In the comments section of our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, SSW writes:
As an undergraduate student, I wonder what is the best way to choose a dissertation topic? Since my department does not provide many courses on the topic I am interested in, I have to read something by my own. I have read some companions and Philosophy Compass articles, is there anything else I can/should do?
It's not entirely clear to me what SSW means when they ask about a 'dissertation topic.' For example, if they are asking about a PhD dissertation, then my answer is that it is probably much to early to think about that. On the other hand, if the question is about an undergrad thesis, then the question seems to me an apt one. Either way, though, I'm glad they asked these questions, as in thinking about them it occurred to me that I would advise something quite different than what they are currently doing.
Over the years, I have heard some senior people in the profession caution against 'reading too much.' Sometimes I think this advice plays itself out in a bad way–such as when people submit or publish articles that seem ignorant of the literature (which in my experience happens more often than it should!). Nevertheless, I think there is real wisdom in the caution against 'reading too much.' Let me explain why.
When I teach undergraduate courses, I rarely assign 'secondary sources' (i.e. philosophical commentary on original texts). I also know many other professional philosophers who do the same. Why? What is the rationale for focusing on primary texts? The short answer is that I don't want my students to prematurely hem themselves in by what other philosophers think on the subject. I want my students to think for themselves, that is, for them to figure out what they think before they find out what a bunch of other people have said.
I base this teaching practice in part on my experience as a graduate student. Like many graduate students I knew, for a good while I thought I should 'read everything' before formulating my own philosophical ideas on a topic. I would read every article I could find, encyclopedia articles, and so on. My aim here, of course, was to understand the arguments already out there. But here's the problem. Like many other grad students I knew, I found this stultifying. Once I knew everybody else's arguments, it felt very difficult to come up with anything original! For roughly this reason, I've since come to believe that there is a very real philosophical danger to surveying an entire literature before thinking about a problem: it can, in a very subtle way, constrain one's thinking on the philosophical topic. It can lead you to think about a particular problem just like other people have, making it more difficult to 'think outside of the box' and come up with an original argument or theory!
So, although I expect this may be controversial (though I'm curious to see!), here is what I would advise someone like SSW to do. Instead of initially reading encyclopedia or Philosophy Compass articles on a topic–that is, instead of reading surveys of a given literature–instead read a few major original works (that is, a few famous articles or monographs) in the area. So, for example, if you are working on justice, ask people 'in the know' (e.g. people here at the Cocoon!) what some 'essential' books or articles are in the area. Or, if you are working on Ground, do the same. Then read those few essential works. Then try to figure out what you think on the topic, given the few essential pieces you have read. Then, only after you have come up with some coherent argument/theory of your own should you check the rest of the literature to see if anyone has defended that view and, if they have, whether there are any well-known objections to it. At this point, there are roughly two possibilities:
- No one has defended the view or argument you have come up with.
- Other people have already published on the view or argument you came up with.
If you find yourself in situation (1) and (after reading literature surveys) you still think your argument is a good one, then lucky you: you have an original argument to potentially contribute to the literature! On the other hand, if you find yourself in situation (2)–which in my experience is more likely (given how many people have thought about any given philosophical problem)–then your task is now to determine whether there is anything you can say in the relevant debate about the position that you want to defend (based on your own thinking). Sometimes, you will find that this is the case: you'll see that there is some objection to the view that you have come up with (that others have already defended) that you want to address. In that case, once again you have an article to potentially write: one responding to that objection! Other times, however, you will find that you don't have anything to add to the literature already out there. Although this may seem disappointing, in my experience it is really not so bad. For even if you don't get a dissertation or article out of it, you will have learned quite a bit: you will have thought about a philosophical problem that interests you yourself, and found that your own thinking leads to views already in the literature that you don't have much to add to (at least at present – which is important, because you may come back to the topic later on if and when a new idea occurs to you!). These are good things! Philosophy isn't just about coming up with dissertation topics or publishable ideas. It's a process that sometimes leads to these things, and sometimes doesn't–but which, if you engage in it, you will nearly always learn something valuable from.
Or so say I. What say you? Do you agree or disagree with my advice to SSW? If you disagree, what advice would you give?
Leave a Reply