Yikes. I've been gone for a while. But, really, I have an excuse! It was the end of the quarter: there was a paper to write, grading to be finished, and a proposal hearing to be prepared for.
The proposal hearing itself was ... interesting? (Which of the course is the kind of phrase one uses when things go *badly.* But things really weren't bad. I don't think?) The hearing itself was like an hour and 20 minutes or so. There were lots of questions. I answered them. They sent me out of the room, so they could debate my fate. I waited, tense and awkward. The final decision is where things got ... weird? Basically, they think the question/puzzle are interesting, and that I have an interesting collection of ideas. The scop of the project was incredibly too large, so we agreed to lop off large portions of it.
The basic intuition of my dissertation is the incredibly banal claim that institutions matter. It does get better than that. I'm interested in cooperative federalism, which is pretty much just what it sounds like: local, state, and national levels of government cooperating to accomplish policy. Generally, cooperative fedrealism is associated with the 1950s and onward. But that's not entirely correct. In fact, prior to the Civil War, instances of cooperative federalism *did* exist - in the construction of transportation infrastructure. Usually, state/federal cooperation on things like canals and early railroads is just sort of pushed aside as an anamoly.
There is where, like an overweight and bespeckled swashbuckler, I swoop in and say "Nobody puts Baby in the corner!" (That might be the worst metaphor EVER.) What I'm interested in doing is looking at this early cooperative federalism, where states had a lot more weight, and comparing it to more recent examples of cooperative federalism, where the national government is a lot stronger. The interest lies in both *how* the cooperation came about, and *what* the differential policy output from these institutional arrangements is, and *why* there is a differnece. There are like a million confounding variables on the way. (For example, the development of transportation by the national government corresponds with the development of a professional bureaucracy. Thus, it might be professionalization and nothing institutional making the difference. In addition, since national networks come later, it maybe they are filling gaps local networks did not meet. Thus, the aims of the projects may be different, and that, rather than institutions, is what produces variation.)
Anyway, my initial case studies spanned the period from early canals to the modern interstate system. (Long time sufferers of this "blog" may recall the initial topic of the dissertation was interstates and space. Oh how the mighty have fallend!). This is where the violence occurred: canals and highways are gone! Dead to me! Now, I'm only focusing on railroads. This allows me to concentrate on a more discrete period of time (from about 1830 to the first World War), and controls for technological variation (it could be - at least in theory, even if it is highly unlikely - that building a canal and a highway are inherently different tasks, and therefore that technological advancement is what pushes institutional change rather than vice versa).
Still with me? OK? Ok. So, this is where the problems start to really come in. There are clearly a lot of issues in this dissertation regarding questions of causality and how it is being established. Plus, the hearing brought up a major reorientation of the project, through a tighter focus. These were good things. In addition, as mentioned above, the puzzle is interesting. The core ideas about institutions, space, etc - still all there in some form and still compelling. But, the issue now is *case* selection. I need a "stylized history" of American rail development, focusing on key court cases, policies, world historical events (*cough*the Civil War*cough*), and the establishment of certain agencies (*cough*the Interstate Commerce Commision in 1887*cough*), pulling out these critical junctures when state/federal cooperation shifted (or should have/could have) shifted in some way.
Basically, my goal for the summer is looking for my key case studies, and any kind of data that is out there.
So, where does this leave my proposal? I guess I passed. People said congratulations and shook my hand. But I wasn't actually set off to write chapters. Instead, I'm supposed to spend my summer looking into my cases and data, and writing a 10-12 page memo, laying out what I want to do. Once I have THAT, and my committee gives THAT the thumbs-up, THEN I can write my dissertation. I guess. It was weird. It felt like NOT passing, but everyone acted like I DID pass.
Things could have been worse. According to E., when we talked after, everyone is exicted about the project and thought I anwered questions well. He also related that when he had his hearing, they deliberated for an *hour* while he waited in the hallway, before they finally gave him a cautious "green light." So there you go.
Now I actually have to go and find my cases. Case selection is CRUCIAL to my project. I'm dealing with lots of variables that could be creating the final results I'm seeing. I need to find cases that control for a lot of those questions .... It's stressful. Writing a dissertation? Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
Still better than working though.....
The proposal hearing itself was ... interesting? (Which of the course is the kind of phrase one uses when things go *badly.* But things really weren't bad. I don't think?) The hearing itself was like an hour and 20 minutes or so. There were lots of questions. I answered them. They sent me out of the room, so they could debate my fate. I waited, tense and awkward. The final decision is where things got ... weird? Basically, they think the question/puzzle are interesting, and that I have an interesting collection of ideas. The scop of the project was incredibly too large, so we agreed to lop off large portions of it.
The basic intuition of my dissertation is the incredibly banal claim that institutions matter. It does get better than that. I'm interested in cooperative federalism, which is pretty much just what it sounds like: local, state, and national levels of government cooperating to accomplish policy. Generally, cooperative fedrealism is associated with the 1950s and onward. But that's not entirely correct. In fact, prior to the Civil War, instances of cooperative federalism *did* exist - in the construction of transportation infrastructure. Usually, state/federal cooperation on things like canals and early railroads is just sort of pushed aside as an anamoly.
There is where, like an overweight and bespeckled swashbuckler, I swoop in and say "Nobody puts Baby in the corner!" (That might be the worst metaphor EVER.) What I'm interested in doing is looking at this early cooperative federalism, where states had a lot more weight, and comparing it to more recent examples of cooperative federalism, where the national government is a lot stronger. The interest lies in both *how* the cooperation came about, and *what* the differential policy output from these institutional arrangements is, and *why* there is a differnece. There are like a million confounding variables on the way. (For example, the development of transportation by the national government corresponds with the development of a professional bureaucracy. Thus, it might be professionalization and nothing institutional making the difference. In addition, since national networks come later, it maybe they are filling gaps local networks did not meet. Thus, the aims of the projects may be different, and that, rather than institutions, is what produces variation.)
Anyway, my initial case studies spanned the period from early canals to the modern interstate system. (Long time sufferers of this "blog" may recall the initial topic of the dissertation was interstates and space. Oh how the mighty have fallend!). This is where the violence occurred: canals and highways are gone! Dead to me! Now, I'm only focusing on railroads. This allows me to concentrate on a more discrete period of time (from about 1830 to the first World War), and controls for technological variation (it could be - at least in theory, even if it is highly unlikely - that building a canal and a highway are inherently different tasks, and therefore that technological advancement is what pushes institutional change rather than vice versa).
Still with me? OK? Ok. So, this is where the problems start to really come in. There are clearly a lot of issues in this dissertation regarding questions of causality and how it is being established. Plus, the hearing brought up a major reorientation of the project, through a tighter focus. These were good things. In addition, as mentioned above, the puzzle is interesting. The core ideas about institutions, space, etc - still all there in some form and still compelling. But, the issue now is *case* selection. I need a "stylized history" of American rail development, focusing on key court cases, policies, world historical events (*cough*the Civil War*cough*), and the establishment of certain agencies (*cough*the Interstate Commerce Commision in 1887*cough*), pulling out these critical junctures when state/federal cooperation shifted (or should have/could have) shifted in some way.
Basically, my goal for the summer is looking for my key case studies, and any kind of data that is out there.
So, where does this leave my proposal? I guess I passed. People said congratulations and shook my hand. But I wasn't actually set off to write chapters. Instead, I'm supposed to spend my summer looking into my cases and data, and writing a 10-12 page memo, laying out what I want to do. Once I have THAT, and my committee gives THAT the thumbs-up, THEN I can write my dissertation. I guess. It was weird. It felt like NOT passing, but everyone acted like I DID pass.
Things could have been worse. According to E., when we talked after, everyone is exicted about the project and thought I anwered questions well. He also related that when he had his hearing, they deliberated for an *hour* while he waited in the hallway, before they finally gave him a cautious "green light." So there you go.
Now I actually have to go and find my cases. Case selection is CRUCIAL to my project. I'm dealing with lots of variables that could be creating the final results I'm seeing. I need to find cases that control for a lot of those questions .... It's stressful. Writing a dissertation? Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
Still better than working though.....
*wanders off*