I want to take a very quick moment to announce the posting of my first article for The Shakespeare Standard. After joining the staff as an at-large editor last-month, I was invited to join the very talented Colleen Kennedy, editor of the weekly “A Great Feast of Languages” section, to write an article in support of her recent interviews with MIT’s Alexander Huang. While I hope to eventually branch out to offer support in a variety of content areas, I’m also excited to dig a little deeper into language and digital humanities issues through a new monthly feature, scheduled to start at the end of March. In the meantime, I invite you to drop by and view my article, a review of MIT’s Global Shakespeares website. And if you haven’t yet visited The Shakespeare Standard, you owe it to yourself to do so — it’s a great resources for news, reviews, and info on all things Shakespeare, with a terrific and incredibly talented staff, and I’m honored to be a part of the team.
Debuting on The Shakespeare Standard
23 Saturday Feb 2013
Posted in Journalism, Renaissance Drama, shakespeare, Social Media
The Cognitive Turn 
Hi Dr Josh. Nice cast and essay! Truthfully, I need your advice in a technical issue. I’m sorry because my question is not related to the topic but I don’t know any other place to post. If I’m preparing a dissertation statement for a scholarship; am I making myself a disservice If I submit the same statement/abstract for a call for paper symposium or am I raising my odds of winning the scholarship? I’m eagerly waiting for your answer and sorry cause I’m taking of your time.
Hi Amy, I’m not entirely clear on what you are describing here — as I understand it, you are applying for both a scholarship and responding to a call for papers for a conference or symposium, and you are wondering if you should use the same document for both. This is slightly puzzling, because a scholarship and a conference or symposium panel are very different things. For a conference / symposium panel, you should submit an abstract that identifies only what you will speak about for that symposium, which should be about a page or less in length — an abstract covering an entire dissertation is usually going to be far too broad. For a scholarship proposal, you will be expected to write a much more in-depth document, perhaps 5-10 pages in length, depending on the requirements of the scholarship. To answer your question as best as I understand it, even if you submit an abstract that covers the same topic — your dissertation topic for the scholarship, one part of that topic for the conference/symposium — you should be just fine. I don’t believe that your chances of winning a scholarship will be increased, but I don’t think you will be penalized either. When your working on a major academic project of any kind, it’s to be expected that you will be focusing on that topic and that document / manuscript for the foreseeable future — therefore, no one will be surprised to see that you have submitted work on the same topic to multiple places. You may want to be sure that the scholarship does not openly tell you that you may only submit work that has not been used elsewhere already, however. Hope that helps, and good luck with both!
I’m very sorry for not answering immediately. Thanks a lot Dr for the useful answer, you got me right.
But concerning the dissertation abstract, I used to wonder why they ask us to write a comprehensive plan of what I’m intending to do. OK I’ve chosen a topic I’m interested in, but that doesn’t mean I can tell you in detail what my prospects are. Are not the 4/5 years of work meant to be devoted to discovering this thing?
Generally speaking, the type of abstract you are describing, which some programs view as a “prospectus” is intended to provide a blueprint for what you *intend* to argue. The review committee will understand that your final dissertation will not be exactly what you started out to write, but if they are going to help fund your education, they want you to be as close as *possible* to knowing what your final project will be. If the scholarship is being offered through a foundation that focuses on a specific topic or research idea — say, a feminist studies institution that will want to see how your dissertation will impact modern feminist studies — then they want to be sure they are helping someone who fits their requirements. That is going to be their primary interest, in fact — if you can demonstrate that you have an interest in researching a focused topic within these requirements, they will be more likely to help you. Rather than saying “I’m interested in writing about feminist poetry in the 20th century” (again, just as an example), if you suggest “I am interested in critiques of heteronormative social discourses in Adrienne Rich’s early poems,” this hypothetical foundation will probably be more interested. They know that you will likely alter your topic a great deal later on, but they want to know that you have a clear idea of what you want to write about, with a good sense of the basic argument.
Ah I see, I liked the example. So in your opinion, if the institution doesn’t ask for specific topics, being specific and having a clear view will impress them? I love this slot, I’ve chosen it and I’m defending it even if you are not convinced. To have an opinion and cling to it… and after all the nature of literature fosters differing opinions. Is this the case?
The problem is that although they don’t put contours for my thinking, most of the time I’m afraid to trod a path that they will not find catchy or will be below that of the other applicants.
You should always try to be a little more specific than they ask you to be — that will show them you have a certain clarity and focus in your approach. Your outline here (I’ve chosen a position and I’m defending it, while acknowledging opposing viewpoints) sets up a good approach, but be careful not to get too emotionally attached — they will look for logic, so emphasize your “interests” over your “likes/loves.” Don’t admit that they may not be convinced — simply tell them how you will convince them that your position is strong, and assume they agree with you when you are finished. And finally, regarding fear of not being “catchy” or on the same level as other applicants — welcome to the club! We all feel that way when we approach a new research task — a little excited, confident perhaps, but also nervous about where we’re at. The committee will be looking for your potential, not for whether you have already achieved success, so I’m sure they’ll consider you if your ideas are interesting and focused!
Ah.. Sorry Dr Josh I’ve been dragged all this time and I couldn’t answer. I’m really sorry. Thank you very much for your ever valuable advices. I wish you will accept my excuse.