Feb 11: Fevers? Yes. And disputatio reflections

Anya is still at home with fevers continuing. This makes it 6 days of fevers. Not very encouraging. However, the cough has decrease, but not gone. The sore throat is mostly gone. So there are good signs.

She was well enough for me to leave for MHS to observe a disputatio, or defense of a PhD dissertation, which started with a majestic piano procession, though there were no other signs of pomp beyond a bit more formal clothing, such as suit and tie. The German woman (whose name I can’t pronounce) did what seemed to me to be a very good job of fielding challenges and questions with an attitude of explanation–not outright defensiveness but enough confidence to stand by her work–and agreeing at times with the opponents over some limitations. Yes they are called opponents.

Her dissertation compared the moral teachings of Chinese primary school text books (recognizing that they really reflect what the adults want taught) with the narrative ethics appearing in a collection of sermons from 3 churches in Beijing (2 “three-self” churches and 1 house church), which generally serve the young, affluent urban intelligentsia. This seemed a bit obscure when I first heard this, but she did a cogent job of identifying patterns (such as comparing residual Confucian morality) and how this impacts the authentic Chinese voice in urban Chinese Christianity (both strengths and limitations).

Now, this dissertation was 700 pages (!), twice as long as it really should have been. I hear that the committee of these three opponents was not happy about this. There was a couple snickers when opponent #1 stated that in such a voluminous work, surely she could have added a comment about X. I thought it was ironic that in such a long dissertation, many of the comments seemed to be that things should have been added!

So, what does this mean for me?!?

1. I know what to expect when my time comes. I’ve seen one strong representation of how it can be done. I’ll ask Knut more about what he though, and if he was a “coach,” what he would have coached her to do differently. Then, I’ll be better prepared.
2. I heard the type of challenges made and questions that were asked. Knut has already corrected one aspect that he saw in my first draft, so I realize that he is really attuned to strengthening my dissertation. Things that I’m more attuned to are:
   1. Cohesive methodology–especially tying in the theoretical framework. I have Knut’s notes on this too, but I see better what I have to do.
   2. Critique of sources–This is good to analyse, but I might be fortunate here (more below).
   3. Defining terms precisely, to demonstrate how I am using them.
   4. Delimit aggressively, which means being clear what is being left out and why I am leaving it out.

So the subpoints 1-4 above are probably esoteric for most of you, but here’s the most interesting insight for me: Mostly likely, the opponents won’t know the Maasai worldview!!! The German woman had it tough, because 2 of her 3 opponents were Sinology experts–or experts on China. She is a missiologist interfacing with China, but she’s not a Sinologist. So, few will have the same ability to scrutinize my Maasai portrayal like these opponents were able to scrutinize her Confucian portrayal and other themes. I might be fortunate in this matter. However, it means that they will come with questions that will be about what they know, but which might not be at the center of my research.

Once I know who my opponents are, the conventional wisdom is to read lots of their works, so one knows what their perspectives and passions are and how to align with their work, i.e., “I believe this is similar to your enculturation hermeneutic reflected in your ‘Lament in Job 3’ article…”

So, this is probably not exciting for most of you, but I see how Providential it was to see this as I am still early in the writing phase.