Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Method, Models, and Scholarly Types: Reflections on Thesis and Dissertation Writing in Pastoral Theology
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Method, Models, and Scholarly Types: Reflections on Thesis and Dissertation Writing in Pastoral Theology
Do you wish to request the book?
Method, Models, and Scholarly Types: Reflections on Thesis and Dissertation Writing in Pastoral Theology
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Method, Models, and Scholarly Types: Reflections on Thesis and Dissertation Writing in Pastoral Theology
2014
Overview
This article concerns the methodological issues confronted by pastoral theology students in their writing of a master’s thesis or doctoral dissertation. I introduce H. Richard Niebuhr’s (
1951
) identification of five models (
rejection, accommodation, synthesis, dualism,
and
conversionist
) for relating the theological and psychological resources used in their writing. Then, by means of Rudolf Arnheim’s art theory (
1986
,
1988
,
1996
), I identify three additional models (
convergence, juxtaposition,
and
structural uniformity
) and note their affinities with and complications of three of Niebuhr’s models (
synthesis, dualism,
and
accommodation
). I argue that these complications can play a positive role in the writing of a thesis or dissertation as they promote a fuller engagement with the empirical reality that is the focus of study. I also note David W. Galenson’s (
2006
) view that his typology of artists as
conceptualists
and
experimentalists
is applicable to scholars and suggest that awareness of which type is most characteristic of oneself may enable one to minimize the frustrations that one is likely to experience in writing a thesis or dissertation. I conclude with a brief discussion of Erik H. Erikson’s consideration of Martin Luther’s redefinition of work in
Young Man Luther
(chapter 5) and suggest that it makes the case for understanding thesis and dissertation writing as an exercise in liberated craftsmanship.
Publisher
Springer US,Springer Nature B.V
Subject
