I think I haven't considered in this blog the 'creative' aspect of writing a dissertation yet. But nevertheless, all these 4 years (yes, it's time to graduate soon and I still hope and feel Ican do it!) I haven't had any chance to underestimate it. I think I could blaim 'scientism' in this matter, which aligned science against arts - science (especially if its understood as natural science) as the etalon of objectivity, arts on the other hand, are then the manifestation of subjectivity. When I sometimes read newspapers and even more, comments about science (in Estonia the notion of science involves natural, but also social sciences and humanities), mostly the understanding of it seems to include 'objectiveness', 'measurability', and formulaic truth. Post-modernism isn't here yet, or it has been hushed away quickly; I don't know.
I think similar attitude towards scientific work is also dominating. I once wrote here of my junior colleagues at the university who claimed to write when they are in the mood - this is exceptional in this prevalent image. Probably we should consider then varying views about scientific work. Like this.
[URL=http://knowyourmeme.com]Know Your Meme[/URL]
See more on
Know Your Meme
I remember the reactions of my friends and 'friends' when similar Meme pics were first distributed in Facebook. It mostly brought a smile on their faces, and they 'liked' and commented pics like this mostly in a manner "This is so true!". Ditto. But I think the person who managed to present the first "How ... see me" series should be awarded, if not a Nobel prize, then at least this fake or fun Nobel. Google it. I don't have time to do it at the moment:) Mostly these pics are considered funny, and these are funny indeed. But there's also life behind these pics. To be honest, last month has passed according to "How I see myself" (maybe I should take photos of all this mess and piles of books to remember this period in my life?). And last night, of course, I nearly made to "How it really is" 'phase'.
What I see in these pics, is also varying perceptions on scientific work. The folks who see you as presented on the leftmost and center pics never see you dancing 'victory dance' when your article has been accepted for publiching by some respected publishing house, they never see you weeping when you struggle with deadlines, trying at the same time to meet the needs of your very own body (that is food and rest). But unfortunately, when one becomes a PhD student, for example, one mostly doesn't yet have idea of these emotions that are on the rightmost pics. These are never publicly expressed. And when you feel depressed or insecure then it also feels like you are the only PhD student in the world who feels so. As in doctoral seminars you never see these feelings. Only thing I have personally managed to capture the eyesight of one of our professors at the institute. She looked nice and all, but her eyes looked tired (not in some kind of emotional sort, but physically - you know, when you haven't given a rest for your eyes during those busy late working hours). When time goes on, and you get more responsibilities that allow you to feel somewhat important or useful in your academic community, it also means getting more workload, more planning this workload, and more frustration when things don't go as they should.
For 4 years I've mostly worked alone, with two exceptions (I'll come back to these later). It has its pro's as I like independence, and that I can plan work myself. And I can come and go whenever I want so. This of course means more responsiblities (despite loose schedules there are deadlines that need to be met), and some con's as well. It means that there are actually not many people you can discuss your work with. You write something, but if it doesn't look right, and you cannot discuss it with colleagues (who are usually as loaded as you with their own chores), suspicion starts to haunt you. By working alone I initially meant physically being alone - at my 'office' that is actually like some kind of storeroom where old card catalogues, empty boxes, and old and new PCs are kept, or at home. But I also suspect that besides this physical aloneness also ontologically being alone creeps in. It's not only me who's busy, everybody is busy. And when everybody is busy, then I actually imagine that even these people who work in places where they can be side by side with their colleagues, but where despite this physical proximity they are still alone with their thoughts. It somewhat comforts me, but not always.
At our institute, doctoral seminars are particularly meant for interaction. In theory, it is possible to discuss one's papers there, this year there are one doctoral student and one senior colleague reviewing paper (I mean, that's the format of seminars, not that always same persons are obliged to read papers presented for seminar). In practice I've felt that these feedbacks tend to be a bit superficial even though particular people do dedicate some of their time. We probably all know about specialisation processes in the society, but there also specialisation in the same institution - you just cannot be an expert of all communicative aspects. In this respect, doctoral students who have just picked a whole variety of courses about whole variety of theories and methods could be on an advanced position, compared to senior colleagues who are quite particulary specialised. But at the same time, they lack experiences of research (this is by no means the lack of analytical skills!!) - and this is normal too, because it's the purpose of being a doctoral student - collecting more and more experiences about conducting a really good research. PhD students who visit these seminars, are mostly 1st or 2nd year students - as for 3rd and 4th year PhD students have already 'earned' their ECTSs for presenting their works, and they cannot be forces to attend seminars just because they probably have much more research experiences and could be therefore very good reviewers. So they appear to seminars seldom. And by the way, this is not an accusation on the address of my PhD student-colleagues, as to large extent, I also have followed very same pathway: being actively present on seminars during my first two years, and relatively passive during last two years of studies. Sometimes, though, I've managed to review a work of my junior colleague - it takes quite some time, but at least afterwards, now I can feel that this was good not only for the quality of particular paper, but it was generally a right thing to do. I don't know what my supervisor meant when she asked me to review this particular paper this spring, but it was definitely a good decision.
I mentioned earlier two cases of working with colleagues. These cases were as if from separate worlds in respect of the channels of collaborating. We all know that e-mail and other new media are ours to be used for collaboration, but I've felt that face-to-face discussions (rare with this one co-author but more frequent with others) were most valuable ways to develop our mutual works further. If there was a misunderstanding, you could immediately talk about it, and solve it. I also remember a 'ping-pong' about my poor analytical skills. Maybe it would have been much shorter if we only could discuss about certain issues, instead of wasting time on e-mailing (which is inescapable when co-authors work in different countries)? So yes, whenever there's a possibility to discuss issues with colleagues (as there is also a tendency to send e-mails 'quickly' even if you work in the same house!), just go for it.
Another thing is that e-mailing is very often treated a way to communicate messages as shortly as possible. Just write what matters. Dot. Sometimes it is really useful. Dot. But I think there are various stages of writing papers, for instance (and this brings be back to initial story) at some point you need to discuss things quickly and then go to your cabinet and continue writing. This is what sending an e-mail can perfectly substitute. Then again, as I've learned and experienced this spring, there's also the phatic aspect of communication (actually we all know about it and we all use it, just the term itself is not always so familiar), or the need to develop good relations necessary for performing this 'quicky' part of communicating. Among other functions, probably this phatic aspect also allows to understand that some problems are not unique, it is normal to have ups and downs during the writing process (of thesis, for example), and that the work that has been done is worthy after all.
