According to the most recent personality tests I've done I have an extroverted "A-type" personality. Great for social situations, leadership roles and the like, but absolutely the worst thing possible when it comes to solitary projects like research. I thrive under conditions of social pressure where I have to perform to please other people or fulfill their needs. These situations grant me social recognition. I thrive on social recognition. Criticize this if you want, tell me that I should live to make myself happy and not care what others think but the reality is that through my upbringing, or nature, this is how I am. I have tried to rationalize my way out of this. I can build perfectly rational, valid arguments for completing my research in order to gain my Masters, make the last 3 years of my life count for 3 very socially significant letters behind my name but despite this I cannot seem to motivate myself to actually get on with the work. Perhaps it is due to the other factors I'm about to write about at 1am on this Saturday morning.
Support
Being socially motivated and in an age of gross access to social networks through the blog, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram I am accustomed to immediate social feedback and recognition. This has it's advantages for promoting ideas at a simple and superficial level but when long, in depth ideas need to be processed the networks I access can't be bothered. There is too much context that needs to be provided and 140 characters, a clever picture, update or caption ca't do the trick. If I need social attention to perform and society can't be bothered to try understand my ideas then I am at a performance loss. There should be a select few who do try to understand - the social support system designed for researchers, supervisors, seminars, reading groups, classmates and the like but due to a less than fortunate set of circumstances this system has failed me.
Don't Try to Change the World
Gandhi said, "Be the change you want to see in the world." Every research book, supervisor, family member, friend and colleague I've spoken to has said that I need to get my research done and move on with life. I cannot reconcile these viewpoints. I don't think that my research can change the world, I know it. Not in a revolutionary, radical sense but in an incremental, gradual way I believe that every piece of work, every hour of effort either contributes to the problem or the solution.
The problem is the politics of academia - more specifically, discourse. I, as others, recognise that there is a definite dominance in academia of ideas that are Eurocentric. As Europe colonised the world, it's ideas came with it. Not a problem if you agree with the underlying assumptions of European thinking, but a huge problem if you don't. Fortunately this age of post-modernism recognises that academia, ideas, are socially based, that assumptions about ideas and their frameworks are not universal and that their specific contexts need to be expanded upon. This, for me is where I see my research contributing to the solution rather than the problem. I can, as most of colleagues do, carry on with the assumptions handed down to me (specifically the epistemological ones) and carry out a nice, neat little research project with set methodologies that are tried, tested and accepted; however, I know within me that the reason ideas are not moving forward is because the way in which we address problems is the same as it has been for about a hundred years. The same assumptions are assumed expecting different results (insert Einstein's famous quote which I'm sure you're familiar with).
But is there an alternative?
Most would say no. The thinking is that the dominant is the only. Very few can see out of the what is dominant. It is only due to the fact that I was raised in both the dominant, Western academic sphere, while simultaneously having access to an entirely different epistemology, metaphysics, discourse provided by my religion that I can clearly see two distinct approaches to a problem. I would argue strongly that I am not guilty of a religious bias as I am aware that there are other marginalised viewpoints that have equal claim to posing an alternative, I wish to explore Islam as it is what I am familiar with. True multi-culturalism and diversity can only come through all ideas being allowed to play on an equal footing but this is not happening in academic space.
There is a power relationship, a politics, within academia. Ideas that are alternative, that question the norm cannot take hold, cannot flourish because ideas are not valued intrinsically but they are valued based on the lineage they come from - who are you referencing, what have previous authors written about this topic, what is your theoretical framework - are all questions that work within a specific framework but not when you're critiquing the framework itself.
Well the last part is not entirely true. There are alternative writers on whom I should draw but I feel completely under-equipped to do this. Critique involves understanding the dominant, then understanding the counter to it and incorporating the two into something coherent and compelling. Twice the task of accepting the dominant, understanding and adding to it. Not to mention that your supervisor will tackle your every point rather than assisting you in the process and that your social support system just wants you to get the research done so that you can move on with your life.
I also take exception to the way that research is meant to take place. The student, after being taught the basic principles of her discipline (which I'm not entirely sure that I got), then identifies a problem, designs a research method, investigates and proposes solutions to this problem. This is abstract, it is not based in the real world, it is individualistic (why can't I accept that I excel in problem identification and work with a partner who is excellent at literature reviews for instance?), it does not encourage participation or real involvement in addressing the problem (as this would require longer than your designated 8 months and minimal training). Some of these things can be challenged but once again the opportunity to challenge is put on the table without encouragement. New methodologies can be put forward and utilised but without having to defend them with twice the vigour. Maybe I need to be stronger or smarter in order to challenge the system but the odds are stacked against me.
I want to give up. I want to say that the last three years were not a waste. That I learnt things despite the fact that I could not get my act together to finish my research report and that the 3 letters behind my name are given a value by a society that would not see past it and live content but I can't. My parents have invested a lot in these three letters. It is expected of me to get them. I should put aside my gross feelings of discontent, hand something in and smile on my graduation day.