Becoming a "One Trick Pony" (i.e. too narrow)

[mdiv2014]

I'll try to frame this in an articulate, understandable way.....as yet it is a general observation, but one that is confirming itself over and over again....

From my limited exposure to wannabe PhD candidates and PhD candidates at a top tier school, I perhaps see areas of focus/concentrations becoming so consuming in the students' life and mind that they have little or no understanding of areas of religion (never mind the world outside the field of religion, gasp, you mean there's a life 'outside the cave'? No way.) outside their focus/concentration. If they go googoo on the Hebrew Bible, watch out - don't ask them about to name 5 religions in South Asia, liberation theology, etc. because you will only get a blank stare and a "Well, I don't take those classes" response.

Tenured professors seem very well rounded or at least are able to spout out enough knowledge outside their field to seem so.

For all you beenthere donethat PhD application and acceptance trial, is this a fair assessment of potential PhD applicants/candidates?

How does one build a body of experience that shows well-roundedness if in fact this is to be a trait that is merited?

[marXian]

It depends on the program, I think, but if one is in a religious studies program, this is often accomplished through teaching. Often tenured professors are well-rounded because when they were junior faculty they had to teach courses that were only technically in their realm of expertise but probably contained a lot of material they had to learn or refresh their memory about on the fly (e.g. Intro to Religion.)

 

With regard to the actual PhD process, it's pretty well accepted that the dissertation is a process of ever-narrowing down on a very specific problem with a more or less unique solution and contribution to the field. It takes a ton of energy concentrated on one's little slice of the field in order to produce something adequate and even more to produce something that is nearly ready to be published. That said, I do think it's wise to keep connected to a broader range of interests, though it's usually easier to do that if there's at least some connection to your field. That can be done through reading groups, attending lectures, etc.

[Lux Lex Pax]

When I was an M.Div. student I had the same critique. I thought Ph.D. students and those that aspired to be one had very narrow interests. Then, I realized how wrong I was when I got to graduate school. Think about this.

Would you expect a biologist to know astronomy, or an astronomer to know geology? If not, then why expect someone who studies Hebrew Bible to know religions of South Asia or liberation theology? If you insist that someone know about these things, what unites these disparate fields of inquiry into a coherent area of knowledge that would require someone studying one of these areas to know something about the others? How you think about these connections will ultimately depend on your theory of religion. Many academics who study religion are wary of "comparative religious studies" because of the distorting effects it has on what is being studied.

This doesn't mean be narrow, uninteresting, and irrelevant. It does mean, however, that at the end of the day you are someone trying to further knowledge in your field and having only enough knowledge of a variety of "religions" to bullshit at cocktail parties isn't going to cut it. Trying to balance all these considerations is difficult, especially for graduate students.

[dr. t]

There's a lot of middle ground between knowing about liberation theology and being a "one trick pony". I think it is incredibly important to give yourself context in your work and to always be on the lookout for new ideas or approaches. I think many PhD students, particularly those in the ABD phase, forget about this. If you can quote extensively from scholarship on medieval law codes, but give a black stare when someone asks about art history from the same period, that's a problem. Some of this is expected - a diss is by its nature a deep exploration into a tiny topic - but it requires balance. I would also suggest that your professors seem more rounded because 1) they've had more time to round themselves and 2) those students who are curious enough and remember the importance of rounding tend to publish more interesting work and thus become professors.

Edited February 14, 2015 by telkanuru

[theophany]

I think this is a matter of perspective difference. The MDiv is a generalist degree, and is intentionally structured to force you not to concentrate, to spread out, not to limit yourself. The MDiv at HDS is perhaps the most intentionally generalist of anywhere. Being a graduate student is entirely different. For people studying Hebrew Bible (the example you gave), they've had to learn Hebrew, Aramaic, Ugaritic, Akkadian, maybe Coptic, maybe Ethiopic. They've had to become well-versed in different strategies of exegesis, with the archaeological record of ancient Israel/Palestine, with the likely culture of the various strands of tradition that composed the text, and on and on. All of this is to able to contribute something new to scholarship, to push through to new stretches of knowledge. To do that requires a whole lot of preparation, a whole lot of knowing what came before, and a whole lot of focus. And at least for many of those students, their faculty don't give them any choice over what courses they take—so anything outside has to be done, well, outside.

 

 

As for tenured faculty being more well-rounded, well, obviously. The average PhD student in religion is 25 to 35. The tenure process can take a decade longer, becoming a full professor even longer, which is full of teaching, of going to guest lectures, of attending conferences, and so forth. Naturally, they've had more experience since their period of intense specialization. 

 

It might look like becoming a one-trick pony from the outside; but from the perspective of a PhD student, MDivs can look like dilettantes who only get superficial understandings of what they take classes on. Again, it depends on what standard you're measuring by.

Edited February 14, 2015 by theophany

[mdiv2014]

you know, i have to push back and defend my ground here - given the hate messages I've received via pm (really,?!, sad it is or perhaps a drunk and lonely phd student on valentive's day with nothing better to do, and .... very cavish [allegory of the cave, duh] in the platonic sense).

i read this website and its long history of posts/threads for general knowledge - which is served with a helping of salt - and see and hear what i see and hear in the day job of studying..... my view is the majority (?) of religion graduate students (masters and phd) couldn't go to a sister graduate school at their institution and know their 1st amendment from their 4th amendment, let only articulate eloquently something outside their field in religion which an up and coming undergraduate should know (e.g. the cocktail party questions "so, you're in div school, tell me about jainism...") and i ask "Are we too narrow in our focus?" are we, and the phd students who are giving me hate, one trick ponies?

and you have no idea on my background, so don't go to the 'it's a matter of perspective' argument....

but fair is fair, a don't think a dba could spout off accounting, managerial complexities, financial investments, etc etc with ease - stop hating and just answer the question.......ghesh...

Edited February 15, 2015 by mdiv2014

[diazalon]

[fides quarens intellectum]

I once overheard a conversation of two of my faculty members, while waiting to meet with a third professor at my seminary, and it gave me a stunning realization as to how much work is required to really reach the well-rounded knowledge you speak of.  

 

One professor was a philosopher, the other a theologian, but they noted that in their actual PhD program, they got to cover about two of the major areas in their field. But after graduation, while working in a teaching-heavy environment and publishing, going to conferences, etc. they both felt that they'd finally basically gotten a decent knowledge in all of the major areas that they're asked to teach in at the graduate level.  They were both just reminiscing, talking about how many books they had to read, articles, etc. to feel like they knew what the heck they were doing.  It was a fascinating discussion, and they said that basically ten years after finishing the PhD they finally felt as though they didn't have to fake it.

 

Pax,

 

Luke

[marXian]

mdiv2014, do you honestly feel like no one answered your question? I think many of us provided you basically the same answer put in different ways. Since you as of yet have no experience working toward a dissertation, I think it would be wise to listen to those of us who are already there. As has already been mentioned, the diversity you're looking for often comes from both teaching as well as lectures, symposia, job talks, etc.

 

I'm happy to use myself as an example: I study German theology and social thought at the turn of the 20th century. So I'm reading a lot of philosophy in and around that period as well as theology. I'm also developing subfields in critical theory and political theology. Still, I've TA'd Intro to Religion, Intro to Buddhism, Intro to New Testament, and will be doing Intro to Hebrew Bible next quarter. Our department has a theology colloquium, which I'm co-organizing this year. Our February meeting featured one of our Buddhism scholars discussing her latest book with us. Though the discussion was obviously limited in certain ways, it was really productive and interesting. I could go on and list all of the lectures, job talks, etc., that I've attended over my time in my program that have very little or nothing to do with my dissertation. 

 

All that to say, I don't feel like I have to take courses in things far outside my area in order to become conversant with those things. In fact, once courses stop (usually after the second year) you're still expected to learn things, which has to come through self-directed study.

 

After your second post, I'm having a hard time understanding what your exact complaint is.

[Kuriakos]

Alllll byyy myselllllllf, Don't wanna be, Alllll by myselllf anymore

[trinitymatthew]

The process of graduate education necessarily is one of narrowing focus. As an undergrad, one takes four years of courses in a broad diversity of subjects--math, science, language and culture, art, philosophy, sociology, political science, music, and often religion. Mine even required phys ed. You major in one or two things--I double majored in religion and a modern foreign language and culture, with a minor in poly sci, and was two courses shy of a minor in yet another language--with a lot of general education courses as well, such as astronomy, finite math, modern philosophy. As a master's student, whether M.Div., MTS, or MA, your focus narrows. For an MDiv you take courses in both testaments, theology, church history, ethics. liturgy, pastoral care, and practical ministry training. It is still broad, but with a focus on theology and ministry, so no more math or astronomy for that program, but maybe you're still interested in them, and you might still play violin or do tai chi, just not for credit.

 

As a PhD student you definitely have to narrow even further out of necessity. In my case, there were 9 courses for the PhD, plus three comps, unlike 24 for the MDiv, or 36 for the BA. So in theology there wasn't really space to take courses in Bible or ethics. However, there were still breadth requirements. 2 courses had to be taken in each of the following areas, with a third in an area of specialization: doctrines in historical development, doctrines in contemporary exposition, major theologians, and methods, norms, and sources in religion/theology. So, I took courses in such diverse areas as feminist theology; readings in Augustine; readings in Bonhoeffer; modernity, post-modernity, and the future of religion (I jokingly called it "All Habermas all the time"); Anglican theology; soteriology; and liturgical theology, among others.  

 

When you start working on the dissertation you necessarily narrow further, but draw on whatever you know and have learned, plus all the new research you do. And it's also, I would hope, the case that all the previous years of education doesn't go out the window. I am still able to remember (sometimes) my previous training in biblical studies as an undergrad and as an MDiv student, which I utilize all the time, as well as undergrad courses in Zen and Japanese Religion, political philosophy, and modern Scandinavian history, to say nothing of Ibsen and Norwegian literature. Sometimes when I read job postings I feel like my dissertation focus is awfully specialized on a subject that no one could possibly care about, but then I also remember that the dissertation is not the whole of my education or knowledge--it's just one really long 300 page paper (which takes years to write). So, whenever we teach courses we all have to do a lot of behind the scenes extra learning, even when it is directly related to our specializations.

 

What the PhD assures, I suppose, is that one is capable of doing that critical work, not that one is an expert in all fields, esp. at first. But in time one's areas of knowledge will necessarily expand as one continues to read and reflect and develop new interests. So that years later, we end up teaching and writing on subjects that we may know not that much about today, but institutions trust that we have the skills to learn what's necessary.    

Edited February 15, 2015 by trinitymatthew

[mdiv2014]

thank you for the posts - yes it was answered, but the hateful pm's were just gob-smacking

whatever nerve was struck to evoke those responses was ...sad

Edited February 15, 2015 by mdiv2014

[Body Politics]

It's the end of app season; let's all be assholes.