Thesis Evaluation:

Comments:
David's thesis is a study of the public process surrounding the efforts on the part of the city of Sarasota to engage the public (and build consensus around) a re-engineering of US 41 as it runs along the bay front near downtown. The downtown master plan (the so-called "Duany plan") had proposed a re-design of the bay front in order to re-connect the downtown with the amenities along the water, but this was one of the elements of the plan that was shot down by public objections. The city wanted to re-open the issue, and to build consensus by taking advantage of the "charrette" process.

The thesis is an ambitious piece of work that combines several components. First, he presents a detailed history of Sarasota's development, and lays out this history against the background of a more general history of American urban development (with a particular focus on the period of post WWII suburbanization, but also impressively comprehensive). He also presented a good explication of the basic principles and perspectives of the movement called "New Urbanism," the principles of which have guided the city in its efforts to revive the downtown. Second, the thesis presents a very detailed and perceptive account of the charrette itself, an event that took place over the course of several days and in which David participated as an 'participant observer.' In many respects, this is the strongest segment of the thesis. It turned out that David is a very insightful field researcher, and he did an excellent job of presenting his observations in the form of a coherent, compelling and illuminating narrative. If there had been time for another round or so of editing at a substantive level, he might have tightened up both of these sections a bit, bringing his arguments into a little sharper focus by organizing the exposition (perhaps) a little more analytically rather than sticking to the chronology so tightly.

The third component of the thesis is the development of a very creative and potentially very important theoretical argument: an application of 'actor-network' theory to the sociology of re-making cities. This was a piece that started with some initial insights that were rather loose and not clearly articulated, but I was impressed by the way his ideas developed and sharpened with each draft. I had my doubts about the intellectual ambitions of this part, but in the end I was convinced that he is not only on to something, but that he is well on the way to developing an innovative and potentially significant theoretical argument.

Overall, this turned out to be an outstanding thesis. There are ways in which the arguments might have been tightened up, perhaps presented in a more efficient and focused way. As is common in the thesis process, I think he began to get the clearest sense of his arguments toward the end. Even so, however, the writing is sharp and effective, and it is clear throughout that he has thought carefully, that he approached his material with good critical and analytical skills, and that he has followed through on an ambitious project in a manner that is original, creative and very interesting.

I own a garage door opener on my sun visor. I have another small remote that opens a useless guard gate into a community full of ex-marines, information technology administrators, starter families, and various other "young urban professionals." This is not something I would have planned: to live in a small gated community off of a major arterial with a bachelor's degree and ideals; but that doesn't make it undesirable.

I'm gunning for the Alumni Coordinator position. I talked to Claire about the position and it actually sounds more interesting than I had originally thought. An office with a door, at only 22? Very possible. With me as the hub of a far-left wing alumni network, and Katie working at Planned Parenthood, and James as the freelance student, I feel that our little town house behind the useless guard gate will make great sitcom material. One where I walk in through the front door and say something funny (an off-the-cuff witticism about aging hippies) and the audience will burst into canned laughter. We'll play trivial pursuit and argue about Foucaultian interpretations of Watchmen. (Pro tip: Its all about the historical perspective and perceptions of the body.)

I graduate in less than 4 weeks.

Drink
Drink
Drink
Coffee
Coffee
Coffee
Toast
Cleaning
Laundry
Coffee
WRITING
WRITING
WRITING
read
WRITING
WRITING
Coffee
Coffee
Coffee
Chamomile
Worry
Sleep
Sleep
COFFEE
Watch Glenn Beck
Watch Rachel Maddow
Read the news
Eat
write.

This draft has really come a long way. It is very nicely written, mostly clear (although the argument is a bit complicated and not all that easy to follow when you get in to the actor network theory). You’ve set a pretty challenging task for yourself, applying actor-network theory in this way, but I think it is working. There are a couple of places where some specific references to your “data” would be helpful. In general, I think your interpretations of the situation are interesting and insightful. It might help to include a simplified explanation of Callon’s analysis of the electric car as an example of the way the theory works, then use that explanation as a point of comparison. One of the things that isn’t clear in your discussion is the outcome of the charrette. You seem ready to call it a “failed” charrette, but I’m not sure that it is all that clear. There are some charrettes that end in a really clear failure-- the project can’t move forward. However, in spite of the persistent opposition from the ‘old coots,’ isn’t it the case that the city plans to go forward with their plans to transform 41? Perhaps the failure is that they didn’t get the “consensus” for which some were hoping, that the charrette didn’t resolve all the conflicts and end in a group hug, but I think there were maybe some unrealistic expectations for the charrette on the part of some in the city. Do you have any of the actors’ own assessments of the “success” of the charrette? I wonder if you couldn’t squeeze in a couple of interviews with city staffers and, say, LouAnn Palmer. “So, how do you think it went, in retrospect…?” Ordinarily I wouldn’t want you collecting more data at this point, but it seems like it would be really useful to have something like that on which to base some more specific statements regarding perceptions and assessments of the ‘success’ of the effort. So I need to get in contact with some people and do some quick and dirty phone interviews. But the end is in sight.

Hello everybody. I'm your tour guide, my name is David ForestChild and I'll be your spirt guide through your New College Experience.

I like to start these tours off with how New College differs from the other big state colleges in Florida. Unlike FU College, we don't have those 1,000-student teaching auditoriums that students live inside. All of our professors are English-speaking, unlike other big colleges where they speak funny languages and eat strange muffins. Our faculty are townies, but the good kind.

University of Florida College is too big to offer meaningful and drug-induced one-on-one academic advising that is so crucial in the liberal arts. Speaking of the liberal arts, I want to clear up the preconcieved notion that our areas of concentration aren't directly applicable to real-world problems. Our students focus their study in subjects that have just as much importance as sports management, tourism recreation, Golf and Sports Turf management, packaging science, and general theater.*

Now for our tour.

This is College Hall. We do everything in College Hall because its so pretty. Trust me when I say that our use of the historic mansions is in direct proportion to their appearance in our promotional literature. Next door is cook hall. I live there with five of my best friends. So can you!

Next is the Four Winds Cafe. Its completely student run and all of their menu is vegetarian. It always amazes me how cheap and reliable their menu offerings can be! I go here every day and have soul-touching conversations with all of my professors. All of them.

Here is the Heiser Building. It is a state-of-the-art facility that has found a way to fit an entire respectable college-level natural sciences facility into a single tiny building. Take my word for it, everything you need to learn about science is in that single building.

This is our library. Its collection is extensive, always up to date, and is at the bleeding edge of technology adoption. It also contains our thesis room: The most sacred space of the entire college. No matter what trials or tribulations the college endures, you can trust that this single symbol of our collective academic achievements will be the last thing standing. We hold our students' capstone projects as the end result of everything that goes on around here.

The east side of campus is our residential side. Our students never do drugs or drink alcohol. This is why we do not have any kind of consistant drug and alcohol policy that protects us from over-zealous state and federal prosecution or individual whims. This is Hamilton Center. It is my understanding that at other University Colleges, this is called a "student union." We don't call "Ham" a student union because it lacks students and it does not imbue a sense of union. But from what I've heard of FU, I understand that we differ in other ways. We do not have all of those fast food joints, Cheesecake Factories, or all-you-can-eat protien shake dispenseries. Ham also does not contain gun turrets, mind-washing lounges, or multple flat-screen televisions.

This is Pei. You will never live as well as you do in Pei. We recently built five new dorms across the campus. These dorms were built after conducting a very open community design process and then distilling their innovative thoughts into over-engineered key-card access boxes of air-conditioned sterility.

So, that concludes our tour. I hope you choose to attend New College before we become insolvent.

*These are all actual majors at UF. Check their web site.

I refuse to post my feelings on the internet.

I was worried about what Dr. Brain would say about my field work writing. I was afraid he'd tell me I had a very basic methodological flaw, or maybe I am not quoting enough, and there would be no way to get more insight into my subjects. But then I got this email:

Here are your drafts with some minor editorial suggestions.  Things like
"clean up your use of commas."  A few side comments on the fun stuff you
report, which you should probably ignore.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "framework of non-mutually-exclusive
labels."  

In general, I think you do a really nice job of recounting the process.
Your narrative is perceptive and illuminating, and also generally reads
well.  I'm a little worried that it might run on a bit long, if you do
this 12 pages for every day.  Eventually you might have to organize the
account in a more analytical or thematic fashion (maybe that's what you
mean?).  I think it is probably best to write your way through it as you
have been, and then think about how you might clump things differently.

Overall, nice job.  Really fun stuff for me to read, since I wasn't
there but have witnessed quite a lot of that sort of thing.  When you
are finished, I'm thinking I might recommend the account to some of my
NU friends.  There's a wry humor in your narrative that is also very
nice (if not perhaps strictly social scientific).  

DB