It's hard, man. In the bachelors degree, you don't get taught to any great extent how to think critically, or express your own thought as much...Perhaps I'm wording that incorrectly...You aren't taught or prepared to think at a postgraduate level, which means that when you do get to that stage, you're dropped in the deep end. Some people thrive on pressure, and while I do work well under the hammer (I think, at least), I couldn't help but wonder - am I 'cut out' for research (See image above for an accurate depiction of my face as I left my supervisory meeting)?
As it stands, I'm currently rewriting the parts of my chapter that let me down, namely my introduction paragraph (done), and the 'toning down' of my citations. I'm reading The Transformation of Intimacy (1992) and Liquid Love (2003) again. I need to figure out how to overcome my self-doubt and confidently critique these writings (I still feel like I am a lowly undergrad with no right to an opinion, which isn't doing me any favours).
I guess for me, the problem is never going to be a 'writing block' or lack of inspiration. For me, it's a lack of motivation that is psychologically based on my low sense of self-worth. I'm unsure if my other classmates suffer from the same lack of confidence (I can think of two girls in particular that rock at what they do, and would be surprised to think they feel otherwise), but perhaps I can bring this up in class on Monday. I can't be the only fresh-faced honours student filled with doubt in the formative stages of their thesis?
Oh well, I just need to keep on writing, nothing will get done by procrastinating. More to come on my progress when there's actually progress to comment upon.
References
Bauman, Z 2003, Liquid Love: On the Frailty of Human Bonds, Polity Press, UK.
Giddens, A 1992, The Transformation Of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies, Polity Press, UK
Hi Matt
ReplyDeleteI think you need a healthy dose of youthful arrogance :)
I found when I was writing my literature review like I had the very opposite problem, I even spoke to my supervisor about whether potentially I was writing in an unprofessional and even "snarky" way.
I think that perhaps as you get more into it you will be more confident critiquing the masters, but until then you should know that you are intelligent, have read more of this stuff than most people (even at a post grad level) and you have a right to stick it to them when they need it, even if it is, say.... Giddens.
Good luck with it all, looking forward to reading more about it.
Sara
Hi Sara,
DeleteThank you, that means a lot coming from you! How has your literature review gone? I get the impression you've finished it already? I'm still trying to find out how one 'critically engages' with something. I'll get there, eventually!
When will you start posting on your blog? I want to read your developments too.
Matt
Hi Matt
ReplyDeleteHow are you?
There are two schools in sociology on the authorial voice. The first following the empirical school encourages researchers to remain passive and distant in the reporting of results. This school constructs the researcher as a ‘vessel’ if you will, who is both willing and able to be neutral in the reporting process and for the most part silent. The school separates the individual from the social world to a degree in assuming that the reporting of social facts can occur divorced from the social values and influences impinging on the reporter. This approach is quite common in the ‘hard’ quantitative research that occurs, within which discussions of procedure and methodology are assumed to have rigour on their own terms independent of whether the researcher sort of believes this to be the case or not. It follows a sort of ‘social consciousness logic’, which links to canonical practices in the field with their own weight.
The second school follows the Weberian logic of basically asking why a particular topic has even been embarked upon by the researcher. The answer to this within the school is usually personal interest of some sort. The school sees this rationale as evidence that the researcher is a reactive element in the project with their ‘own stakes to the deal’ and rejects the dichotomy between researcher and subject matter in the empirical school. It is not possible to divorce reporting and individual values under this paradigm. One of the benefits of the reflexive approach to reporting is that it, through the candidness of the researcher, enables readers to reference the findings against the authors own biographical context to identity the degree of reliability.
Which school of reporting do you prefer? Are there any particular reasons for the preference in light of your research topic?
I say all this to suggest that the approach you followed in your literature review is not ‘wrong’, it obviously just follows a line of tradition that your particular supervisors are (uncomfortable with or in disagreement with?), but it is certainly not ‘fallacious’. At the end of the day, you need to be happy with your work. The important thing is that, irrespective of which approach you take to the authorial voice, you justify why. Then at least your work is safeguarded against criticism.
Keep up your good work!!
Peter Lalli