Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:06:49.803Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reflections on the Dissertation Committee

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2022

Donald Chisholm
Donald Chisholm*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Other
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , Spring 1987 , pp. 257 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Notable recent pieces include “Writing a Dissertation: Advice From Five Award Winners,” PS 19 (1986): 61–70; Wildavsky, Aaron, “On Collaboration,” PS 19 (1986): 237–248 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “Rationality in Writing: Linear and Curvilinear,” Journal of Public Policy 1 (1981): 125–140; Axelrod, Robert, “Tips for an Academic Job Talk,” PS 18 (1985): 613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 The impetus for this article came from a lengthy conversation several years ago with a colleague despondent over his choice of a dissertation committee. It struck me then that more careful thinking about that decision might have forestalled his difficulties, or at least minimized them. Writing this piece has also helped me make some sense of my own experience.

3 Of course, one way to avoid disappointment with your dissertation committee entirely is to follow the precept of a former colleague of mine: “I asked nothing of my committee, and in return it gave nothing.” All parties to this dissertation evidently came away satisfied with a job well done. I do not recommend this approach.

4 My committee was comprised of Martin Landau (Chairman) and Nelson Polsby, both of the political science department, and Melvin Webber of city and regional planning.

5 It was Nelson who suggested I read the essays of E. B. White so that I might see and perhaps absorb a very polished and beautiful style of prose.

6 Space precludes me from discussing this point more fully here, but I have in progress another piece on the placement process which addresses it in some detail.

7 “On Writing a Dissertation,” PS 19 (1986): 65–69.