But after the grueling PreViva stage, I made several significant edits, and then submitted again. This time it was supposed to be a bigger deal because this draft would go to the external examiners and determine the fate of my work. However, I somehow felt that after this draft, and after the examiners look at it, I would again have to make changes/alterations and it would be the final (third) draft that would be more significant. This draft just feels like a mid-way point.

However I know it is a really big deal. Just didn’t feel like it… because I was feeling cautious. I also enjoyed writing the acknowledgements page… partly because it was good to see free-flowing writing for my dissertation. Sadly, I missed an important name, so will have to correct that when I get the draft back to correct.

I do feel a little scared as well. I was disappointed with the PreViva because the comments were largely structural and there was very little engagement with my content. And I fear that now with specialists (theologians) reading my work, some content problems may arise.  So there is some anxiety within.

Currently, my Viva is set for 10 February.

Well… I finished my final draft of my dissertation on the 27th of October, about a month later than I wanted to submit it.  The procedure then was to wait for a month so that the SAIACS doctoral committee could read my work, and then I would face them in a PreViva.

The PreViva was a new addition to the SAIACS doctoral programme. Theis was an opportunity for SAIACS to raise the standard of all doctoral research, in a multidisciplinary setting, before the work was submitted to the external examiners… where I would face my real Viva.

The consequence of me submitted about a month late was that November was (and is) a really busy time at SAIACS and very few people had the time to read my work. So my PreViva was postponed by a few days.

I was a little nervous, because the topic I had chosen was really  broad. But I knew I was happy with the research but was afraid if I had missed something, or some blind spot.

My PreViva was attended by my dissertation Supervisor, Dr. Chris B., through skype from Montreal.

The PreViva began at approximately 10am, and went on till 1:00pm… 3 hours. Then, after people had a day to submit further comments, there was a two hour long meeting going through the comments to consolidate what I would have to address.

I was finally given two documents, a long one giving detailed questions. And a shorter one, with certain points on what the committee felt I should address.

The basic gist was that I had to rewrite my conclusion, which was evidently weak. It wasn’t clear, after reading my conclusion, what I was actually trying to say. I had not covered all the basis (or implications) of my thesis. In view of this, I would have to modify my introduction as well. Plus a few minor points of correction in the middle.

In my view the changes were not drastic, but were still significant. I knew that after the PreViva, my work would be much stronger. And for that I was grateful.

I was a little frustrated at the kinds of questions that were asked… some of them were clearly asked without understanding my work. Still, the overall effect was positive.

Now, I have till January 7, to complete my final draft, for submission to my external examiners. Whoever they be. Hopefully, my external viva will be a month later, in February.

If all goes well, I have only minor corrections, and then I graduate in March. If not, then back to the editing table.

The McGill library database was a immense collection of many e-resources that helped me supplement my other research. It was particularly useful when I was in Canada, but more so when I was allowed to extend my use by Presbyterian College for a year.

I used the McGill database primarily for its articles through google-scholar. It had a great feature that when I logged on to McGill, and then opened Google-Scholar, I could see which articles McGill had full-text access to. Apart from that, I really used the ProQuest dissertation database and also some ebooks.

Sadly, since I had been so busy with teaching in June that I wasn’t able to scour the McGill e-files for one-last run for more stuff. And silently it was all gone.

And now, I am a plain old PhD student from India without superpowers! :)

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life/current-events/op-ed-blog/25384-who-should-lead-the-church

A response article in the emerging scholars blog: http://blog.emergingscholars.org/2011/04/jesus-didnt-choose-scholars/#more-4579

My own quick response is that the need for scholars is different from the need to understanding God and His word more deeply. In the Indian context, most lay Christians are satisfied by just listening to their pastors preach; it is their main source of teaching. Even if they have their own bibles, rarely do people study it. Similarly, many pastors are themselves non-scholars, in that they too pass down knowledge that they got from other sources, whether their bible school or their own teachers, without serious study that is necessary to understand God’s word. The answer for India however is not that therefore we need scholars/theologians to run churches, rather more and more people must think theologically/more biblically/be studious about God and His word. Whether these students of God come from the lowest parts of society or the highest, the demand is the same; take God and His word, and His Church, seriously.

This photo was taken in the SAIACS library, where I have been hard at work on my chapter 4.

One day I’ll look at this picture and marvel at how God led me through this impossible journey.

One day… I hope, I hope.

Cutts: In some sense when people come to Google, that’s exactly what they’re asking for — our editorial judgment. They’re expressed via algorithms. When someone comes to Google, the only way to be neutral is either to randomize the links or to do it alphabetically. If we don’t have the ability to change how we rank things to try to improve the search engine, that goes right to the crux of everything.

While most of us would agree that search results need to be filtered, we are often not aware that when we “google” something, we are actually seeing a list that is editorialised by Google. Any search result is therefore not neutral but determined, by a complex algorithm along with user involvement.

Of course other search engines do the same thing. And one of the reasons Google is so successful is because they seem to aim at neutrality as well as quality (a fine line between subjectivity and objectivity). Plus, they still provide the most useful and best search results (compared to what I’ve found in other sites).

So, this is not a critique of Google, just an interest heads up for me… a reminder that there is more subjectivity around us than we think.

I am currently in Chennai doing some supplementary research at Gurukul Lutheran Theological College. Actually the full story is that I am running away from my college so that I can focus for two weeks on writing my chapter four. SAIACS is having so many activities and people asking me for one small thing or another, I really needed to force the issue and get out… to write. But back to Gurukul, I’d heard about this college from my Mentor, but actually had no idea about it. So coming here was a journey into the unknown.

Thanks to google-maps, I found out where it was. Even though I struggled over the one-ways to get there.

The Gate-guard let me in after I said I wanted to go to the library, and even helpfully guided me where I should park my bike.

The library was up, above the auditorium, I think, and so I had to climb a bunch of stairs to get there.

The library itself was a large one hall-size room, with a smaller level up for the archives.There were about four tables for reading/working, in the front, while the stacks were at the back. There were two computers for online catalogues (they used the same software as UTC), but when I did some preliminary search queries, I found it was best to check the card catalogue as well.

While the librarian was not there that day, another person (assistant librarian perhaps?) handled my admission to the library. I had a letter from SAIACS, plus my id card. I had to fill a form, and pay Rs. 50 per week. Also, I had to give a photocopy of my ID card, something I didn’t have on me, so I said I’d do it later.

There were limited plug points though, for computer laptop/notebook purposes, but that is just like UTC.

My first impression was that it was smaller than expected.  Upon glancing on the shelves, there was a lot on Luther and related subjects. So I know where to go, if I want to study Luther!

I immediately found the resources that I needed, which was what was important. And so since so far, the Chennai weather is not too hot, the library itself wasn’t that uncomfortable to study in.  I’ve already made some progress, and so, for now, this trip and library is very much paisa vasool.

When I was a PhD student, I shared my academic struggles with my own mentor. I told him I was struggling to make any progress. My mentor asked me “Are you working hard?” I said,  “Yes. I work 10 hours a day in the day time and then another two at night.” My mentor said, “Then, you are making progress!”  And sure enough, within a few days I was able to make a huge breakthrough.

source: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd012111s.gif

“However philosophers may boast, anyone can easily understand that reilgion is not to be sought from them. For they take part in the religious rites of their fellow-citizens, but in their schools teach divergent and contrary opinions about the nature of their gods and of the chief good, as the multitude can testify.”

Google books link.