In the world of literary studies, we often hear terms like 'critic', 'researcher', and 'scholar'. While these words are sometimes used interchangeably, particularly 'researcher' and 'scholar', the sources suggest there are nuances that differentiate these roles. Understanding these distinctions can shed light on the multifaceted nature of engaging deeply with literature.
At its core, research in literature involves two main aspects: the technical side (like writing literature reviews or collecting data using specific methods) and the mindset, which is seen as the 'software' part. The roles of critic, researcher, and scholar fall under this 'software' aspect – defining what someone is doing when they engage with texts and topics. An individual can embody all three roles, depending on their approach at any given moment.
The Critic: Focused on the Text Itself
The critic is primarily concerned with the literary work itself. They delve into the text, studying its style, structure, content, ideas, and genre. Think of a critic as someone performing a close reading, examining the intricate details within the confines of the work. Their business is the literary work at hand. The sources mention New Criticism, associated with figures like I.A. Richards and T.S. Eliot (though Eliot also touched upon ideas associated with scholarship like tradition), as an example of an approach primarily focused on criticism.
The Scholar: Seeking the Larger Context
Stepping beyond the critic is the scholar. While the critic focuses within the work, the scholar aims to see the work from without as well as within. Scholars are more concerned with the facts attending the literary work's genesis and subsequent history. They locate the text within a larger context, examining its origins, historical backdrop, and broader theoretical frameworks. This requires a wider horizon than just looking at the text in isolation. Scholars illuminate the work from every conceivable angle by uncovering and applying data residing outside the text itself. According to George Valley, a true scholar possesses critical acumen but also a "poet's eye," constantly searching for something yet unknown within the work, with perceptions heightened by looking.
The Relationship Between Critic and Scholar
Interestingly, the pursuit of the literary scholar and the critic is considered common. Their findings are indispensable to one another. A critic might use interpretations or findings from scholars to inform their reading of a poem, while a scholar relies on the critic's essential act of reading the text itself to perform deeper analysis. The dichotomy between the two roles is described as far more apparent than real. In fact, every good student of literature is constantly combining the two roles, often without consciously thinking about it. The difference is primarily one of emphasis. However, the sources suggest that being a scholar is seen as something "higher" or an expansion beyond being only a critic, as it involves a broader perspective. George Valley's observation reinforces that no critic can afford not to be a scholar, and a scholar needs critical insight to go beyond superficial work. Without scholarship, critical views can become cursory or lack substance.
The Researcher: A Sense of History and Time Travel
The concept of a researcher is closely linked to the scholar, and the terms are often used interchangeably. However, the sources highlight a key trait for a researcher: a vivid sense of history. A researcher must have the ability to cast themselves back into another age, not just in terms of time, but also discipline or subject matter. This involves adjusting their intellectual and imaginative responses to the systems of thought and cultural atmosphere of the past. They need to be able to think and fantasise as people did in different eras to comprehend the attitudes and assumptions guiding an author.
While the scholar is rooted in the present (the 21st century in the source's context) to provide indispensable perspective, the researcher has the ability to time travel into the past and quickly relate that 'pastness' back to the present. It implies a necessary 'double vision' – engaging with the vastness of the past while understanding its use in the present.
Qualities of a Scholar/Researcher
To perform these roles effectively, particularly that of a scholar or researcher, certain qualities are essential. The sources compare the required rigor to that of a scientist. Working like a scientist involves traits such as intellectual curiosity, shrewdness, precision, imagination, and lively inventiveness. These qualities help in suggesting new hypotheses, strategies, and sources of information, and enable accurate interpretation and evaluation of data. Just as scientists collaborate to illuminate a whole field, scholars need to work systematically, locating their work within larger theoretical frameworks and historical contexts rather than just focusing on an isolated text.
Mind and Temperament of Research Scholar | PhD Coursework Sessions
This session of the PhD coursework focuses on the making of the research scholar's mind – exploring the necessary thinking processes and soft skills required to move beyond being just a student to becoming a scholar.
The discussion begins by outlining the necessities for a rewarding research project.
A truly rewarding project, where you are eager to share your findings because you've done something significant and added to knowledge systems, requires several key qualities.
These include
- a fair degree of imagination,
- originality of approach,
- and solidity of learning.
Solidity of learning comes from extensive reading across various disciplines, building a strong base of knowledge. Originality involves finding new perspectives or applying existing approaches to texts in novel ways, a challenging task that requires imaginative thinking. The willingness and will to see literary works and their creators from new perspectives are crucial. The ability for divergent thinking can also contribute to making research rewarding. It's noted that while these qualities are essential abstractions, the 'how' of achieving them should not be overly streamlined; scholars need mental space to explore and apply these concepts in their own unique ways to maintain originality.
Publish or Perish
A significant portion of the discussion is dedicated to the concept of 'publish or perish'. This idea is described as very pernicious and very harmful to any kind of scholarship. The core argument is that scholarship undertaken under any kind of duress or pressure never leads to qualitative work. When publication is forced upon faculty for promotion or job security (a system noted to have emerged in American universities in the 1960s), people will publish, but the result is unlikely to be qualitative research. This system leads people to be "just running to publish" for career advancement rather than being driven by an "eagerness to know something more".
The discussion highlight that this pressure can create a hurdle for those who primarily wish to be teachers but are required to conduct research and publish, raising questions about how research in one field adds value to teaching practice, especially when the two are disconnected. Ideally, teaching and research go hand in hand, perhaps through action research that is practically useful for teachers in their actual work. However, in the 'publish or perish' environment, teachers may prioritise research activities over teaching itself. The focus shifts from genuine inquiry and knowledge growth to meeting publication quotas (e.g., specific journals).
A major consequence is that publications may not effectively raise questions or prompt further scholarly dialogue, leading to no growth of knowledge. The 'publish or perish' environment is said to normally lead to unhappiness and makes for an unhappy scholar. It can suppress genuine curiosity – the intrinsic desire "to know more" – which should ideally drive a researcher. Despite its harmful effects, it is acknowledged as the reality of today's academia and research environment, especially for young scholars building their careers. The ability to criticise the system often comes only after one has achieved a secure academic position.
What are the chief qualities of 'mind and temperament' that go to make a succesful and 'HAPPY SCHOLAR'
To cultivate the necessary qualities of mind and temperament for a successful and happy scholar, the discussion draws lessons from two seemingly disparate fields: law and journalism. Specifically, time spent apprenticing with criminal lawyers or investigative reporters can teach valuable skills. From law, the crucial learning is the principles of evidence and proof.
In research, just like in court, every statement requires evidence and citation; assumptions or ideas that "suddenly dawned upon" the scholar are insufficient. Statements of fact must be supported by evidence, not mere assumptions or beliefs.
From investigative journalism, the key takeaway is resourcefulness. This involves knowing where to go for information, how to obtain it, and the ability to recognise and follow up leads. It also requires tenacity to pursue facts. Investigative journalists rely on facts, as wrong reporting can have severe consequences. Both law and journalism demonstrate the importance of organisation skills and the ability to put facts together in a coherent way. Strong organisation is vital for structuring research and writing effectively. While the digital era has made information more accessible, negating some need for physical travel as in earlier days, dealing with people and knowing how to ask the right questions to get information remains necessary when standard sources are insufficient. The research journey is often like walking in wilderness, not a clearly mapped path, and supervisors are primarily guides, not companions at every step.
Reading John Livingston Lowes
Finally, the discussion touches upon the nature of human scholarship, suggesting it must operate within two worlds at once: the world of scientific method and the world of creative art. While distinct, successful scholarship requires a combination of both, just as scientific or mathematical advancements often stem from imagination. Research, being the primary instrument of science, can lead scholars to become too enamoured with methods and techniques, potentially forgetting the ultimate ends of their work. In humanities research, the ultimate end is often interpretation. However, interpretations should not be based on mere assumptions but must be supported by evidence and the pursuit of facts. Just as labs are crucial for science, interpretations are vital for humanities, and scholars should constantly explore different interpretations, ensuring they are grounded in evidence.
No comments:
Post a Comment