 |
 |
Kerrie, sorry for the delayed response -- it's not as if we're not interested! Type vocabs seem somewhat challenging. Personally, I think the ADT is a little limited in scope at the moment in only focusing on "pure" research theses - ie, by excluding significant other theses that may be a component of a postgrad degree conducted largely by coursework. At the end of the day there is a perennial problem associated with classification which seems to be exacerbated as information spaces get larger -- where to set the "boundaries", & how best to define the categories of demarcation? I'm inclined to think that such classification always runs the risk of being arbitrary unless it is tempered by parallel approaches. Importantly, classification according only to some kind of notion of "level" misses the opportunity to capture other "content" useful to other researchers. So, I would argue that there are a number of choices for Type such as: research thesis, coursework thesis, Masters thesis, postgraduate thesis, PhD thesis, dissertation, etc... It's probably also worth noting that the traditional PhD has been under fire for sometime now. Partly as a response there are many other kinds of "professional doctorates" now being offered by institutions. So "PhD" doesn't really adequately capture the domain beyond Masters level anyway. I would also question whether the demarcation between Masters & PhD is essentially just Type question. The way it is cast in your query seems more concerned with level. If the ADT is to be a repository of "theses" then that's what it should be. The question remains, how best to specify a Type vocab? And it a principle of "inclusiveness" were to operate then why not just be minimal about it & use "thesis"? Jon > -----Original Message----- > From: Kerrie Talmacs [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Tuesday, 21 March 2000 10:43 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Type in the Higher Education sector > > Dear All > > I have a Type issue in Higher ed. In the Australian Digital Theses Project > we generate metadata from the information entered by students as they > deposit their theses. See: > http://www.library.unsw.edu.au/thesis/thesubm.html > We currently differentiate Masters theses from PhDs but are wondering if > we > need to be more specific. We are in the process of gathering details of > theses of participant universities to assist our decision making. Does > anyone have any views about what might be the optimum levels of > specificity? Our deliberations seem to be relevant to the broad discussion > of Type for DC-Ed. > > All suggestions welcome. > > Kerrie > -------------------------------------------- > Kerrie Talmacs > Metadata Co-ordinator > Electronic Information Resources Group > Library > University of New South Wales > Sydney, 2052 > Australia > Phone: +61 2 93852622 > Fax: +61 2 96626309 > http://www.library.unsw.edu.au/~eirg/metadata.html > --------------------------------------------------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%