstrate that one need not reconstitute herself through characteristic academic discourse in order to be initiated into the community of scholars. I suggest both the desirability of encouraging flexibility in the language, form, and process, of dissertations, and the theoretical necessity for such flexibility if the academic community is to become diverse. The writing and defense of the dissertation serve both as demonstration one is able to do the work of a scholar and as a rite of initiation. In contrast to much academic writing, dissertations generally adhere to narrowly conceived notions of academic discourse. I explore this within the context of an academic community in which under-representation remains a serious issue. This dissertation is about women writing dissertations. I draw from conversations with fifteen women, in or beyond, the process; friends’ anecdotes; published accounts; and, autobiographically, my experience. I suggest the dissertation’s initiatory role is at least as important as its scholarly role; during the process one establishes a sense of self as scholar, writer, and researcher Students come to the dissertation with some notion of self as writer and scholar – a culturally negotiated sense that is more, or less, congruent with the culturally established self required for successful completion of the dissertation. The degree of congruence (or alternatively, harmony and dissonance) shapes the process of doing a dissertation. I argue that both the community and the language in which dissertations must generally be written are gendered masculine. Negotiating a voice that is acceptable in a dissertation while maintain fidelity to a sense of who one is seems more problematic as one’s distance from the center of dominant culture increases. Believing that agency lies in altering the reiteration of such processes, I worked with my committee to find ways to alter the process yet still do a dissertation I write in a variety of voices – essay and poetry as well as analytical – play with visual qualities of text, and experiment with non-verbal interpretations. These don’t exhaust possibilities, but do give a sense of how the rich variety of expression found in academe cam be brought into the dissertation. I thus demonstrate that one need not reconstitute herself through characteristic academic discourse in order to be initiated into the community of scholars. I suggest both the desirability of encouraging flexibility in the language, form, and process, of dissertations, and the theoretical necessity for such flexibility if the academic community is to become diverse.

International teachers in the American classroom : deposing the myth of monolingualism

An international graduate teaching assistant‘s way of speaking may pose a challenge for college students enrolled in STEM courses at American universities. Students commonly complain that unfamiliar accents interfere with their ability to comprehend the IGTA or that they have difficulty making sense of the IGTA‘s use of words or phrasing. These frustrations are echoed by parents who pay tuition bills. The issue has provoked state and national legislative debates over universities‘ use of IGTAs. However, potentially productive debates and interventions have been stalemated due to the failure to confront deeply embedded myths and cultural models that devalue otherness and privilege dominant peoples, processes, and knowledge. My research implements a method of inquiry designed to identify and challenge these cultural frameworks in order to create an ideological/cultural context that will facilitate rather than impede the valuable efforts that are already in place. Discourse theorist Paul Gee‘s concepts of master myth, cultural models, and meta-knowledge offer analytical tools that I have adapted in a unique research approach emphasizing triangulation of both analytic methods and data sites. I examine debates over IGTA‘s use of language in the classroom among policy-makers, parents of college students, and scholars and teachers. First, the article "Teach Impediment" provides a particularly lucid account of the public debate over IGTAs. My analysis evidences the cultural hold of the master myth of monolingualism in public policy-making. Second, Michigan Technological University‘s email listserve Parentnet is analyzed to identify cultural models supporting monolingualism implicit in everyday conversation. Third, a Chronicle of Higher Education colloquy forum is analyzed to explore whether scholars and teachers who draw on communication and linguistic research overcome the ideological biases identified in earlier chapters. My analysis indicates that a persistent ideological bias plays out in these data sites, despite explicit claims by invested speakers to the contrary. This bias is a key reason why monolingualism remains so tenaciously a part of educational practice. Because irrational expectations and derogatory assumptions have gone unchallenged, little progress has been made despite decades of earnest work and good intentions. Therefore, my recommendations focus on what we say not what we intend.