From Topic to Thesis: A Guide to Theological Research
From Topic to Thesis
The treatment of sources is the concept from the book From Topic to Thesis: A Guide to Theological Research by Michael Kibbe that is of most interest to me. The concept has significant implications for my research as I move forward through the PhD in Bible Exposition program. First, regarding finding direction, Kibbe explains the chronological order of sources for research: (1) tertiary sources, (2) primary sources, and then (3) secondary sources.[1] Prior to beginning the PhD program, I had just finished a 5,000-word research paper that examined Isaac Dorner’s mediating position on God’s immutability as part of a ThM program. The primary source was Dorner’s essay, Divine Immutability: A Critical Reconsideration. At the time, it seemed logical that my priority should be to read Dorner’s work. As I began to read Dorner’s essay, I quickly realized that I did not understand the issues that he was addressing. Although the paper’s focus was God’s immutability, Dorner was engaging the doctrine of divine simplicity, kenotic Christology, the deism and pantheism debate of the nineteenth century, the philosophy of Schelling and Hegel, and the theology of Frederick Schleiermacher. Due to my confusion, I then began investigating secondary sources, such as peer-reviewed journal articles, to supplement my understanding. I knew that tertiary sources were not academically valid, so I was in the habit of ignoring them. However, upon reflection, if I had first introduced myself to the various topics Dorner was engaging by reading the tertiary sources, then I would have understood the bigger picture, which would have likely saved me a lot of time. Second, regarding Kibbe’s chapter on gathering of sources, he suggests not spending too much time on any one source, and he also notes that not every source will be well-written.[2] I really needed this advice a few months ago, and I believe sometimes these issues work together. As I reflect once again on the Dorner paper, I realize now that I was getting bogged down in reading one specific journal article that addressed Dorner’s use of Hegelian philosophy. My challenge was that this specific paper directly related to a section of my research paper, and it was the only one I could find on the topic; thus, I felt I had to use it.
Unfortunately, the more I read it, the more confused I became. Granted, Hegelianism is rather complex, but I kept thinking that I must not be smart enough to understand. Accordingly, I took way too much time dissecting the article. During my research, I also remember moving on to another article and some of the concepts began to gel. I then found myself thinking that maybe I am not so dumb after all. In retrospect, I now realize, through Kibbe’s assistance, that the article that addressed Dorner’s use of Hegelian philosophy was just not well written. The combination of a complex topic, a poorly written journal article, and allowing myself to spend too much time on one article caused much frustration. For some reason, I had a mental filter that caused me to think that if an academic source was peer reviewed, then the source had to be well-written. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Although I have a long way to go in developing my own writing skills, I now have a deeper appreciation for the concepts of clarity and conciseness.
Third, regarding Kibbe’s chapter on entering the discussion, I appreciated the advice regarding the utilization of sources to engage in the academic conversation. I had always heard that research was about new knowledge. Although I recognize that at the dissertation level the concept of new knowledge becomes more acute, in the past I would often feel stuck in my research by thinking that my arguments needed to be novel. Accordingly, Kibbe’s reinforcement of the idea that my research may not be new to the scholarly conversation, but the knowledge is new to me, was quite helpful. He also explains that contributing to the discussion could simply be agreeing or disagreeing with a position, building upon an already existing argument, or simply stating a position where scholars have already provided both sides of an argument.[3] I wish I would have had Kibbe’s guidance several years ago. In sum, Kibbe’s suggestions regarding the treatment of sources will significantly enhance my research efforts.
Quality Research Papers
The concept of most interest to me in the book Quality Research Papers: For Students of Religion and Theology by Nancy Vyhmeister pertains to thinking: research thinking and dissertation thinking. First, Vyhmeister’s chapter on research thinking is a good reminder of the importance of objectivity, focus, presuppositions, organization, intellectual honesty, and humility [4]
Although complete objectivity is impossible, the importance of weighing all the evidence, both for and against, of a given position is crucial. Focus and organization are two of my strengths. However, the importance of stating my presuppositions and recognizing the presuppositions of others should not be underestimated. Early on, I remember wondering what the professor meant by identifying the author’s presuppositions. Currently, I investigate the author’s background before reading any book or journal article to understand the perspective each scholar brings to their work.
Clearly communicating one’s presuppositions is also part of intellectual honesty. Intellectual honesty has probably been my most difficult challenge as a writer. Intentional plagiarism is not a problem. However, the subjectivity of when to cite a source continues to cause some consternation. I recognize that a citation is needed when an idea is not my own, and it is not part of a field’s common knowledge. However, when a student is new in the field, it is difficult to know what is considered common knowledge. I find myself citing less now than I did when I first began graduate work, but a gray area seems to still exist.
Vyhmeister’s chapter regarding the thought process behind dissertations was also quite helpful.[5] The explanation of the literature review was particularly productive. A comprehensive review of the relevant literature plays an important role in verifying that the dissertation does not directly overlap other research. Furthermore, it allows the researcher and reader to understand the bigger picture within which the research lands. Also, the scope and nature of the dissertation itself was informative.
Since a dissertation is expected to be 250-500 pages, I assume that one way to mitigate the overwhelming nature of the project is to recognize that I have written many twenty-page research papers, so the work of a dissertation will require the work of twenty of the individual research papers aligned into a cohesive whole. Furthermore, understanding the three stages of the dissertation process, proposal, writing, and defending, assists in thinking through preliminary steps I may be able to take currently. For example, as I come across relevant resources, it seems prudent to begin databasing the sources. In sum, Vyhmeister’s book provided several insightful observations. However, the chapter that examined how to think about research and the chapter that summarized the thought process behind dissertations were most profitable.
_____________________________________
[1] Michael Kibbe, From Topic to Thesis: A Guide to Theological Research (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016), 45–47.
[2] Ibid., 56–57.
[3] Ibid., 77–79.
[4] Nancy Jean Vyhmeister, Quality Research Papers: For Students of Religion and Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 57–66.
[5] See Ibid., 209–20.
Bibliography
