Categories: phd
Date: 28 January 2009 20:44:34
I had a really interesting chat with a few people after church on Sunday about what I do with my PhD once it's written and I've got my doctorate. When I applied for it I thought I was going to change the world, but cynicism and realism soon got the better of that idealism. Now I'm trying to think about what to do with it, if I don't want it to just sit on a shelf in an office somewhere in the university, gathering dust and never read by anyone. I think, given I'm doing a qualitative study and so I'm not just interpreting a set of anonymous statistics but listening to and talking to and seeking to represent real people, that I have a responsibility, ethically, to seek to use the information they have entrusted to me to encourage and engage interested parties in reflecting about how this information can be used in order to, well, change the world (have just read that sentence back and anyone playing PhD buzzword bingo will probably have a full house already). The question is, what is/are the best way/s to do this?
I can't assume that the movers and shakers and people in a position to make a difference to whom I spoke will do anything more than flick through it and then get on with their lives. I hope, from my conduct when I was doing the research, that they felt listened to and respected and that that would give me more credibility than if I was just coming in blind as a consultant trying to impose my views of what they should do. I hope that, through reflecting on my own position as a researcher/outsider, I can both interpret but also represent fairly and accurately the situations and contexts we were discussing, and that these things might help my research gain credibility among people who can actually make a difference. But I can't guarantee this.
I can write articles in academic journals and non-academic/industry/etc sources in the hope that this will result in my conclusions and recommendations and observations getting a wider audience, among whom I can hope are those significant people and institutions who can make a difference. But I can't guarantee this either. I have heard other researchers talking about how they felt a responsibility to publish as widely as possible as they felt that they owed it to their respondents to disseminate the lessons from their experiences to as many people and environments as possible. But, realistically, that won't change things 'on the ground', and the benefit to the academic/researcher in terms of RAE (or whatever the follow-up system is going to be) kudos and personal reputation is much greater, it seems to me. And is not untempting, I have to be honest.
I guess the only thing I ultimately have any control over is how it affects me, in ongoing life, as a researcher, academic, Christian, nurse, whatever. Although it feels a bit presumptuous to assume that how I conduct my individual life and work will make any odds at all to anyone else, this whole process (and whatever might emerge as a result of it, in terms of further research for example) needs to inform how I behave, the subjects and issues and causes I take up and run with, and how I communicate these to others. It reminds me a bit of evangelism - in my cheesy evangelical days those of us who were/are rubbish at it always used to say that it wasn't just those who 'led people to Christ' who were important, but we never knew the impact our lives and conduct were having on others, and that was just as important as we might be the catalyst, the fertilizer that is nourishing the seed - or, to use another cheesy metaphor, it's like being one part of a relay team, there's only one person who runs over the finish line but there are 3 other people who got them to that point. Which of course is all true, but also feels like a bit of a cop-out somehow, as though using your position earlier on in the process means you don't have to seek also to be involved with processes further down the line. I feel similarly now about this work I'm doing - I think I'm onto something important, with significant implications, so should I be content to tread carefully and pass on my insights to other people for them to run with it, should I be shouting it from the rooftops, or at least be a bit more assertive about it? I don't know - it's very difficult to get the balance right.
On top of all this, I have to worry about who I'm going to piss off. Because my research won't be universally welcomed I have no doubt, and I worry about groups who seem to be out to be offended and the impact they can have on the extent to which things can improve. And yet really, they're probably the groups I want to engage with most.
Then, as if that wasn't enough, my position as an outsider to which I alluded briefly already isn't entirely unproblematic. However far I try to be culturally sensitive, it will be really easy to be accused of cultural insensitivity, of superiority, and that can also affect the extent to which my work changes the world (or not). And of course I have the luxury of worrying about whether I have any right to want to change the world in the first place, and am I trying to change it into my own image, etc etc etc.
I had no idea doing a PhD was going to cause so much existential angst! Somehow I wouldn't be surprised if this entry gets revamped for an article sometime. That'll show 'em ;)