Beyond Elevator Stories:
Scaling Up Our Knowledge of
Comp/Rhet Dissertations
Benjamin Miller
The Graduate Center, CUNY
@benmiller314
Dissertations
don’t get read by many people.
Dissertations
don’t get read by many people,
but a lot of people write them.
Dissertations
are a knowledge-making genre.
Dissertations
are a knowledge-making genre,
^
but also a discipline-producing genre.
Dissertations
are how we write our way into the field,
and into a professional identity within it.
Dissertations
don’t get read by many people,
but a lot of people write them,
so there are too many to read them all.
We need scale
What one person can read
or encounter is necessarily
limited.
We need scale
Even if that one person
can travel pretty far and
take in a fair amount…
We need scale
… they can still miss key
features of the big picture.
Distant Reading
simplify texts,
in order to
amplify patterns:
To get metacognitive,
we have to get meta-data.
2005
Motivating Questions
• What methods do graduate students turn to
in constructing their professional identities?
• What topics do they write about?
Subject term: ‘language,
~4,500 PhD theses
Dissertations
rhetoric and composition’
2001-2010
& Theses
Official repository
for Library of Congress Dissertations
& Theses
~3 million sources,
1743-present
~3,000
Subject term: ‘language,
rhetoric and composition’
Dissertations
& Theses
~4,500 PhD theses
2001-2010
that they can sell
full text of
dissertation
Dissertations
& Theses
What they provided
metadata
title
abstract
author
open vocab keywords
closed vocab subjects
pages
university
advisor
accession number
full text of
dissertation
Dissertations
& Theses
metadata
title
abstract
author
open vocab keywords
closed vocab subjects
pages
university
advisor
accession number
Method Terms
What I added
2,711
~3,000
Subject term: ‘language,
~4,500 PhD theses
rhetoric and composition’
2001-2010
after removing ~10% false positives
Dissertations
& Theses
2,250
2,711
~3,000
Subject term: ‘language,
~4,500 PhD theses
rhetoric and composition’
2001-2010
including Consortium (1800)
or ≥5 in 2006-2010 (450)
Dissertations
& Theses
consorts.plus by dissertation count
Dissertation Count by School, 2001-10
100
Indiana University of Pennsylvania (124)
Purdue University (92)
60
80
University of Arizona (74)
Penn State (67)
University of Minnesota (62),
University of Louisville (61)
20
40
University of Iowa, Illinois State (30)
Temple University (29),
U of Kansas, U of Illinois Chicago (28)
0
Number of Dissertations
Number of Dissertations 2001−2010
120
Consortium
Non−Consortium
0
20
40
Schools
60
80
100
Motivating Questions
• What methods do graduate students turn to
in constructing their professional identities?
• What topics do they write about?
C/R Methods span a wide range
Research from Sources
Performance
Empirical Inquiry:
Empirical
Inquiry:
aggregable
phenomenological
Carter 2007, “Ways of Knowing,
Doing, and Writing in the Disciplines”
A Methods Schema
Critical / Hermeneutical
Rhetorical-Analytical
Research from Sources
Poetic / Fictive /
Craft-Based
Performance
Practitioner /
Philosophical / Theoretical
Historical / Archival
Model-Building
Interview / Focus Group
(Other)
Meta-Analytical /
Discipliniographic
Survey
Ethnographic
Discourse / Text
Analytical
Empirical
Experimental /
Quasi-Experimental
aggregable
Teacher Research
Empirical
Clinical / Case Study
phenomenological
Some key contrasts
Critical / Hermeneutical
Rhetorical-Analytical
Poetic / Fictive /
Craft-Based
Philosophical / Theoretical
Historical / Archival
Practitioner /
Teacher Research
Model-Building
Interview / Focus Group
(Other)
Meta-Analytical /
Discipliniographic
Survey
Ethnographic
Discourse / Text
Analytical
Experimental /
Quasi-Experimental
Clinical / Case Study
the particular what vs. the repeatable how
Some key contrasts
Critical / Hermeneutical
Rhetorical-Analytical
Poetic / Fictive /
Craft-Based
Philosophical / Theoretical
Historical / Archival
Practitioner /
Teacher Research
Model-Building
Interview / Focus Group
(Other)
Meta-Analytical /
Discipliniographic
Survey
Ethnographic
Discourse / Text
Analytical
Experimental /
Quasi-Experimental
Clinical / Case Study
individual narrative vs. group/environmental dynamic
Some key contrasts
Critical / Hermeneutical
Rhetorical-Analytical
Poetic / Fictive /
Craft-Based
Philosophical / Theoretical
Historical / Archival
Practitioner /
Teacher Research
Model-Building
Interview / Focus Group
(Other)
Meta-Analytical /
Discipliniographic
Survey
Ethnographic
Discourse / Text
Analytical
Experimental /
Quasi-Experimental
Clinical / Case Study
what a person can tell you vs. how a person behaves
What methods are most used?
Critical / Hermeneutical
Rhetorical-Analytical
Research from Sources
Poetic / Fictive /
Craft-Based
Performance
Practitioner /
Philosophical / Theoretical
Historical / Archival
Model-Building
Interview / Focus Group
(Other)
Meta-Analytical /
Discipliniographic
Survey
Ethnographic
Discourse / Text
Analytical
Empirical
Experimental /
Quasi-Experimental
aggregable
Teacher Research
Empirical
Clinical / Case Study
phenomenological
What methods are most used?
Research from Sources
Performance
Empirical Inquiry:
Empirical
Inquiry:
aggregable
phenomenological
Frequency
ofofAssigned
Method
Tags
Frequency
Assigned Method
Tags
Consortium
Non-Consortium
Phil
552
Crit
483
118
Hist
494
94
Rhet
348
Ethn
312
Clin
296
Disc
230
Prac
195
Modl
181
Intv
152
Othr
144
Surv
134
Expt
91
Meta
101
Poet
61
Total
103
87
63
79
59
81
39
23
26
18
52
10
655
601
588
435
375
375
289
276
220
175
170
152
Dialectical
methods are the
most common,
followed by
phenomenological
143
111
28 89
Schools in the Consortium of Doctoral Programs in Rhet/Comp
Non-Consortium schools with 5 or more dissertations, 2005-2010
N: 2,250 dissertations
Research
from
Sources
Performance
Aggregable
Phenomenological
Percentage Rank of Method Tags
Consortium
Consortium
Top
Non−Consortium
Non-Consortium
(N=1800)
(N=450)
Phil (31%)
Crit (26%)
Hist (27%)
Phil (23%)
Crit (27%)
Hist (21%)
Rhet (19%)
Rhet (19%)
Ethn (17%)
Prac (18%) **
Clin (16%)
Clin (18%)
Disc (13%)
Ethn (14%)
** Prac (11%)
Disc (13%)
Modl (10%)
Expt (12%) **
Intv (8%)
Modl (9%)
Surv (7%)
Poet (6%)
Meta (6%)
Intv (5%)
** Expt (5%)
Surv (4%)
Poet (3%)
Meta (2%)
Relative Ranks shift
inside/outside the
Consortium
Significantly more
Practitioner / TeacherResearch studies
Significantly more
Experimental studies
** Bonferroni-corrected
p < 0.001, Fisher Exact test
Research
from
Sources
Performance
Aggregable
Phenomenological
Most Dissertations use Multiple Methods
848
800
685
But most
dissertations
use more than
one method
Dissertations
600
484
400
200
174
0
1
2
3
4
58
0
1
5
6
7
Method Tags Assigned
N: 2,250 dissertations
What methods are used together?
207
Research
from
Sources
Performance
Aggregable
Phenomenological
Prac
207
184
Modl
161
Disc
138
Ethn
138
Clin
115
Intv
92
Surv
69
Expt
69
Meta
46
Poet
23
Othr
0
Crit
0
Hist
N: 2,250 dissertations
Phil
Raw counts of
methods shared
within individual
dissertations
Rhet
Method TagCo−Occurrence
Rhet
5
83
177
188
4
5
16
4
5
19
17
35
57
42
7
Phil
83
29
136
207
116
36
50
5
14
22
43
53
24
77
71
Hist
177
136
120
200
13
12
36
2
9
21
13
27
46
31
10
Crit
188
207
200
64
16
18
28
2
12
20
19
24
51
47
27
Othr
4
116
13
16
62
4
0
4
5
4
5
11
9
1
8
Poet
5
36
12
18
4
6
3
0
0
3
14
6
2
4
14
Meta
16
50
36
28
0
3
6
0
7
5
7
5
11
15
6
Expt
4
5
2
2
4
0
0
47
11
13
21
8
28
13
53
Surv
5
14
9
12
5
0
7
11
9
51
29
29
28
13
18
Intv
19
22
21
20
4
3
5
13
51
11
33
32
31
20
29
Clin
17
43
13
19
5
14
7
21
29
33
94
114
54
40
50
Ethn
35
53
27
24
11
6
5
8
29
32
114
69
53
41
55
Disc
57
24
46
51
9
2
11
28
28
31
54
53
37
38
29
Modl
42
77
31
47
1
4
15
13
13
20
40
41
38
8
21
Prac
7
71
10
27
8
14
6
53
18
29
50
55
29
21
14
NB: Diagonals representconsorts.plus,
solo methods,
N2250 not method totals
Ethn
Prac
41
7
59
10
22
6
10
5
31
14
35
45
10
15
What methods are used together?
Research
from
Sources
Performance
Aggregable
Phenomenological
17
19
20
18
2
1
5
8
48
30
30
19
18
10
25
Disc
50
22
34
35
6
1
9
19
25
49
50
21
30
25
27
Clin
Ethn
Prac
Modl
Intv
Disc
Hist
Surv
67
148
Expt
Phil
142
Meta
67
Poet
5
Method Tag Co−Occurrence
Othr
Rhet
Crit
Intv
Hist
30
Phil
18
Rhet
7
3
4
15
3
5
17
31
7
35
17
50
Diagonals represent tagsconsorts,
occurr ingN1800
on one−method disser tations.
20
122
173
102
29
44
5
13
36
41
59
69
19
22
142
122
101
162
10
12
32
2
9
11
25
10
25
20
34
Crit
148
173
162
50
13
12
27
1
11
18
18
22
38
18
35
Othr
3
102
10
13
50
3
0
1
4
2
10
6
1
2
6
Poet
4
29
12
12
3
3
2
0
0
8
6
10
2
1
1
Meta
15
44
32
27
0
2
6
0
7
5
5
5
12
5
9
Expt
3
5
2
1
1
0
0
27
9
20
8
31
10
8
19
Surv
5
13
9
11
4
0
7
9
8
25
25
14
13
48
25
Clin
17
36
11
18
2
8
5
20
25
69
90
35
35
30
49
Ethn
31
41
25
18
10
6
5
8
25
90
59
45
40
30
50
Prac
7
59
10
22
6
10
5
31
14
35
45
10
15
19
21
Modl
35
69
25
38
1
2
12
10
13
35
40
15
7
18
30
Intv
17
19
20
18
2
1
5
8
48
30
30
19
18
10
25
Disc
50
22
34
35
6
1
9
19
25
49
50
21
30
25
27
Disc
207
15
Intv
207
184
40
Modl
161
35
Prac
138
13
Ethn
138
10
Clin
115
12
Surv
92
2
Expt
69
1
Meta
69
38
Poet
46
25
Othr
23
69
Crit
0
35
Hist
0
Modl
Phil
Consortium only:
N: 1,800 dissertations
21
Rhet
Raw counts of
methods shared
within individual
dissertations
19
NB: Diagonals represent solo methods, not method totals
Othr
Meta
1
1
4
6
0
2
0
1
3
2
0
0
1
What methods are used together?
1
0
0
1
4
4
2
4
0
3
1
0
0
1
3
Intv
2
2
1
3
2
3
5
10
2
6
2
0
2
3
1
Ethn
Clin
Expt
Prac
Modl
Disc
Othr
Meta
Poet
Surv
Intv
Method Tag Co−Occurrence
6
1
1
5
9
16
3
1
6
1
2
Crit
14
40
38
34
Rhet
40
0
35
16
4
0
1
0
7
7
1
1
1
0
2
Hist
38
35
19
14
2
2
0
0
6
12
3
4
0
0
1
Phil
34
16
14
9
12
7
0
12
8
2
14
6
7
1
3
Ethn
6
4
2
12
10
24
0
10
1
3
1
0
0
4
2
Clin
1
0
2
7
24
25
1
15
5
5
3
2
6
4
3
Expt
1
1
0
0
0
1
20
22
3
9
3
0
0
2
5
Prac
5
0
0
12
10
15
22
4
6
8
2
1
4
4
10
Modl
9
7
6
8
1
5
3
6
1
8
0
3
2
0
2
Disc
16
7
12
2
3
5
9
8
8
10
3
2
1
3
6
Othr
3
1
3
14
1
3
3
2
0
3
12
0
1
1
2
Meta
1
1
4
6
0
2
0
1
3
2
0
0
1
0
0
Poet
6
1
0
7
0
6
0
4
2
1
1
1
3
0
2
Surv
1
0
0
1
4
4
2
4
0
3
1
0
0
1
3
Intv
2
2
1
3
2
3
5
10
2
6
2
0
2
3
1
Diagonals represent tags
top.nonconsorts,
occurr ing on N450
one−method disser tations.
Intv
NB: Diagonals represent solo methods, not method totals
urv
Aggregable
Phenomenological
Surv
oet
Performance
2
eta
Research
from
Sources
0
Othr
207
3
Disc
207
184
1
odl
161
1
rac
138
1
xpt
138
2
Clin
115
4
thn
92
0
Phil
69
6
Phil
69
0
Hist
46
7
Hist
23
0
Rhet
0
1
het
0
6
Crit
Top Non-Consortium:
N: 450 dissertations
0
Poet
Crit
Raw counts of
methods shared
within individual
dissertations
0
Othr
Meta
1
1
4
6
0
2
0
1
3
2
0
0
1
What methods are used together?
1
0
0
1
4
4
2
4
0
3
1
0
0
1
3
Intv
2
2
1
3
2
3
5
10
2
6
2
0
2
3
1
Ethn
Clin
Expt
Prac
Modl
Disc
Othr
Meta
Poet
Surv
Intv
Method Tag Co−Occurrence
6
1
1
5
9
16
3
1
6
1
2
Crit
14
40
38
34
Rhet
40
0
35
16
4
0
1
0
7
7
1
1
1
0
2
Hist
38
35
19
14
2
2
0
0
6
12
3
4
0
0
1
Phil
34
16
14
9
12
7
0
12
8
2
14
6
7
1
3
Ethn
6
4
2
12
10
24
0
10
1
3
1
0
0
4
2
Clin
1
0
2
7
24
25
1
15
5
5
3
2
6
4
3
Expt
1
1
0
0
0
1
20
22
3
9
3
0
0
2
5
Prac
5
0
0
12
10
15
22
4
6
8
2
1
4
4
10
Modl
9
7
6
8
1
5
3
6
1
8
0
3
2
0
2
Disc
16
7
12
2
3
5
9
8
8
10
3
2
1
3
6
Othr
3
1
3
14
1
3
3
2
0
3
12
0
1
1
2
Meta
1
1
4
6
0
2
0
1
3
2
0
0
1
0
0
Poet
6
1
0
7
0
6
0
4
2
1
1
1
3
0
2
Surv
1
0
0
1
4
4
2
4
0
3
1
0
0
1
3
Intv
2
2
1
3
2
3
5
10
2
6
2
0
2
3
1
Diagonals represent tags
top.nonconsorts,
occurr ing on N450
one−method disser tations.
Intv
NB: Diagonals represent solo methods, not method totals
urv
Aggregable
Phenomenological
Surv
oet
Performance
2
eta
Research
from
Sources
0
Othr
207
3
Disc
207
184
1
odl
161
1
rac
138
1
xpt
138
2
Clin
115
4
thn
92
0
Phil
69
6
Phil
69
0
Hist
46
7
Hist
23
0
Rhet
0
1
het
0
6
Crit
Top Non-Consortium:
N: 450 dissertations
0
Poet
Crit
Raw counts of
methods shared
within individual
dissertations
0
Motivating Questions
• What methods do graduate students turn to
in constructing their professional identities?
• What topics do they write about?
Topic Modeling
seems to corroborate this
full text of
dissertation
metadata
title
abstract
author
open vocab
keywords
closed vocab
subjects
pages
university
advisor
accession number
Topics
Method Terms
Topic Modeling
in brief
students, writing,
class, teacher, paper,
instructor, semester,
assignment
A
public, political,
social, economic,
rhetoric, society,
power, labor, class
In five classrooms: A
Entering the fray: The slogan's
descriptive study of “before
place in Bolshevik organizational
C
writing teaching practices” in
communication
encouraging college writers
to write
Inside the teaching machine: The United States
public research university, surplus value, and
B
the political economy of globalization
Topic Modeling
in brief
students, writing,
class, teacher, paper,
instructor, semester,
assignment
A
public, political,
social, economic,
rhetoric, society,
power, labor, class
In five classrooms: A
Entering the fray: The slogan's
descriptive study of “before
place in Bolshevik organizational
C
writing teaching practices” in
communication
encouraging college writers
to write
Inside the teaching machine: The United States
public research university, surplus value, and
B
the political economy of globalization
Topics don’t come with labels
Topic 32
Top words: students, writing, student, class, teacher,
classroom, teachers, paper, instructor, research,
study, instructors, semester, college, assignment,
classes, write, teaching, learning, ...
Topics don’t come with labels
Topic 32: Students in the Classroom
Top words: students, writing, student, class, teacher,
classroom, teachers, paper, instructor, research,
study, instructors, semester, college, assignment,
classes, write, teaching, learning, ...
No one topic dominates
Rank 1:
Students in the Classroom
0.3 5.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
4.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.3
1.1
1.2
1.2
4.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
4.1
1.4
1.6
1.7
3.8
1.8
1.8
3.7
1.8
2.1
3.6
2.4
3.5
2.5
2.7
3.4
2.8 2.9
3.2
3.0 3.1
Topic weight: 5.4%
Top words:
students, writing, student,
class, teacher, classroom,
teachers, paper, instructor,
research, study, instructors,
semester, college,
assignment, classes, write,
teaching, learning, …
No one topic dominates
1: Students in the Classroom
0.3 5.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
4.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.3
1.1
1.2
1.2
4.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
4.1
1.4
1.6
1.7
3.8
1.8
1.8
3.7
1.8
2.1
3.6
2.4
3.5
2.5
2.7
3.4
2.8 2.9
3.2
3.0 3.1
2: Criticism of/on Critical
Pedagogy
Top words:
students, composition,
teaching, pedagogy,
classroom, teachers, critical,
work, student, teacher,
theory, studies, knowledge,
learning, ways, education,
academic, pedagogical,
practice, …
No one topic dominates
1: Students in the Classroom
0.4 5.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
4.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
4.3
1.1
1.2
1.2
4.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
4.1
1.4
1.6
1.7
3.8
1.8
1.8
3.7
1.8
2.1
3.6
2.4
3.5
2.5
2.7
3.4
2.8 2.9
3.2
3.0 3.1
2: Criticism of/on Critical
Pedagogy
3: Theory of Language
4: Identity and Cultures
5: Story and Narrative
6: Process Reflections
7: Community Engagement
8: Capitalism, Marxism, and
the University
9: Textual Technique and
Effects on Audiences
10: Workplace and
Administrative Histories
Topics also form clusters
Topics also form clusters
http://ow.ly/J2dVL
But topics co-occur across clusters
http://ow.ly/J2dVL
But topics co-occur across clusters
and when they don’t,
it presents an opportunity
Interested in learning more about
dissertation topic models?
Come to session A.23!
Inventing the Field: Researcher Identity,
Dissertations, and Metaphors for Invention
Benjamin Miller
The Graduate Center, CUNY
@benmiller314