They say, in the department, that nobody ever reads the synopsis (also called exegesis or kappa) except the examiners. So I followed the standard template assiduously. And failed spectacularly. Oh, I had original contributions to make, my examiners were convinced, but my presentation of my dissertation research was not only not accepted for publication (and hence public defence) but the decision agreed by all was that this was a major revision. Not a minor one. Not a moderate one. Not an outright rejection either. Nope. It was ‘go back and do it all over again’.
So I did.
As I sit here now, less than a week after sending it in again for re-examination, I can only think that this decision was the best thing that ever happened to me in my doctoral journey. A major revision comes with ample time to think, to review, to revise, and to rewrite. The committee offers you 12 months for delivery. I aimed for 3, then aspired to finish in 6 but by the time the myriad little details were all worked out and last minute corrections shoved in, it was almost 7 months before it was ready to go public. I hope my examiners haven’t forgotten me, I’ve been in my cave for so long.
This time I wrote something that wanted to be read. Its a nuanced difference, but I think an important one for me.
I now approached it as the public dissemination of academic scholarship as a doctoral candidate of a university whose birth I remember. Whose reveal party I attended in September 2007; whose prototype I toured in September 2008; and whose research community I joined in September 2019. Yet, interestingly, no matter how often I look back over almost 20 years of involvement, I cannot find any evidence that I could have ever produced anything of this quality and positionality had I begun writing my doctoral thesis any earlier than this time of life.
That is, this is not the dissertation of what is commonly known as “an early career researcher” although technically, according to the formal academic definition, that is exactly what I am at this grand old age of 60. I remember telling someone I’m not “early career” anything at this point. On one hand, as my publications show, I have only a handful of peer reviewed scientific research articles; a popular way to assess the relative “earliness” of a researcher’s career. On the other hand, I have more than 10 commissioned research reports and a track record of funded research projects going back the same 20 years. Its complicated, she said.
For now I will use the status of ‘Independent Researcher’. Its a good enough at this moment in time. I have built reputations, brands, and careers over the past 36 years. Now, I will undergo my own major revision; in no small thanks to the fatal crash of this website.
It opens a new question: What do I want to build next?
This is an absolutely wonderful question. It motivates. It does not inspire. But, what it does is, leave open many possibilities and many searchways for inspiration. In the meantime, I have my blog up and running. And, that, perhaps, is the most important thing of all at transitional times like this.
Here be ‘playgrounds of the mind‘ (with apologies to Larry Niven)…