There are so many possible ways to conceptualize my dissertation project. It’s exciting to feel like there are so many possibilities, but it’s also overwhelming. What direction(s) do I want to go in? What’s my justification for making this choice? How will this choice frame the project in a useful way for the field? The issue is that I just need to pick SOMETHING. It doesn’t have to be perfect–merely workable–so that I can finish the prospectus and submit it to my advisers…and I had planned to finish it yesterday. (Instead, I napped, played with my cat, and ate delicious pizza from the new pizza truck down the street. Relatively restful, but…yikes).
I’m a writer who likes to have a clear outline from the beginning, which is why I think I’m having so much trouble moving this forward. I know that I will likely change the outline and/or frameworks and quite possibly the chapters, too, but it’s practically impossible for me to start without some semblance of…something. (Also, my cat is high on catnip and making the weirdest sounds…. Not helpful). When my students find themselves in similar situations, I encourage them to “just pick SOMETHING” and get started, since the project is usually relative short in length and the timeframe for completing it is limited. My dissertation project is theoretically bounded, too, but it’s so much bigger and broader and feels like it means so much more. I’ll probably write about most of the same things regardless of the frame I choose, but…UGHHHHHH.
So here are some of my ideas for organizing things….
Idea #1: rhetorical research methods
Introduction: rhetoric of health and medicine –> LD is an interesting case study –> necessitates that we broaden archives and research methods
Chapter 1: “traditional” deep rhetorical analysis of alphabetic text – naming and constructing LD through peer-reviewed scientific journal articles; language = evidence
Chapter 2: visual rhetorical analysis – LD images; images = evidence
Chapter 3: rhetorical circulation studies – examining online social spaces where people with LD collaborate and strategize to create community and get better care; moving beyond Gries’s circulation of one image to think about the construction/production/distribution of multiple (seemingly) static images; language and questions (?) = evidence
Note: Is this more of a virtual in situ study?
Chapter 4: semi-structured interviews – interview LD health seekers in the south (North Carolina) to learn about experience and possibility of disability identity; interview language and ideas = evidence
Idea #2: patient/activist vs. clinician-researcher/biomedical authority for learning about emergent illnesses
Introduction: rhetoric of health and medicine –> LD is an interesting case study –> construction of ethos –> evidence and authority (see ch. 7 of Segal’s Health and the Rhetoric of Medicine, 2005)
–> IDSA vs. ILADS discourse – the rhetorical problems with LD
Chapter 1: biomedical = what counts as evidence (maps, bull’s-eyes, ticks, spirochetes) vs. “subjective symptoms”
Chapter 2: biomedical = LLMDS – developing LD knowledge/authority through perceived “Lyme literacy”
(Note: not sure which archive I’m going to use here).
Chapter 3: patient/health-seeker = uninterrogated history of LD as a patient’s disease via Connecticut moms who reported it to the CDC and studied their ill neighbors and children; newspaper articles and popular publications (i.e. books by LD patients/witnesses)
Chapter 4: patient/health-seeker = crowdsourcing knowledge via online social networks; examining online social spaces where people with LD collaborate and strategize to create community and get better care
Note: Putting patient/health seeker and clinician/researcher/biomedicine in opposition feels a little bit arbitrary or simplistic.
Idea #3: stages of illness
Introduction: rhetoric of health and medicine –> LD is an interesting case study –> tells us a lot about rhetoric and emergent illnesses following the HIV/AIDS crisis
Chapter 1: diagnosis = rhetorical analysis of changing diagnostic guidelines
Chapter 2: treatment =naming and constructing LD through peer-reviewed scientific journal articles
Chapter 3: recovery = examining online social spaces where people with LD collaborate and strategize to create community and get better care
A) prevention = visual analysis of LD prevention ephemera, such as posters and brochures? IDSA vs. ILADS materials?
B) disability = questioning the chronicity/permanence of the condition via interviews?
WHEW. So much to think about. Time for a cup of tea…or a nap….