Dear Charlie ~ Thanks for this. Having 'survived' a thesis in the humanities (America terms a 'thesis' as Masters; a dissertation's at doctoral level. UK's t'other way around), there is much here I recognise. In my experience the worst obfusc stems from academics who write for each other, for their peer group. Those are the papers incomprehensible to the laity. However, I soon realised the top people in my arcane little research field -- the names *everyone* knew because they wrote seminal ground-breaking volumes -- were also the writers of the clearest, and simplest, prose. The truly learned wear their learning the most lightly.
There's a message in there somewhere ...
I believe in the pursuit of learning for its own sake. The libraries of our own minds appreciate in value as we age, and one of the best manifestations is hunting for a half-forgotten text on your shelves and then wandering off down by-ways -- until the clock tells how a whole morning has been spent in what my late father would term 'a waste of time,' which was anything but. Maybe today's undergrads don't do this any longer, but simply Google what they want to know -- except *that* process doesn't make the same connections as the sparking of individual synapses and axons. I loved research, and it changed my life, but, apart from my brilliant supervisor, I missed out on the "depth of small-group conversations" that can bring new insights and connections. People were paranoid about sharing. ("Only connect," as E.M. Forster famously said.)
Sokrates knew about the 'knowns' and 'unknowns': what you know, what you think you know, and what you don't know, bar knowing that you don't know ...
Great thoughts on the good of pure research. I conceive of pure research as simply mining ⛏️ and storing up knowledge for a time when we eventually find a use for what we have stored. Yes we want to see immediate returns of such labour. But you are right: we need to take a long-term view which either looks like conviction or foolish time wasting ("hey you can apply your talent to better rewarding projects") depending on which view you take.
Is it safe to suppose that some people are more naturally disposed to love pure research than others? It seems that way to me.
Thanks for this, I might have to check out The Craft of Research.
It seems to me most of the time examples of pure research that "pay off" in terms of generating applied ideas are science based, which makes sense (it's easy to point to technologies as obviously valuable). But the criticism you point out is most often levelled at the humanities. What are the best examples of this dynamic (pure research opening the doors to something practical) in the humanities?
Dear Charlie ~ Thanks for this. Having 'survived' a thesis in the humanities (America terms a 'thesis' as Masters; a dissertation's at doctoral level. UK's t'other way around), there is much here I recognise. In my experience the worst obfusc stems from academics who write for each other, for their peer group. Those are the papers incomprehensible to the laity. However, I soon realised the top people in my arcane little research field -- the names *everyone* knew because they wrote seminal ground-breaking volumes -- were also the writers of the clearest, and simplest, prose. The truly learned wear their learning the most lightly.
There's a message in there somewhere ...
I believe in the pursuit of learning for its own sake. The libraries of our own minds appreciate in value as we age, and one of the best manifestations is hunting for a half-forgotten text on your shelves and then wandering off down by-ways -- until the clock tells how a whole morning has been spent in what my late father would term 'a waste of time,' which was anything but. Maybe today's undergrads don't do this any longer, but simply Google what they want to know -- except *that* process doesn't make the same connections as the sparking of individual synapses and axons. I loved research, and it changed my life, but, apart from my brilliant supervisor, I missed out on the "depth of small-group conversations" that can bring new insights and connections. People were paranoid about sharing. ("Only connect," as E.M. Forster famously said.)
Sokrates knew about the 'knowns' and 'unknowns': what you know, what you think you know, and what you don't know, bar knowing that you don't know ...
Thanks for this perspective. The delineation between pure and applied research and some historic examples really helped.
Great thoughts on the good of pure research. I conceive of pure research as simply mining ⛏️ and storing up knowledge for a time when we eventually find a use for what we have stored. Yes we want to see immediate returns of such labour. But you are right: we need to take a long-term view which either looks like conviction or foolish time wasting ("hey you can apply your talent to better rewarding projects") depending on which view you take.
Is it safe to suppose that some people are more naturally disposed to love pure research than others? It seems that way to me.
Thanks for this, I might have to check out The Craft of Research.
It seems to me most of the time examples of pure research that "pay off" in terms of generating applied ideas are science based, which makes sense (it's easy to point to technologies as obviously valuable). But the criticism you point out is most often levelled at the humanities. What are the best examples of this dynamic (pure research opening the doors to something practical) in the humanities?