Before digging into the three articles I would like to just start by providing my own expectations and feelings about research before I started school again this semester. I personally have very limited experience with academia and the politics involved with publishing. I have heard a few horror stories from some of my friends, but nothing to the extent we talked about briefly in class on Monday. I still don't feel like I am ready to make a judgement on the whole institution. I also feel that as a Master's student I can sit back and observe more in general without worrying about the pressure of publishing. A professor I talked to told me "you are here to learn first, don't worry about the politics until later." I have taken that advice to heart at this point in my academic career. However, that same professor always asks me this same question when I bring a topic to him for advice. "Who else cares about this?" It is here that I am starting to get a little discouraged.
I was told before starting this that academia and research were amazing because I could dive deeply into a topic that interested me. On top of that you get to teach what you learn to kids who at the very least paid to listen to you and might even be slightly interested in your material. Sounds like a pretty good gig if you ask me. Now it's starting to become painfully obvious that this is not the case at least for the topic that interests you but may not exactly be deemed as important. I am already starting to become more self conscious of "who else cares about this?" question when coming up with a research topic. The articles practically reaffirm that fear for me. For one The New York Times article reaffirms my assumption that the social sciences and humanities are struggling to feel as important as the STEM professions. It is no secret that STEM research receives more funding than research in our field. As Jensen points out, it's this research that can create the most profit for corporations wish to adopt cutting edge break throughs in technology and science. However, as Jensen points out, this is our great opportunity to really start thinking outside the box and making break throughs in social science research. We are lucky to be free of this constraint that whatever we research needs to provide an immediate benefit to a corporation or government. Our field allows us to bring to the table fresh ideas about human communication and behavior. It's especially exciting because of the time we live in, where the average person in America has online news, their social connections, and personal life stored on a hand held device.
So I'll go ahead and take the time to condemn the third article and also condemn the question "who else cares about this?" It is holding us back from our passions and interests in this field. It is the safe, and conservative way to look at research. Research by it's nature should not be constrained and taken down a conservative path where researchers focus on what other people want to read and hear about, and more about what they are actually curious about. I would like to believe that if we are really passionate about our interests, then we can get other people to care about it by demonstrating and practicing our expertise on our topics of choice, and showing off that passion when we obtain our results.
I was told before starting this that academia and research were amazing because I could dive deeply into a topic that interested me. On top of that you get to teach what you learn to kids who at the very least paid to listen to you and might even be slightly interested in your material. Sounds like a pretty good gig if you ask me. Now it's starting to become painfully obvious that this is not the case at least for the topic that interests you but may not exactly be deemed as important. I am already starting to become more self conscious of "who else cares about this?" question when coming up with a research topic. The articles practically reaffirm that fear for me. For one The New York Times article reaffirms my assumption that the social sciences and humanities are struggling to feel as important as the STEM professions. It is no secret that STEM research receives more funding than research in our field. As Jensen points out, it's this research that can create the most profit for corporations wish to adopt cutting edge break throughs in technology and science. However, as Jensen points out, this is our great opportunity to really start thinking outside the box and making break throughs in social science research. We are lucky to be free of this constraint that whatever we research needs to provide an immediate benefit to a corporation or government. Our field allows us to bring to the table fresh ideas about human communication and behavior. It's especially exciting because of the time we live in, where the average person in America has online news, their social connections, and personal life stored on a hand held device.
So I'll go ahead and take the time to condemn the third article and also condemn the question "who else cares about this?" It is holding us back from our passions and interests in this field. It is the safe, and conservative way to look at research. Research by it's nature should not be constrained and taken down a conservative path where researchers focus on what other people want to read and hear about, and more about what they are actually curious about. I would like to believe that if we are really passionate about our interests, then we can get other people to care about it by demonstrating and practicing our expertise on our topics of choice, and showing off that passion when we obtain our results.
No comments:
Post a Comment