A Plea for Artistic Scholarship and Dissertation Reform

Meg E. Lockard & Becca Godfrey-Poe

The dissertation monograph has lately been called into question by students, faculty,
scholars, and even by the Modern Language Association (Jaschik, 2012; Smith, 2010). But progress
is slow and change is even slower. And despite these recent intimations, the digital revolution, and
the present economic and educational climates, we as an academic community in general seem to
remain under the assumption that the traditional dissertation is the best way to determine the acuity
of doctoral candidates, their preparedness for future faculty positions, and their ability to conduct
pertinent research. So instead of evolving, the dissertation remains bound in a static, hard-copy
format, running counter to the fluidity of our digital age and the expectations and talents of the
contemporary student population. To add yet another facet to the argument for a creative,
multimodal dissertation is to introduce the problem of social justice. For example, New Mexico
State Universitys Department of Curriculum & Instruction, like many other social-justice focused
departments, demands learning as activism, which is fundamental for students and faculty to
become responsible and committed professionals to create educational, cultural, and social change
(NMSU, 2012, para. 2). The activism that NMSU demands can, we argue, be actualized by
encouraging and allowing alternatively formatted dissertations that use the general public as opposed
to the dissertation committee as the audience for such important graduate research. To our minds,
there is a critical need, not just an opportunity, to reform the way our department in particular and
research universities in general perceive and handle the dissertation. We posit that by encouraging
students to explore alternative formats for their dissertation research, departments such as NMSUs
C&I program, could create public discourse precipitating social justice; foster the radical, forward

A PLEA FOR ART

thinkers that the department values; equip historically silenced individuals with powerful, creative
voices; harness the intellectual and creative talents of student researchers who see more expansive,
meaningful implications for their work; accelerate the time to graduation; and even increase
retention rates for PhD students who more and more struggle with waning funding, interest, and
motivation.
The etymological basis of the dissertation is a writing of one for an elite audienceone

student takes on a massive essay that is intended only for the few doctoral committee members. For
this reason of exclusivity, we postulate that the idea of the impermeable dissertation monograph
must be expanded so that it can become a means of contributing more amply to the body of
knowledge or learning. And to do so, we must embrace modern forms of communication,
collaboration, and art. In order to disseminate research beyond the scope of the bound dissertation,
we must change the purpose of the dissertation itself from a mere hurdle to an instrument of social
justice. We contend that such a change will evolve the doctoral rite-of-passage into an effective
form of public discourse. Reforming the dissertation process and product would ultimately help
research institutions (whether social-justice oriented or not) avoid the problem that Adams, Bell, and
Griffin (2007) fear, which is that the phrase social justice is in danger of becoming a buzz term,
used uncritically and lacking the analytic perspective and personal engagement that . . . are its
indispensable features (p. xvii). Therefore, if we intend to avoid using social justice as mere
phraseology or mediaspeak, then we must find ways to engage in 21st-century discourse that reach
far beyond the doctoral committee. Expanding our idea that the five-chapter dissertation
monograph is the only or best way to assess and test PhD students is a means to begin that critical
discourse.
Aligning Interests

A PLEA FOR ART

Our proposal to reform the dissertation format considers the agendas of three specific
parties, all of whom will benefit by the change: the university (in our case, specifically the
Department of C&I), the PhD student body, and the general public. First, we imagine that NMSUs
Department of C&I1 is interested in:

attracting qualified candidates to the program,

generating PhD graduates in a timely manner as well as maintaining high retention rates,

producing graduates that will draw positive attention to the department,

and developing social activists able to apply their backgrounds in multiculturalism, diversity,
and equity.

Next we will summarize the interests of the student. For todays PhD student, there has been a
gradual shift in agenda. Traditionally, PhD students were prepared by researchers and scholars in
research universities to become researchers and scholars in research universities. However, over the
past 60 years, the goals and purposes of PhD work in many disciplines has changed drastically. In
more and more disciplines, the majority of doctoral students will not become professors but
instead professional practitioners (Willis, Inman, & Valenti, 2010, p. 13). Considering this shift,
the contemporary student expects the following out of his/her PhD program:

to produce work that will lead to desired job opportunities,

to graduate in a timely manner,

to turn research, theory, and discourse into applicable, actionable praxis (Freire, 2005),

and to make a name in the field by adding to the body of knowledge through innovative
research.

We will reference our specific program; however, we feel that the arguments we make are applicable on a broader
scale and can and should be applied to other departments at other research institutions.

A PLEA FOR ART

Finally, the public has demands of its own. And while we realize that the public is made up of its
own subgroups such as employers, teachers, funding agencies, and so on, for the sake of argument,
we lump all of these together and ascribe an agenda that includes access to:

current research and knowledge,

the ability to make informed changes in law, policy, education, and so on,

PhD graduates skilled in not only research but a multidimensional range of activities and
time commitments (Nyquist, 2002, p. 14),

and leaders able to join in and to influence the contemporary, critical discourse.

In short, it is clear that the academy, the student, and the public have agendas and demands that
should, and rightly so, influence the policies surrounding producing capable members of the future
workforce.
While amending the dissertation format is certainly not a cure all and does not come without
its own shortcomings and challenges, we see that doing so will indeed fulfill certain needs of each
group. For the student, for example, a creative adaptation of the dissertation monograph could
provide the type of internal motivation for PhD students that fulfills our human tendency to seek
out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise [our] capacities, to explore, and to learn (Pink,
2009, para. 32). And due to this drive to create, students would progress through designing and
formatting their PhD research with interest, motivation, and vigor, thereby hastening their path to
graduation and fulfilling a need of the departmentthat is, less time to graduation. Moreover, this
freedom to create artistic research might attract employers who value innovation, fulfilling the
students need to gain meaningful employment and the publics need to employ such pioneering
creators. We agree with Jody Nyquist (2002) who sees the changing PhD product as a joyful
renewal of the human endeavor (p. 14). She goes on to say that the PhD was not done wrong;
in fact, it has been done magnificently. But changes in society create new requirements, and we

A PLEA FOR ART

need to honestly assess the efficacy of the PhD now to ensure that its recipients continue to make

the kinds of contributions to the public and private spheres that the nation needs to remain strong
(Nyquist, 2002, p. 14). Nyquists (2002) reminder that PhD recipients have an obligation to maintain
and propel the economic as well as academic spheres in which they function only further supports
our point and brings us to the next phase of our argument.
Spheres of Support
Ours is not an argument to do away with or to lessen the import or rigor of the traditional
dissertation. Ours is an argument to allow students to choose which form their dissertations will
and should take permitting the format enhances the topic, fits the purpose, and speaks to the
intended audience in a way that a traditional dissertation may not necessarily do. And there are
many spheres of import that cry out for this change in their own rights. Here, we will highlight six
of them: political, economical, intellectual, inclusionary, artistic, and social. Our arguments for each
area are brief and intended only to show that a case can be made; we hope to delve more fully into
each sphere in future writings.
Political
A political case can certainly be made in support of alternatively formatted dissertations.
One scholar argues that what we need in academia are artistic projects that move to shape and
influence the public consciousness by critiquing the politically conventional and socially orthodox
(Barone, 2006, p. 219). It is this public consciousness that could be one of the direct beneficiaries of
an alternative dissertation. By changing the dissertation into an avenue of public and political
discourse, we would open the doors for changes in policy. Currently and historically, dissertations
are written for a very limited audience, the candidates committee while the people most in need
of the research contained in these documents (e.g., teachers, administrators, researchers) lack the
time necessary to read the typical dissertation and glean from it that information beneficial to them

A PLEA FOR ART

(Gerber, 2000, p. 480). Thus, we argue that by engaging the public/political sphere in accessible,
relevant discourse, the academic community could finally speak to an audience that has real use for
the research being done. This opportunity would enable the political sector to use the critical
research being done to make changes in laws and policies, to make informed decisions, and to add
their voices to the existing dialogue be that academic, political, social, etc. There would finally exist a
means for the community to enter into discourse, thus precipitating change, equity, and justice.
Barone (2006) hits this point home when he writes that appealing to a wide audience
would generate the kind of public discussion that cuts through the miasma of the political
spectacle (Barone, 2006, p. 226). In other words, by creating accessible, creative, usable research,
we would have the opportunity to engage in public and political discourse that could turn passive
consumers or subjects into activists and makers of change.
Economical
The political sphere is not the only one to require and benefit from an amendment to the
dissertation product. We would be wise to also consider the economic implications of such a
change. One important aspect of the economic sphere to keep in mind is that the new economy
is a more open, immaterial economy in which value generation is less related to material production
than to information content, distribution, and consumer interaction (Saoele, 2001, p. 23). A change
in dissertation format would, of course, change all three of the aspects Saoele (2001) references
above: content, distribution, and consumer interaction (p. 23). Again, it is not the work involved
or the rigor of the dissertation that should change; the argument here is to open up the traditional
dissertation in regard to form, usability, and accessibility. Doing so would arguably meet the needs
and demands of an information-based economy.
In their book The Globalizing Learning Economy, Archibugi and Lundvall (2001) discuss their
choice in using the world learning as opposed to knowledge. They claim that because over the

A PLEA FOR ART

last decades, an acceleration of both knowledge creation and knowledge destruction has taken
place, the key to economic success is not so much having access to a stock of specialized of
knowledge. The key to success is, rather, rapid learning and forgetting (when old ways of doing
things get in the way of learning new ways) (p. 1). It could indeed be argued that the traditional
dissertation is one of those narrowly defined skills [that] may actually even hamper rather than
support economic success (Archibugi & Lundvall, 2001, p. 1). And despite the high esteem
assigned to the dissertation monograph, there seem to be more reasons to amend it than to enforce
it.
Intellectual
A case can certainly be made that an alternatively formatted dissertation would provide a
new intellectual outlet that is untapped where traditional dissertations are concerned. One of the
problems with the dissertation monograph is that it does not challenge students to consider form
and function. Moreover, many students see the dissertation process as more of a hurdle to pass
over on the way to a degree instead of a process of contributing to a field of knowledge and
communicating their findings to a wide audience [emphasis added] (Gerber, 2000, p. 481). In other words,
the traditional dissertation format actually limits a students intellectual potential because it does not
allow them to solve the problem of dialogue and discourse. Archibugi & Lundvall (2001) remind us
that there is also the idea of reciprocity in a highly innovative worldwhere diffusing information
may help the innovator to stay abreast of the next wave of innovations (p. 31). Therefore, to
design and relay research to the general public is a way for ideas to influence the minds of others
who would then be able to build on and improve such ideas. Without encouraging artistic
dissertation projects, we are stunting the potential for intellectual reciprocity.

A PLEA FOR ART

Inclusionary
The argument can also be made that variations on the traditional 5-chapter dissertation
monograph are more apt to meet the needs of diverse learners, and they have the potential to
acknowledge the legitimacy of cultural heritage and practice. Pauline Sameshima, who chose to
create a fiction novel with poetry and artwork integrated as the format of her PhD dissertation,
states that the use of an alternative format can significantly open new spaces for inquiry (p.
53). Specifically, the use of an alternative form of expression encourages reflexive inquiries in
ethnical self-expression, enlarges paradigms of the normative, and develops pedagogical practices
of liberation and acceptance of diversity (p. 52). One group in particular to further benefit from
the artistic aspect of an alternative dissertation format is the feminist group, as detailed by Rishma
Dunlop (2004). She sees this work as a feminist enterprise, engaged in using art forms as . . . [a]
mode of disrupting and challenging traditional, patriarchal forms of scholarly discourse that have
long been entrenched and fossilized in academia (Dunlop, 2004, p. 150). These two authors make
it clear that through artistic scholarship, historically marginalized or silenced groups have the
potential to find powerful, resonating voices.
To foster innovation and to build and bring about fresh, creative solutions that address the
needs of a pluralistic society, we must ensure that intellectually challenging problems are thoroughly
examined by individuals who reflect the broadest possible range of experiences and perspectives.
Artistic
The artistic argument is another one of those reasons to amend as opposed to enforce the
traditional dissertation because, as Goodman (1968) reveals, art has the power to remake our
world (p. 33). And if we can find artistic ways to create critical discourse, then we should most
definitely do so in the very hope that our artistic research could potentially reconstruct a more
equitable society. bell hooks (1994) takes the idea of art and revolution even further. In her book

A PLEA FOR ART

Outlaw Culture: Resisting Representations, she writes that art is defined as on the edge, as pushing the
limits, disturbing the conventional, acceptable politics of representation (p. 4-5). We too can
harness this type of revolutionary disturbance by providing our unique contributions to
dissertation research one color at a time (Nyquist, 2002, p. 15). Here, again, we defer to Tom
Barone (2006) to provide us with a cutting and eloquent conclusion to our argument for art. He
believes that when an arts-based work engenders an aesthetic experience in its readers or viewers,
empathy may be established, connections made, perceptions altered, emotions touched, equilibria
disturbed, the status quo rendered questionable (Barone, 2006, p. 222). As each of these scholars
has pointed out, art has the power to break down hegemonies and liberate the oppressed. And it is
in this vein that we continue by presenting the argument for an alternative dissertation option based
on the social sphere.
Social
The academic community is inextricably tied to the public good. Pusser (2006) attributes his
list of ways in which education contributes to the public good to authors Newman, Couturier, and
Scurry (2004), Cuban and Shipps (2000), Brighouse (2000), and Wolfe (1995). With their help,
Pusser (2006) claims that education develops citizenship, builds common values, engages
democratic participation for the national good, stimulates economic growth and the diffusion of
technology, and increases social cohesion (p. 26). If academia is to fulfill these ideas of public
service, then it is not enough to send students forth into the world, degrees in hand. We must
ensure that students, in this case, PhD recipients, are able to communicate with the public. After all,
a thriving postsecondary sector with plentiful capacity to meet the needs of a rapidly changing labor
market is important for both individual and societal well-being (Brewer & Tierney, 2010, p. 2).
Allowing for PhD research to take on artistic, alternative formats could be this direct link to public
discourse and therefore public good.

10

A PLEA FOR ART

In short, what we call for is simply the opportunity to allow dissertation research to function
as the reclaiming and redirecting of history by communicating directly with the general public
through research that is based in the arts (Barone, 2006, p. 219). There is an opportunity, which
universities have not yet embraced and which could indeed open up a critical avenue of discourse.
And because this opportunity exists, the academic community has a responsibility to investigate it
to reconsider the outmoded dissertation format and to allow its effectiveness and purpose to be
questioned. After all, any format can be sufficiently valid if it makes a unique and substantial
contribution to understanding the world better or to making it a better place to live (Four Arrows,
2008, p. 5). And we are of the mind that the world could indeed be made better by using research to
inspire critical discourse, public change, and social justice.

References
Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (2007). Teaching for diversity and social justice (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge
Archibugi, D., & Lundvall, B.-A. (2001). The globalizing learning economy. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Barone, T. (2006). Making educational history: Qualitative inquiry, artistry, and the
public interest. In G. Ladson-Billings & W. F. Tate (Eds.), Education research in
the public interest: Social justice, action, and policy (pp. 213-230). New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Brewer, D. J., & Tierney, W. G. (2010, June). Barriers to innovation in U.S. higher
education. Paper presented at the American Enterprise Institute conference,
University of Southern California.

A PLEA FOR ART

11

Brighouse, H. (2000). School choice and social justice. Oxford, United Kingdom:
Oxford University Press.
Cuban, L., & Shipps, D. (Eds.). (2000). Reconstructing the common good in education.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Dunlop, R. (2004). Red shoes: The woman artist/educator in the ivory tower. In G. Diaz & M. B.
McKenna (Eds.) Teaching for aesthetic experience: The art of learning (pp. ). New York, NY: Peter
Lang Publishing, Inc.
Four Arrows. (2008). The authentic dissertation: Alternative ways of knowing, research,
and representation. New York, NY: Routledge.
Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.) New York, NY: The
Continuum International Publishing Group, Inc. (original work published in 1970).
Gerber, B. L. (2000, Jan.) Consideration of an alternative dissertation format. In P. A.
Rubba, J. A. Rye, P. F. Keig, W. J. Di Baise (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual
Meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science (pp. 479483). Akron, OH.
Goodman, N. (1968). Languages of art. New York, NY: Bobbs-Merrill.
hooks, b. (1994). Outlaw culture: Resisting representations. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Jaschik, S. (2012). Dissing the Dissertation. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.
insidehighered.com/news/2012/01/09/mla-considers-radical-changes-dissertation
NMSU. (2012). Department of curriculum & instruction: Departmental vision statement.
Retrieved from http://ci.education.nmsu.edu/files/2013/07/CI_Dept_statement_8-2012.pdf
Newman, F., Couturier, L. K., & Scurry, J. (2004). The future of higher education:

A PLEA FOR ART

12

Rhetoric, reality, and the risks of the market. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nyquist, J. D. (2002). The PhD: A tapestry of change for the 21st century. The Journal of
Educational Research, 12-20. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxylibrary.
ashford.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=9d9f0acd-7f2a-4bf9-95b69a9ae32cf791%
40sessionmgr112&vid=0&hid=106
Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY:
Riverhead Books.
Pusser, B. (2006). Higher education, markets, and the preservation of the public good.
In D.W. Breneman, B. Pusser, & S. E. Turner (Eds.), Earnings from learning:
The rise of for-profit universities (pp. 23-50). Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Sameshima, P., Slattery, P., Gardener, H., Eisner, E. Carmi, R., and Cajete, G. (2008). Seeing red.
In Four Arrows (Ed.), The authentic dissertation: Alternative ways of knowing, research, and
representation (pp. 51-60). New York, NY: Routledge.
Saoete, L. (2001). The new economy: A European perspective. In D. Archibugi & B.-A.
Lundvall (Eds.), The globalizing learning economy (pp. 21-44). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Smith, S. (2010). From the president: An agenda for the new dissertation. Modern Language
Association. Retrieved from http://www.mla.org/blog&topic=134
Willis, J., Inman, D., & Valenti, R. (2010). Completing a professional practice dissertation: A
guide for doctoral students and faculty. USA: Information Age Publishing.
Wolfe, B. L. (1995). External benefits of education. In M. Carnoy (Ed.), International
encyclopedia of economics of education, 2d ed. (pp. 159-164). New York, NY:
Elsevier Science.