Black Sheep of Academic sources: Dissertations

Christine M. Ami

Thoughts on negating the value of dissertations in literature reviews.

I've run into a pet peeve while reading updated research on Navajo pastoralism, butchering, and food sovereignty published from 2016 onwards... primarily the statement implying that little has been published or written about from Navajo perspectives on sheep butchering or consumption of sheep meat by Navajo people. 

Literally if I read or hear that one . more .  time . (this coming from an author with 290 pages written on the topics)

It is one of many pushes that got me back into the writing game, specifically to get my dissertation into a book manuscript format so that it can be "counted" by academia as a publishing. 

But here is the thing... how often have junior or senior academics, who are about to write that infamous phrasing: "no contemporary research exists on ...<<insert topic>>" have actually jumped into ProQuest or attended graduate student conferences for presentations on  topics which allegedly "have yet to be explored." 

If you do a google search on "are dissertations a scholarly source" you will find subtext such as from Walden who claims: 

• "Note: While dissertations are definitely scholarly and are reviewed and edited before publication, they do not go through a peer-review process, and thus, aren't considered peer-reviewed sources."

I get it - I understand what peer-review is and its purpose. But as someone who spent more than a decade researching a topic thoroughly, guided with leading academics in their fields of study, awarded a doctoral degree indicating a level of knowledge in that topic, to then be told that their research isn't valuable in a dissertation format by statements such as "there is no previous research on... <<insert topic>>" when in fact that argument was made and defended in your dissertation, kinda pisses me off.  ​The counter is that not all dissertations are the epitome of research or critical inquiry - agreed. But then I wander into a worm hole of "how did the body of work withstand its defense? " and "why was it approved by their committee?"

It's an honest discussion that I have had with my colleagues, evening fighting back about the mantra of "a done dissertation is the best dissertation." As an Indigenous scholar who works with and in Indigenous communities - if the "R's" of Indigenous research are part of your framework, then that statement doesn't apply to you. Your dissertation or thesis, especially if you are working with communities (regardless if they are Indigenous or not) is a reflection of the relationships that you have established and are striving to maintain. Are you just done with them because you are done with your written body of work? Your findings are significant to them and they too deserve closure.  Done isn't a closure. Solid research with reported findings and continued relationships with the community are. And with your defense and submission of your committee approved thesis/dissertation, your community now also encompasses the academic community; so you should be prepared for your work to be engaged by your new peers and they should be ready to engage yours. The relationship doesn't end with that submission.

Now, this is not to say that I feel that my dissertation is in perfect condition; if it were, I would not be doing editing - my grammar, Chicago format, and sentence structures are cringe worthy at times. Not to mention, that I have grown so much since that 2016 Proquest publication that the time away from that written body of work has helped me to rethink my findings in a new, perhaps more mature light. But I don't devalue the findings, stories, and relationships from that writing, even if contemporary research conducted by myself or others have complicated those initial results. As I am in the editing process, I find my self writing about my dissertation as the 1st edition. My book publishing will be the 2nd edition with updates and a new voice, one that is grounded in storytelling instead of ensuring that I include a worldly breath of written works on the topic as presented in my "unique" literature review or of my statistical "brilliance" through presentations of equations (j/k but they are solid in the dissertation 😂😝😜). 

Returning to my thoughts on published dissertations and theses, I honestly ask for academics, new, junior, and senior scholars, to do a run through on your topic in Proquest. With the growing number of Indigenous authored projects, keep in mind that not all of us have the desire, resources, or time to transition our dissertations into a book manuscript or article publishings. YET - the research, the data, the revelations from cultural, scholarly grounded perspectives may rock your world, or at least, your project. You may be astounded at the high level of the Indigenous critical inquiry stemming from our youth. Don't discredit the value of our black sheep resource - dissertations by Indigenous authors who are culturally grounded.  

With that, I wanted to highlight some black sheep that I incorporate in my book project from Navajo scholars. And if you know of more, comment below... building a herd of black sheep requires some help 🐑🐑🐑🐑: 

Ph.D. Dissertation
Wade Campbell (2021) Na’nilkad bee na’niltin – Learning from Herding: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Historic Pastoralism on the Navajo Nation, KIVA, 87:3, 295-315, DOI: 10.1080/00231940.2021.1893456

Masters Thesis
​Lister, Andee Rose (2018) The bioaccumulation of uranium in sheep heart and kidney: the impact of contaminated traditional food sources on the Navajo Reservation. Masters thesis, Northern Arizona University.       

There is a brilliance in these black sheep sources that merit recognition in our literature reviews and critical evaluations of questions at hand. Ahe'hee' nitsáago, shidiné - t'áá awołí bee iniłta. --- yeah...you, I am talking to you  🥹