Monday 20 February 2023
I survived a similarly negative experience during one of my MFA reviews. As I process, these are my early thoughts:
Some positives the reviewer offered included:
The amount and quality of studio work I’ve done, and documentation of it is excellent. The reviewer noted that she hoped to see the paintings in person.
The amount of well-documented research I have done to date is massive.
My fluency in and grasp of postmodern theory is deep and broad.
My appendices are many and informative, so no further work on them will be required.
Retrospectively, I am really grateful for a great supervisory team:
My lead supervisor, LJMU's presence and a vital redirect literally saved me from total mishap.
One of my TT advisors, during a Feb. 9 pre-viva prep session, gave me scaffolding-like pointers, which in my attempts to stay focused, I repeatedly referenced.
Sometime last year my other TT supervisor had me rephrase/rewrite my third thesis question, which turned out to be my central thesis question. As I read it aloud in answer to one of my reviewer's questions, it saved me from total collapse.
Some negatives that I experienced included:
The reviewer stated that they did not understand my thesis title, ChromaTheory: On Abstract Painting, Color & Otherness, noting their dislike of "ChromaTheory" in particular, and disapproval of the spelling. Since it gets at the heart of my project's meaning, contribution to knowledge, and because it so pointedly references color, which earlier this month one of my supervisors pointed out, is the main vehicle of my whole thesis…philosophically via phenomenology, theoretically via color theory, and physically via paint, I feel disappointed about the demand to change the title.
I expected the reviewer to have closely read my detailed report, when at best, they seemed to have done a very cursory reading. I.e., We did not discuss my philosophical position, nor any specifics of my theoretical approach, and only briefly did we consider my studio work/painting, which they did praise. Several times I was asked, “What’s your elevator pitch?”, and because I had the opposite expectation, which is that this would be the deepest dive or most thorough discussion of my thesis proposal yet, it caught me off guard. I needed to make a mental 180 degree turn, but I did not, instead I shut down.
I incorrectly expected that the reviewer would hold me to LJMU's published PGR Guidelines for Confirmation of Registration reports, but that was not the case. I.e, In addition to, or instead of the required 1-page maximum summary report I submitted, as outlined in LJMU PGR handbook Confirmation of Registration Guidelines, I was requested to write and resubmit a 10-page summary report, which is confusing/conflicting.
Officially, I was issued a "PhD Registration Deferred", meaning I will need to do further work on my Confirmation of Registration reports. (According to the Doctoral Academy director, 75% of PGRs get the “PhD Registration Deferred”, and 25% receive either “PhD Registration Confirmed” or “PhD Registration Denied”, so I was mentally prepared for this outcome, but what I was not prepared for, was a thoroughly annoyed reviewer.) I have 3 months to read the report, revise, and resubmit my confirmation reports.
Overall, for the first time since my beginning the TT-LJMU PhD program, I am discouraged and disappointed in my efforts to date.
