Reading a book on privatization in Poland and thinking - my interest is in urban planning. Specifically, public participation in urban planning. More specifically yet, planning of public space.
That might help to establish some criteria for case study selection.
Read the "Intro" to the Cuthbert book on urban design this afternoon, and 4 years worth of J Urban Design and Planning. Make that Traffic Engineering 101. Ugh.
I met with J this morning to review a relatively final version of his reading list. His question, which I couldn't really answer, was, "well, what do you want to do with all this material? What kinds of writing and/or what kinds of questions would be useful in moving you toward your dissertation?"
I felt inadequate because I had no ready answer. I tend to be very focused on the mechanics of doing certain academic things: tell me I need to make a list of things to read, and read them, and I'll do it, without thinking too much about "why" or "to what end." I am sure there is lots more I could read on this particular subject, but I just have the feeling there is a sort of "going through the motions" aspect to this whole process. I'll drum up some questions, which may or may not ultimately be useful (EVERYTHING is useful, in my view, eventually) and then he'll frame some questions, and I'll write some essays.
In the meantime, despite having some solid reading lists, I am back to the same old problem of not having a dissertation proposal, which I must have (and which my advisor gently reminded me of yesterday) before I get too much further down this path.
Or, I could just read in some sort of order, and see what develops in my mind. I'm inclined to read the Bater book, because it was intended as an undergraduate intro. I find that reading undergrad books is a very helpful way to get the lay of the land of a subject rather quickly, and then you can figure out how to delve into the specifics.
The trouble is, I only work on this stuff in fits and starts, so I lack continuity.
Something to think about - regional differences in the influence of Moscow-type planning.
I didn't meet with committee member H yesterday because she ran out of time. It was just as well - I am still working on what she asked me to do three weeks ago. I worked frantically on it yesterday and it is coming along but it is just very time-consuming to assess and categorize readings for a reading list (to say nothing of actually READING them, egads!).
I am trying to map out the remaining work of the semester so that I can see what time is available for prelims so that I can figure out when to realistically schedule them.
History: 2 books still to read; a short paper to write, due May 10. I would like to turn it in at least the previous Friday to free up the weekend for other stuff.
Proseminar: three sets of readings to read. One can be blown off, probably not the last one. So as of May 5 I will be completely done with it.
Polish: A quiz on May 3, and the final on May 10. I would do well to think of this as an ongoing study issue and do a little every day (as I say to myself every Tuesday night after class, before ignoring Polish until the following Sunday).
My class: I'll have a set of assignments to grade after Thursday, and the final papers to grade after the 28th. I will not have to mark up papers except for those who want them back, so grading will be expedited. I have to organize the moot court and the mediation. I think class will be short on the last day, but I'm sure they are all ok with that. Allowing Friday 4/29 for grading the final assignments, I will be done that day with the class, except for posting final grades.
Summarizing: finish my own class by 5/29.
Week of 5/2: Polish quiz; readings for proseminar; write history paper.
Week of 5/9: Take Polish final on 5/10.
I think this means that I could take J's prelim sometime later in May, maybe like May 24 or slightly thereafter. That would give me two solid weeks to read for it, really focus, do nothing else but that.
Spent about three hours today skim-reading the last 4 years of European Urban and Regional Studies. Maybe it was the filter I was reading with, but everything seemed to be about institutionalist perspectives. Is that the hot new thing in Europe, or is it just an anomaly?
I have to get better at skimming or I will never get anywhere in academic life. I get sidetracked constantly by interesting or potentially-in-the-future interesting articles.
A good article by Ugo Rossi (which I would have skimmed right over if it had come up later in the morning) gives an overview (and good references) of the major approaches to studying urban governance.
Most of what I collected was empirical work that would be good to be aware of for dissertation background. It doesn't really relate to my prelim subjects. (That in and of itself is weird and probably points to a problem in how the prelim questions are set up.)
Network theory is also cited a few times, especially in the last year. Is that a promising avenue for spatial planning, and if so, how?
Then there was an article by John Ploger on discursive planning. It's the first time I've heard that phrase, although the concept and analytical method make sense to me. It's more about urban geography (epistemology) than planning though, isn't it?
After my brain was fried with THAT, I went up to my office and skimmed about 50 pp of the Soviet urban geography review that I started reading ages ago. It's a very 50s/60s quant revolution approach to urban geography - same as the articles in Geografica Polonia I've read. The "theoretical turn" hasn't made it to eastern and central Europe yet, apparently: they are still preoccupied with real problems such as reindustrialization and unemployment and don't have time to contemplate their navels. Of course, we have big problems in the US too - it's just that lots of geographers apparently have given up on searching for solutions in favor of a trip down Theory Lane.
*RL = Reading List
For those of you not familiar with the whole prelims thing (which means everyone outside of geography, since every department handles prelims differently) the basic concept is to read intensively for your committee members, then write an exam based on that material for each of your three in-department members. Then, if you pass those, they examine you orally for 4 hours. Then you are ABD, all-but-dissertation, and can get a teaching job at less prestigious institutions like community colleges.
A couple of weeks ago, I met with the third of my committee members to show her my draft list and to solicit her feedback. It was a great meeting - she was supportive, organized, and in sync with my list. She began by clarifying the purpose of the list, which was good because every professor thinks differently about the purpose of prelims and the relationship of the list to that purpose.
For her, there are really two purposes - to prepare for the job market, and to prepare for doing dissertation research. (Unlike some others, who might see prelims as a way to test that you have learned the foundations of your subfield.)
I had begun the list with two questions I wanted my reading to help answer: what are the forms of progressive planning theory that have shaped alternate forms of planning practice, especially since WW2? What are their strengths and weaknesses?
She asked me to think more broadly about the topic, by contextualizing progressive planning within the overall trends, paradigms and paradigm shifts of planning theory. She also wanted me to include urban politics (from a policy standpont) and governance as it relates to urban planning. (This was a surprise, as she had said originally that the reading list would be very narrow and focused.)
I shared the other two lists with her and she coopted the third page of one onto her list. Her list now looks more like the urban geography list, which is much broader.
She seemed to think the list was about the right length, after things are added as noted above. She thought the urban geography list was WAY too long! That's hard - I didn't know how much should be included, and stock responses like "read until you are done" sort of make sense to the speaker but don't help the listener at all.
She is also on board with my schedule of doing this work in May-June, although I had a feeling she thought that was pretty ambitious.
Next tasks:
*Flesh out the list, with complete citations.
*Star the things that I've already read.
*skim the last 5-7 years of some relevant journals to get some newer references for what the current issues and debates are.
*email her to remind her to send me references for Wendy Larner and Nick Rose articles.
I have compiled the list of possible journals to skim (it's too long) but that is as far as I've gotten. I can't wait to have some time to work on this! - but I don't know when that will be: must prepare today/tomorrow for teaching, and write a history paper.
Welcome to my new blog! I intend this as a single-point collector for miscellaneous notes about the process of developing reading lists for prelims, and then reading them. If it goes well, I'll continue with my dissertation research.
I have been working on reading lists for my committee since January, and I'm mostly done. Although I haven't actually READ much of the stuff on the lists, I hope to get on that soon, in order to take my written exams after the semester ends.
More soon!