The Field Paper

In any doctoral program, some elements are likely to be more institutionalized than others.  Most schools, for instance, have a pretty good idea of how they would like you to form your dissertation committee.  In this entry I will present some notes on a task that is probably less emphasized, but is important nonetheless: the field paper.

A field paper is a synthesis of the literature in the particular area of planning in which you intend to focus.  It is more than an annotated bibliography and different than the literature review for your dissertation or proposal.  In an annotated bibliography you summarize the key points of relevant literature.  The field paper is more comprehensive, and a more coherent synthesis.  The field paper stakes the bounds of a particular area of study, placing literature in its larger context.  You should cover at least four elements: what is known and what is not in your field, what methodological approaches researchers have used to answer questions, how the questions and approaches to answer those questions have changed over time, and what issues and controversies are particularly timely now.  Where a literature review marshals sources to a specific research question, the field paper brings sources together to delineate the somewhat broader area in which you will work.  (My field paper had eighty-some sources, but a better paper for my area of interest might have included more.)

It is best to write the field paper early on in your doctoral studies, before you have progressed to exams.  In my case Lew Hopkins organized a seminar for me and a couple of my classmates at the University of Illinois.  If the PhD coordinator at your program does not organize a similar seminar, you might talk to your advisor about using a semester or two of independent study coursework to write your field paper, or better, self-organize a seminar with your class mates.

I'm on the job market this year (and possibly next year...), and my recent interviews have given me a new appreciation for the value of a field paper.  Originally I saw it as a good way of identifying useful dissertation topics (planners have long been concerned with X issue, but Y specific question remains unanswered...).  Now that I'm giving job talks, I have come to see its usefulness in establishing the value of my research to a larger audience.  I have to say that in terms of both scholarship and writing, my field paper kind of sucked, and in the end it didn't even relate much to my dissertation.  Nevertheless, because we doctoral students tend to hone in on our own research questions, sometimes more than we should, the experience of having to stake out the territory of a particular area of planning gave me a good sense of perspective.