Dear all,

I am a Religious Studies postgrad.

I was under the impression that one difference between a (RS / Humanities) PhD and an MA dissertation was that for an MA you could either 1) argue a thesis or 2) analyse something (eg a novel, a scripture etc), whereas for a Phd you have to argue a thesis and # 2 was not an option. Have I got this wrong?? Looking at proquest abstracts there seem to be plenty that seem to be analysing and not arguing anything. Here are a couple of random examples...

'Kantian transpositions': Derrida and the philosophy of religion
by Miller, Eddis N., Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, 2008, 204 pages; AAT 3309475

Abstract (Summary)
This dissertation examines the place of Immanuel Kant in the works of Jacques Derrida. In particular, it examines the significance of Kant's philosophy of religion for Derrida's late texts on religion, and reads Derrida's "Faith and Knowledge: The Two Sources of 'Religion' at the Limits of Reason Alone" as an attempt to "transpose" the Kantian gesture of thinking religion "within the limits of reason alone." To understand this transposition, this dissertation begins by exploring in more general terms the significance of Kant's philosophy of religion, and evaluates its historical role in the foundation of the "philosophy of religion" as an autonomous mode of philosophical inquiry, independent of philosophical theology (Chapter 1). The investigation then proceeds to examine in detail Derrida's reading of Kant's philosophy, focusing specifically on Kant's ethical thinking (Chapter 2), as well as Derrida's various texts on Kant's Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone (Chapter 3). Having thereby established the contours of Derrida's deconstructive engagement with Kant's philosophy of religion, this dissertation then examines the ways in which Derrida pursues this Kantian attempt to think religion within the limits of reason alone in "Faith and Knowledge" and other texts (Chapter 4), all the while retaining the lessons derived from his deconstructive readings of Kant, as explored in Chapters 2 and 3. This reading of Derrida serves to highlight the centrality of Kant in Derrida's thinking, a centrality eclipsed particularly in studies of Derrida's texts on ethics and religion, which overestimate the importance of Emmanuel Levinas for Derrida's thought at the expense of Kant.

Jesus in the movies: A rhetorical analysis of selected films from 1912--2004
by Burton, Aaron V., Ph.D., Bowling Green State University, 2008, 133 pages; AAT 3301428

Abstract (Summary)
The purpose of this investigation is to discuss popular film interpretations of Christ's life and how the films' narratives function rhetorically. These films become part of the rhetorical dialogue and add to the discussion of Christianity. Using Fisher's (1984) Narrative Paradigm, a thematic and character analysis is conducted identifying the common themes of sacrifice and vengeance, noting the progress in the Christ character. Six films have been selected for analyses that represent both the successes and failures of the Christ Film genre. The films selected are From the Manger to the Cross (1912), The King of Kings (1927), The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965), Jesus Christ Superstar (1973), The Last Temptation of Christ (1988), and The Passion of The Christ (2004). In addition, the investigation seeks to understand each film in the particular period that it was produced. Using rhetorical analysis and history data, this investigation attempts to understand the ways that films about Jesus aid in spreading the message of the Gospels.

A MA thesis can include argument and/or analysis, and so can a PhD, but the latter must form a new contribution to the knowledge of the subject i.e orginality. Thus, by default just an analysis/descriptive work would not be sufficient.

OK so do you mean that analysis is ok for a PhD as long as the same analysis has not already been done by someone else? Assuming the subject hasn't been done already, is there any guidance / criteria out there for choosing between analysis and argument for RS / Humanities?

thanx

I mean that the analysis in a PhD is okay as long as it has a purpose in providing evidence for your argument/thesis. I have lots of analysis in my thesis for the purpose of drawing conclusions that provide evidence for my overrall argument.

But, I think it's best not to bother comparing MA level work to PhD level work in any respects as the standard of latter has to be much higher in all respects.

Also, if you are a UK PhD student, don't use US abstracts/examples for PhDs as US PhD are usually more descriptive (i.e. more analysis) than UK PhDs. This could be where you are getting a bit confused as to the purpose of a PhD.

======= Date Modified 03 Sep 2008 23:08:58 =======

OK sorry for confusion - I would expect any PhD to include some analysis so I am not asking can a PhD include analysis, rather I am asking can analysis be an alternative framework / method to that of argument. In the argument framework I am taking a particular position and then trying to prove that whereas with the analysis method I am not taking any particular position. I think these are two alternative approaches for an MA so I was wondering if analysis (taking no position) is an option for a UK RS / Humanities PhD.The two abstract examples I gave don't seem to suggest any argument at all ie they seem to promise an analysis of their subject without taking any position:


"this investigation attempts to understand the ways that films about Jesus aid in spreading the message of the Gospel."

"This dissertation examines the place of Immanuel Kant in the works of Jacques Derrida."

I can't see any position to be defended or argued here.


thanx

I agree in the two quotes you give there doesn't seem to be any clear argument presented, although it is possible that it is the content (hidden somewhere). Many PhD titles/abstracts don't make it easy for the reader to find the hypothesis and what is being shown/proven/argued.

I think in the sciences you're more likely to be able to present a PhD as an analysis, but for arts/humanities there must be a clear heuristic or deductive reasoning that seeks to answer a hypothesis.

======= Date Modified 05 Sep 2008 21:06:45 =======

Is the method of argument considered to be inherently superior to that of analysis? For example, suppose that someone were to translate a previously untranslated scripture and analyse its contents - is this not a proper work of scholarship? Would it not a qualify as a PhD because its author fails to find something to argue about? What need or point is there for argument in such a project? It seems to me that argument is a method which is appropriate in some cases but not in others and so I don't understand why finding something to argue about should be considered essential. :-(

thanx

======= Date Modified 06 Sep 2008 01:27:54 =======

Translating and analysing is a proper work of scholarship - but I don't think it would count as the standard necessary for a PhD. You seem to equate a PhD with 'argument', but it's not that simple:

For a PhD, you need to a 'distinct contribution to the knowledge of the field' and 'afford evidence of originality' by 'the discovery of new facts and/or by the exercise of independent critical power'....

and

'be an integrated whole and present a coherent argument'.
[London University Regulations]

So...argument is essential you also require a 'contribution' and 'originality'. Thus, you could base a hypothesis around the translation and analysis (assuming this is original analysis) i.e, the translation could form part of a body of evidence used to establish a hypothesis related to the scripture subject.

I understand the need for the three things above...


I also see that it should be an integrated whole and should be coherent, but I don't see why all the above adds up to argument being essential. It seems to me that it can be artificial to have to find something to argue about. I agree that many or all universities require an argument but I don't understand why argument is considered so important / valued so highly. :-(

Both the examples given *clearly* state the argument of the thesis, its just at the bottom, not the top! The one on film depicitions of Jesus is arguing that films depicting Christ can promote the spreading of the gospel; and the one on Kant in Derrida is saying very very clearly that the significance of Kant in Derrida is overlooked - particularly in religious studies; ergo the argument is we need to look more closely at the role of Kant in influencing Derrida...

Is it just me?? Do you want people to write the point in Bold? I do know PhDers that do not yet have a hypothesis, but by the time the thesis is written have a point to prove.

I wonder if part of the problem is the definition of 'argument'. I don't think it necessarily implies taking issue with other people's work in a contentious sort of way (although, of course, if the topic fits the originality criterion and is worth spending four years on, surely there will be some scope for pointing out gaps / modifying previous scholarship).

When people say argument is essential, they generally just mean it's a good idea to have something to say and to be able to say it within a logical structure...If the answers to 'so what? is there a point? what does all the detail add up to?' are missing, then it's unlikely that you've produced a terribly integrated or coherent whole, either.

But if you're writing proposals, certainly don't agonize too much about the content of the conclusions. You just have to be sure there are worthwhile questions to be answered & show that you won't be reinventing the wheel. In the case of specific topics, if you're not sure whether an idea is MA or PhD material, that's what supervisors / potential supervisors / advisors in your field are for.