Okay, so, basically I am doing extremely well and am a bit ahead of the game, which feels very good. I have successfully passed my “mini-proposal” (where I write a draft version of the first three chapters of my dissertation: a major hoop to jump through at ITP) and can now begin forming my committee.
However, my advisor, Olga, suggests that I still need to refine and simplify my topic as it is still too much to handle if I want to graduate anytime in the next decade. This means that I have to make some difficult choices (same old story).
As it stands, she has convinced me of the wisdom of switching my method from thematic analysis to Giorgi’s phenomenological method. She has also convinced me that it is okay to just focus on Husserl and Merleau-Ponty and drop Levinas, as much as I’m interested in his work. Husserl and Merleau-Ponty are certainly enough to work with–this I know.
Yet, beyond this I’m coming up against some reluctance to drop any of the three core topics: direct perception, intersubjectivity, and collective emergent consciousness. Intersubjectivity is where the juice is for me but she has proposed that I focus on comparing Husserl and Merleau-Ponty’s versions of phenomenology based upon their own lived experience or direct perception. That is, she thinks I can drop intersubjectivity and collective consciousness and just focus on the direct perception of these two using phenomenological psychology to examine their life and work.
Yes, well, this may very well be very dry and nit-picky to many but it is crucial to my career path and any academic choices I make within the next few years.
I am hoping to work this out very soon. In the meantime, I will continue to procrastinate on my other duties by updating all of my online profiles and blogs.
direct perception is an interesting angle… why are you focusing in that area?