During my academic career, there has never been a moment where I have felt, "Ah, yes - I know everything there is to know about this subject, and no one can tell me otherwise." No matter how much research I have ever poured into a topic or interest in mine, I have always had some intellectual "doubts" and gaps after all was said and done - I never felt one hundred percent confident in saying I was ever an expert on anything. After writing an argumentative paper, I would never feel too sure about it because I could see the points of the other side, and consequently counter and poke holes in my own thesis. Where do people find ideas of such absolutism in their work? Even in objective facts, perspective is subjective while assessing and interpreting the significance of them.
In Davida Charney's article, "Empiricism Is Not A Four Letter Word," she touches on how scholars can be drowned in elitism when submerged in the "infallible" results of science and quantitative research. Charney mentions that one criticism of science in research is that it is a way to avoid "interpretation, [to] eliminate the human element of subjectivity ... and [to] go on misrepresenting the world as a manageable, fully determinate, and reducible to clear and accurate formulas" (571). By completely immersing yourself in the "elitist flashiness" of science, it seems like there is a possibility that we lose sight of the humanistic meaning in the data. While numbers and formulas are impressive, they are not able to critically think about and analyze the significance in the point of the research. However, this is not to say that scholars who are founded in critical thinking are on a high horse, either. Both sides have their guilt as elitist and are easy to discredit each other in terms of the validity of their research methods, which result in a stalemate and a wasted opportunity to collaborate. Instead, Charney encourages a healthy dose of both sides of the spectrum: scientific research is wonderful and effective, and the humanistic and critical analysis of it is what makes it all worth it, which makes complete sense. Additionally, no one should think that they are academically "superior" to anyone - there is no finality in research. If there was, I think that would eliminate the possibility of progress. Instead, scholars should always keep an open and grounded mind during their academic endeavors, so that they can continue to test and develop new theories and ideas to further their research.
"Out of Our Experience: Useful Theories" also speaks on a similar note to Charney's. The article discusses how teacher-researchers are always learning from their students and colleagues, and consequently testing out and comparing their theories to build their professional career. There are always new ideas to learn from and new perspectives to consider, and to be both a "good" teacher and researcher, they should always be expanding their academic boundaries and maintain a certain awareness in the effectiveness of their teaching. Resting on elitism, again, is extremely dangerous and personally crippling in their growth as a learning individual. Overall, I feel that it is always beneficial to maintain humility with knowledge and a certain open-mindedness as time goes on if you want to intellectually and personally better yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment