While we do celebrate innovation, in that doctoral students are expected to create at least a nugget of new knowledge, we also stifle innovation, in that we force students to process and package their knowledge-nuggets in the same traditional packaging, with the same standardized dimensions. For example, with dissertation formatting requirements that warrant entire training workshops, I cannot help but wonder, how do seemingly empty requirements enhance students’ learning and knowledge creation (assuming this is still why we admit doctoral students)? I am by no means advocating for complete eradication of guidelines and expectations, but Dr. Fowler has challenged us to think critically about why we do what we do in teaching. Even beyond the logistics of the physical dissertation document, there are ways in which some of what we do is merely “going through the motions,” or doing things a certain way simply because “that’s how they’ve always been done.”
I wonder whether doctoral programs will begin to shift from having students conform to what has always been done to welcoming and supporting students in doing something different—or whether they are too convinced that they are already doing what is best to ever consider something new.