OK so do you mean that analysis is ok for a PhD as long as the same analysis has not already been done by someone else? Assuming the subject hasn't been done already, is there any guidance / criteria out there for choosing between analysis and argument for RS / Humanities?

thanx

Jesus in the movies: A rhetorical analysis of selected films from 1912--2004
by Burton, Aaron V., Ph.D., Bowling Green State University, 2008, 133 pages; AAT 3301428

Abstract (Summary)
The purpose of this investigation is to discuss popular film interpretations of Christ's life and how the films' narratives function rhetorically. These films become part of the rhetorical dialogue and add to the discussion of Christianity. Using Fisher's (1984) Narrative Paradigm, a thematic and character analysis is conducted identifying the common themes of sacrifice and vengeance, noting the progress in the Christ character. Six films have been selected for analyses that represent both the successes and failures of the Christ Film genre. The films selected are From the Manger to the Cross (1912), The King of Kings (1927), The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965), Jesus Christ Superstar (1973), The Last Temptation of Christ (1988), and The Passion of The Christ (2004). In addition, the investigation seeks to understand each film in the particular period that it was produced. Using rhetorical analysis and history data, this investigation attempts to understand the ways that films about Jesus aid in spreading the message of the Gospels.

'Kantian transpositions': Derrida and the philosophy of religion
by Miller, Eddis N., Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, 2008, 204 pages; AAT 3309475

Abstract (Summary)
This dissertation examines the place of Immanuel Kant in the works of Jacques Derrida. In particular, it examines the significance of Kant's philosophy of religion for Derrida's late texts on religion, and reads Derrida's "Faith and Knowledge: The Two Sources of 'Religion' at the Limits of Reason Alone" as an attempt to "transpose" the Kantian gesture of thinking religion "within the limits of reason alone." To understand this transposition, this dissertation begins by exploring in more general terms the significance of Kant's philosophy of religion, and evaluates its historical role in the foundation of the "philosophy of religion" as an autonomous mode of philosophical inquiry, independent of philosophical theology (Chapter 1). The investigation then proceeds to examine in detail Derrida's reading of Kant's philosophy, focusing specifically on Kant's ethical thinking (Chapter 2), as well as Derrida's various texts on Kant's Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone (Chapter 3). Having thereby established the contours of Derrida's deconstructive engagement with Kant's philosophy of religion, this dissertation then examines the ways in which Derrida pursues this Kantian attempt to think religion within the limits of reason alone in "Faith and Knowledge" and other texts (Chapter 4), all the while retaining the lessons derived from his deconstructive readings of Kant, as explored in Chapters 2 and 3. This reading of Derrida serves to highlight the centrality of Kant in Derrida's thinking, a centrality eclipsed particularly in studies of Derrida's texts on ethics and religion, which overestimate the importance of Emmanuel Levinas for Derrida's thought at the expense of Kant.

Dear all,

I am a Religious Studies postgrad.

I was under the impression that one difference between a (RS / Humanities) PhD and an MA dissertation was that for an MA you could either 1) argue a thesis or 2) analyse something (eg a novel, a scripture etc), whereas for a Phd you have to argue a thesis and # 2 was not an option. Have I got this wrong?? Looking at proquest abstracts there seem to be plenty that seem to be analysing and not arguing anything. Here are a couple of random examples...