Goodbye 2012 and all that

This is something of a displacement activity - I've set myself a target of adding 3,000 words to the PhD by the end of the kids' Christmas Holidays - and have so far managed to read one and a half relevant books instead.

Actually, such displacement has been indicative of 2012 as far as my PhD has gone - this has been the year it got hard.

In terms of displacement activities, most have been excellent - I've taught for most of the year at Brunel, City Lit and latterly at Reading University - all of which has been good for the academic CV. But research has been tough with most of my focus being on earning enough income to keep my head above water. That income comes not from academia but from corporate communications related work. I've had to spend much more time on that this year just to keep up a reasonably similar earning stream.

I managed an excellent research trip to Boston and Abilene in April - but this time it all came out of my pocket - I didn't land a single £ of grant funding this year, despite half a dozen solid applications (certainly no worse than the ones that unlocked £2,000 of funding in 2010). While the documents I unearthed and assessed made the trip absolutely worthwhile, I feel like I've been playing catch-up ever since.

In terms of positives on the year, I now have a structure for the PhD and have significant progress on two chapters - I probably have 10,000+ usable words, with a target of doubling that by April, and adding a further 20,000 by August. Beyond the thesis, I made a great contact in Dave Nichols, a truly nice man and a pleasure to work alongside in Abilene back in the Spring. Dave was immensely generous with his time and encouraged me greatly in my writing - to the extent that he recommended me for the Ike Reconsidered conference that Hunter College is hosting in New York in March. I've had a paper accepted, and now find myself due to present alongside the great and the good in the Eisenhower scholarship field. Am I up to it? Time will tell and I suspect a couple of hours alongside one of my heroes, Fred Greenstein, as well as Eisenhower's most recent biographer Jim Newton and Yanek Mieczkowski who's about to publish a book right bang smack in the middle of my research field and, of course, Dave himself. I suspect that over a couple of days I'll be made very aware whether or not my thesis holds water.

At the moment, as well as the challenge of pulling a paper together (and it will be based strongly on an updated and expanded version of last year's 240,000 mile cul de sac piece), there's the simple challenge of getting to the US to present. Hunter College are covering my costs while on US soil (and many thanks to them for that), but flights and a few days associated research before the conference will leave me with a bill close to £1,000 on top of this year's fees and all the usual costs - the application writing starts here!

My year's negative is the new bureaucracy imposed by my School within the University which I've finding hinders my progress rather than aiding it. My tactic at the moment is ignoring it as much as possible. However, being disgruntled by a process that is beginning to feel like a sausage machine focused on Brunel's REF rather than the individual needs of each research student.

Anyway, I can't afford to dwell on that - not when there's 3,000 PhD words to be corralled from notes and documents; a presentation to be built and scripted and at least two grant applications to be written.

2013 will be a big year....it has to be.

End of term quiz - answers

As promised, here are the answers to my end of term quiz.

1. What was Harry Truman’s middle name?

he didn't have one - but added 'S' to his signature as he felt it added gravity to his name.

2 What role did George W Bush hold prior to his election as President?

Governor of Texas

3. What happened on October 4 1957?

• Launch of Sputnik

4. In what year did the French withdraw from Indo China?

1954

5. The Tet Offensive occurred on the Vietnamese equivalent of:

c) New Year

6. Peter Davis’ 1974 Oscar Winning Film is called:

b) Hearts and Minds                      

7. Who was the last man on the moon?

a) Gene Cernan                                  

8. Who was Jimmy Carter’s Foreign policy nemesis

b) Ayatollah Khomenei  

9. The tall guy's LBJ

10. What did Truman describe his entry into the Korean War as?

A Police Action

11. Who shot JFK?

Lee Harvey Oswald

12. In Presidential terms, who’s the odd one out?

a) Gerald Ford  - never elected to Executive Office

13. Complete this sentence: “I shall go to......”

Korea

14. Name three military interventions carried out by the Clinton administration.

Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia - there are others.

15. The CIA was mandated to overthrow the Government of Guatemala by President...

c) Eisenhower



 

1  16. This is George Kennan (though he looks like Morrissey)


17. Who was George W Bush’s Secretary of Defence?
c) Donald Rumpsfeld

18. What position did Bess, Mamie and Rosalynn all hold?

First Lady

19. What was SDI more commonly know as?

Strategic Defence Initiative - or Star Wars

20. Which was the only foreign state invaded under Reagan’s presidency?

Grenada

21. Who was President when man first walked on the moon?

Nixon

22. 1968 was famous for the summer of:

b) love  

23. These two fine fellows are Douglas MacArthur and John Foster Dulles



24. What is the key principle of the Nixon Doctrine?

Vietnamization

25. Who is the most famous peanut farmer in US history?

Jimmy Carter

 



 

The end of term quiz

My teaching this term is slightly odd - one batch at the beginning of term, another running fairly normally through the term and my 3rd year Reading Uni students completing their first eight-week hit from me yesterday.

Both seminar sets finished with a term quiz. The best score was 15...not quite as high as I'd hoped.

Here are the questions - have a crack at them, I'll post the answers next week.

1. What was Harry Truman’s middle name?

2 What role did George W Bush hold prior to his election as President?

• Senator for California
• Congressman for Houston
• Governor of Texas

3. What happened on October 4 1957?

• Launch of Sputnik
• Launch of Yuri Gagarin
• First man on moon

4.  In what year did the French withdraw from Indo China?

a)      1945                    b) 1955               c) 1954

5. The Tet Offensive occurred on the Vietnamese equivalent of:

a)      Christmas                         b) Easter             c) New Year

6. Peter Davis’ 1974 Oscar Winning Film is called:

a)      Platoon                                b) Hearts and Minds                      c) The Deer Hunter

7. Who was the last man on the moon?

a) Gene Cernan                                  b) Charlie Duke                              c) Buzz Aldrin

8. Who was Jimmy Carter’s Foreign policy nemesis

a)      Ayatollah Khamenei       b) Ayatollah Khomenei  c) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

9. Who’s the tall guy?

10. What did Truman describe his entry into the Korean War as?

11. Who shot JFK?

12. In Presidential terms, who’s the odd one out?

a)      Gerald Ford       b) Harry Truman    c) Lyndon Johnson

13. Complete this sentence: “I shall go to......”

14. Name three military interventions carried out by the Clinton administration.

15. The CIA was mandated to overthrow the Government of Guatemala by President...

a)      Nixon    b) Kennedy        c) Eisenhower

16. Who’s this?
17. Who was George W Bush’s Secretary of Defence?

a)      Colin Powell            b) Condoleezza Rice                           c) Donald Rumpsfeld

18. What position did Bess, Mamie and Rosalynn all hold?

19. What was SDI more commonly know as?

20. Which was the only foreign state invaded under Reagan’s presidency?

21. Who was President when man first walked on the moon?

22. 1968 was famous for the summer of:

a)  peace    b) love  c) hate  d) understanding

23. Who are these two?
24. What is the key principle of the Nixon Doctrine?

25. Who is the most famous peanut farmer in US history?

You can, of course, always leave your answers as a comment.

an  b) Charlie Duke  c) Buzz Aldrin

Soaring sentiment - but rhetoric or reality?

Yesterday marked the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's address at Rice University in Texas when he said: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy but because they are hard."

It was a striking statement in a superbly crafted speech  which probably owed as much to JFK's Special Counsel Ted Sorensen as it did to the President. But one should never do down Kennedy's power as an orator. He had the charm, grace and gift for telling a good story that the likes of Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson and Nixon could only dream of. And, at the height of Camelot's power, he had the nation in the palm of his hand.

But did JFK really have a deep passion for space? Was he quite as fully committed to the moon landing as his Rice oratory suggests? Was going to the moon even the right path to take?

Of course, it has been an area of huge debate and one I cover to some extent in my '240,000 mile cul de sac' paper.

Perhaps we remember Kennedy's speech because the moon landing happened. Perhaps the moon landing happened only because Johnson needed to deliver a legacy for Kennedy. Perhaps, if that fateful visit to Dallas in November 1963 hadn't happened, the US path to outer space would have taken a different course as tax bills, civil rights, Vietnam and the wider Cold War filled the Presidential agenda in the expected second term. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

Speculation aside, this was one of the most powerful political speeches from the age of frontierism.

The 'great leap' is a slow crawl

If you've looked at this blog before, you'll notice a couple of changes - notably the title and indeed the web address. It's pretty clear to me that my research is tied into the 1950s not the '60s and therefore to call this occasional musing 'race to the moon' is rather disingenuous. This blog charts my part-time, mid-career PhD research project reassessing one aspect of Eisenhower's presidency that has so far been largely overlooked: his contribution to US space policy as rockets and satellites first broke out of the earth's atmosphere.

I'm slowly getting my thoughts together around Eisenhower's contribution to US outer space policy - and it strikes me more and more that had the US followed the Eisenhower (Killian/Kistiakwsky/Glennan et al) plan, there'd be more than a six wheel rover scooting round on Mars right now.

Indeed, my current work is looking at the impact of a dead dog - not quite the dead cat bounce, but Laika's flight on Sputnik 2 had a distinct impact on the western world's psyche - and it's not one that has been sufficiently explored in the past. Whether I'll hit my target of a 10,000 word chapter section by the end of September is moot - though it would also go a long way towards my next goal of another academic journal article so is well worth the push. Unfortunately, having to earn a living and the distraction of three children off on summer holidays is rather eating into my research time. After a couple of weeks away, I've yet to get back into a disciplined routine, but need to do so quickly.

One tiny step is to refocus this blog. If nothing else, it gets me thinking and writing about my subject again.

Fees conundrum

It seems to me that research students are the Cinderellas of the university system. In these days of increasingly transactional relationships between institutions and their students, the 'value' offered for my £ thousands paid out in each year is far easier to measure if you're a) full-time b) on campus and c) part of a taught degree course.

In my field, new full time undergrads and taught postgrads know they'll get, say 120 lectures a year; maybe 60 seminars and can take advantage of a fixed amount of staff office hours. They'll know they have to complete perhaps 10 assignments between October and May and then sit four or five exams. They'll also have access to the library and, more important today, to online library resources that universities pay thousands for each year.

Without doubt, the more the student puts in, the more they get out of their experience - and it's relatively easy to conduct a cost/benefit analysis.

But what about research students - and should universities be thinking about a different model for charging research student fees?

I'm exceedingly relieved that I started my PhD before the student fees hike. I'm self-funded and my fees come out of income while I work alongside my study.

What I get for those fees is access to a research office with a PC and a phone (UK calls only); library membership; invitations to attend/participate in departmental reseach seminars; an annual researcher presentation event and, most importantly, access to two supervisors who help guide my study. I also get a research allowance of £180 per year - though am very limited in what I can use this for.

As a mature student, living 30+ miles from campus, registered as part-time and working full time: I use the office rarely - I'm really only ever there on about 24 days when I'm teaching in the academic year - and I'm not actually doing much PhD stuff those days! Library membership is vital and valuable - though 95% of my use is online. Research seminars tend to happen on a weekday afternoon so it's rare I can attend and the research presentation event covers a wide scope from economics through political science to history so is interesting, but frustrating too. I don't pay a full fee, but nor do I pay half of what full timers shell out.

The key 'value' comes from the student/supervisor relationship - yet no matter how heavily or lightly I lean on my mentors, the price remains the same. However frequently or infrequently I use the campus facilities, the price remains the same - and however much or little I choose to engage with the department, the price I pay remains the same.

In these economically turbulent times, would it not make sense for institutions to be more flexible in their charging structures - not just for existing researchers, but to help attract those who will undoubtedly be put off from even applying in the future by stratospheric fees and the ever-increasing feel that institutions are being asked to do more with less?

If I was looking to attract student now, I'd have a menu of charges related to needs:

• A core fee would buy you access to the library and, say four supervisory meeting per year;
• An enhanced fee could secure office space.
• Departmental student events would be based on, and built around, student demand and charged on a per-event basis. They would also happen at a time convenient for students, not just departmental staff.
• Additional supervisorys could be purchased - £X per hour - book three get one free etc.
• A premium fee would offer presentation and critique opportunities, and perhaps support to attend external events and be part of a wider network.

These are just top of the head thoughts, but it's time institutions became more commercial and more savvy in responding to student needs rather than continually being driven by a 'one size fits all' process. Some of us only need/want or can afford the 'institution-lite' approach to a PhD, while others will want full immersion and a helping hand all along the way. Assuming we set a base level of support that is sufficient to get someone through this research apprenticeship, do universities have to apply the same cost structure to everyone?

No private business would operate in the way our universities do today. The current fee/value model, and indeed wider funding model seems less sustainable year by year.

Is it time for institutions to dare to do something different?

Time for a great leap forward

So I've been at this PhD thing for two years and nine months now - very part-time, and generally fitted in between work commitments, the demands of a full family life and, more recently, my own first forays into academic teaching. Even now, I'm updating this while waiting for someone to fulfil a request for information on a corporate intranet site I'm writing/editing copy for. Up until very recently I was motoring on at my own pace on the PhD, reading everything in sight, covering dusty second hand books in sticky book marks and highlighting searing insights across dozens of learned journal papers.

I would have been quite happy being locked in a dusty room for a few years while I pulled everything together into a satisfyingly heavy thesis with just the occasional surfacing to sit at the feet of my supervisor and make the necessary course corrections to ensure what emerged actually had some scholarly merit.

But my university doesn't work like that any more. There comes a point where all Brunel researchers have to be 'confirmed' in their study - what follows may be beatification or even canonisation for all I know, but what matters now is that I have a hurdle to get over before I can set my sights on writing up my core chapters and defending my view of the world - or at least Eisenhower's decision making around the policy issues of outer space.

This new step was rather dropped on us in May and probably caused more angst than it should - not least for those in the cohort whose draft theses were more or less complete and who had their sights set more on an external viva than an internal approval of their work. I'm not quite there yet, but I've set a target of having my thesis complete by the end of 2013. I just want to get on and spend my days writing up my two research trips and pinpointing the gaps that will probably lead to a third trip to the US next year before I can finalise my not-so-grand opus.

But now I find that I have to go through confirmation and quite soon - September 17 is D Day for a suite of documents ranging from my abstract, methodology and outline to a substantial piece of work that I'll have to defend internally. No doubt it will be good practice for the real thing, but coming on top of a Research Presentation event and Annual Review, it feels like a bureaucratic chore.

It also feels like a devaluing of the student/supervisor model that seems to work pretty well. I have two supervisors, meet with one regularly and get good arm's length feedback from the second. The last two years has been a little like peeling skin from an onion: I started with one idea which has been refined, nuanced and focused so that what I'm now working on bears some resemblance to the original research idea, but has a more workable scope, and goes deeper rather than wider into the subject.

I'm uncomfortable with the confirmation process. It appears to be, to some degree, arse covering for the university - a process where they can reassure themselves that research students are going to complete. But shouldn't that control, that accountability and that sense of whether a research project is worthy of a PhD come from research supervisors? This new process seems to imply a lack of trust that supervisors can judge the students they're supervising with sufficient objectivity. For me, 40-something, self-funded and with a passion for my subject, I will complete. However, I feel I'll do so in spite of the system, not because of it.