Well,
I used the hibernation excuse for a prolonged period with no posts already. But
I am using it again since I think it’s so clever. Much like a female polar
bear, I have emerged from my final year of graduate study accompanied by a
fledgling dissertation after long months—years, actually—of nurturing. With my degree
in hand, I can confidently return to the process of accumulating and digesting
material for my next cub—I mean research project.
Anyway,
you are probably wondering why this post is titled 3MT. I am using this
opportunity not only to brag about finishing grad school but also to brag about
winning the University of Iowa’s inaugural 3MT® Competition. What is
it? According to Iowa’s website for the competition, 3MT is “an academic competition developed
by The University of Queensland, Australia. In this competition students share
their dissertation research to a general audience in an oral presentation
lasting at most … three minutes. Begun in 2008, the competition has grown to
include more than 125 universities worldwide, including 45 in the United States.” Distilling a
dissertation down to three minutes is challenging but doable—and valuable. The
emphasis is on clarity and concision, cornerstones of those ever-important communication
skills, and so it helps students in any discipline, primarily because they can
practice explaining an involved and arcane research project to an audience that
is not in the field. But even those “in the field” are not experts on the particular
topic of each and every dissertation. Mine was about surveillance and reading,
and few researchers of early modern English literature are experts on Renaissance
surveillance practices. So this activity can help with, say, a thesis defense,
in addition to the more conventional “elevator pitch,” research explanation in
an interview, and the annual justification for studying English to curious/inquisitorial
relatives at Thanksgiving.
I even
think that, if students start planning to do it early enough, it can help them
hone their argument even in the prospectus stage. 3MT asks students to explain
the background of their research, what new findings they had, and why it
matters in three minutes. Prospectuses should also aim to situate the work in a
larger conversation, explain what the research will add, and show why it is
important. This may be extreme, but I think the 3MT model would help in the creation
of a prospectus. It also can make the research more competitive for scholarships,
fellowships, and grants since it encourages students to think about how to
appeal to a broader audience—something that really should be done early on,
even though it is often not done until much later in the writing process. I
feel that 3MT can make the thesis better, if started early enough. Or, in my case,
it can make the explanation of the thesis better—in a variety of contexts.
Check out my three-minute presentation, which garnered me a first-place prize
and a People’s Choice award—not the
People’s Choice©, ®, ™, etc. award, but an award nonetheless.
Also, if the competition takes place at an amazing place like the University of
Iowa, you can get a short, user-friendly video about your research that you can
just put on the “About” page of your blog (see “About” page of this blog). If
any reader is interested in Iowa's 3MT competition,
contact Dr. Alex Schott at the University of Iowa. He put Iowa’s together and
made it a phenomenal experience.
For
more information on the 3-minute Thesis, see http://threeminutethesis.org/ and http://www.grad.uiowa.edu/three-minute-thesis-competition-at-the-university-of-iowa
I
am also putting up the video here in case clicking on the “About” page doesn’t
suit your fancy:
Canon Confidential: here is another installment of
canon confidential, where I compile a list of author-spies, or notable literary
figures who used their skills in reading, in plotting, in cultivating
ambiguity, and in withholding information until the right moment as writers and
as spies. This is very much in the spirit of Charles Nicholl, who long ago
noted the “frequent intersection of the literary world and the intelligence
fraternity” (see Nicholl’s The Reckoning: The Murder of Christopher Marlowe,
page 171—I am not endorsing Nicholl’s argument that Marlowe was the victim of a
conspiracy, just his widely accepted side note that spies and authors share the
same skill set). So, without further ado, here is the clue:
This man, who is responsible for one of the oldest libraries
in Europe and perhaps the most valuable library in the English-speaking world,
used his position as Elizabeth’s agent
abroad in the Netherlands to acquire books for his impressive personal
collection. Gabriel Harvey infamously called him a “curious
intelligencer,” which predictably caused Thomas Nashe to take great offense.
You can also view the clue here, as well as other clues and a link to the answer.
