Skip to main content

A matter of definition

"So...what do you work on?"

"What's your area of research?"

"What do you do?"

And there's a pause, a wait, barely a few milliseconds, for me to gather the disparate threads of what makes my academic self, and compose an answer that sounds suitably confident and meaningful. I usually end up saying something that I want almost immediately to qualify, to explain, to fill out, to extend, and even, to retract. But the opportunity for introduction has passed, and I am left having painted myself into a corner with a phrase that lacks substance, is incomplete, vague.

My answers are either too broad, or too specific, and either way, fail to capture the questions that drive my curiosity and interest. More often than not, a more fitting answer for that specific context shapes itself in my head many minutes after that opening (and limiting) question, and I kick myself, wishing the words had made the cut sooner.

Trouble is, my questions are in fact all over the place. I can see something that connects them all but that binding cord slips out of reach when faced with the quiz time of an introduction.

Define yourself in ten words or less. 

What are the keywords that index your academic profile? 

Which section of the library will you slot your name into?

I envy colleagues who can, with aplomb, mark their place in academia with a sharp-edged index card, fitting neatly into the Dewey decimal system for future generations of scholars to find and cite. The two or three word phrase that describes their research theme has programmatic legitimacy of the kind that builds knowledge in a systematic, incremental fashion.

My academic profile, on the other hand, resembles scattershot. I have many questions--about life, about learning, about relationships and identity, about our bodies and how they acquire meaning, about perceptions of self and community and the ways in which these messy questions intersect in an increasingly mediated world. One year, I spend months looking at blogs while the next, I'm talking to young people about their ideas of a health and risk. Just as I seem to be getting those dots to line up and connect to form what seems like a research trajectory, a new idea strikes that moves me in a different direction. Or one of three or four  (or five!) different directions.

As a result I constantly feel like a non-specialist, that I can never really lay claim to a specific area of scholarship or expertise. Yesterday, for instance, at a really informal meeting of digital culture scholars, we went around the table introducing ourselves.

"I work on crowdsourcing."

"Digital labour."

"Participatory culture."

"Dating apps and relationships."

"Racism on the internet."

And me? I couldn't find a neat phrase that could sum up the stuff I do. I study social media, community and identity. That's way too broad. Through a feminist lens. Oh...okay. I study adolescent health. So what does that have to do with digitality?  Doctor-patient communication. That's old stuff. Science communication. Oh so you're an STS person.  Journalism pedagogy. What does that have to do with any of the above? Umm..., interdisciplinary conversations. What does that even mean?

But really, I'm not complaining (even though it sounds like it). I am quite happy to be pulled in all these different directions. It keeps life interesting, and allows me to interact with a much wider range of ideas and people than I might otherwise. It also presents interesting connectivities that are otherwise invisible, given the silos people work within.

The only time I feel a bit at a disadvantage is when I am asked to introduce myself to a group of people who are themselves so clearly defined.

And maybe the answer lies in contextual definition. Choosing a label that works with a particular group, in a particular situation. This allows specific nodes to light up, offering possibilities for collaboration. Too vague a definition, and you loose this opportunity. But too specific can also cut out possibilities.

I find it interesting that while the foundation of good research is a healthy acceptance of uncertainty, the growth of an academic profile seems to depend so much on certainty of interests. Perhaps my lack of self-definition borders on dilettantism...but I would beg to differ. There is for me something that does connect everything I do. I just haven't found the word for it yet.

Comments

Suroor said…
That's the problem with modern academics--people often specialize so much that's it's relatively easy to define their area of research in a short sentence. You're right to be happy to be pulled in different directions, academically speaking. It's gives you a wider perspective and a richer body of knowledge.

Popular posts from this blog

A house called Ayodhya

How do words get taken away from you? How do they mutate and reconfigure around entirely new meanings, only weakly related to those that they held when you owned them? And then, through repetition and constant association, they solidify into these new forms, their other histories hidden behind impenetrable layers, where they have not been erased altogether.   I live in a house whose name often elicits a curious look, raised eyebrow, a muffled cough, a judging eye, or even a vigorous nod of approval. But for even the least politically minded, the name is evocative of something. For some of us, it is the wave of negativity, divisiveness, and violence unleashed by the events of a December three decades ago. For others, it may represent the righteous assertion of identity.   But the name etched into the gate pillar, now fading and diminished when compared to the glitzy lettering on neighbouring walls, has nothing to do with the politics of place and claimed heritage. It is a simple, gentle

Origin Story

You can know someone all your life and only begin to discover who they are more fully after they are gone. The stories seem to flow more easily, less self-consciously, without the moderating physical presence, perhaps more detailed in the awareness that they cannot be challenged and the memory can retain its sanctity. Today is my parents’ anniversary, 62 years since their marriage that rainy day in Secunderabad when the monsoon used to arrive without fail on the 10th day of June. The family legend has it that it poured so heavily on the 9th (the evening of the nichyathartham or engagement ceremony) that water entered the storage room, soaking the provisions for the next day’s big meal, causing my maternal grandmother to faint. That turbulence however did not seem to affect the tenor of the marriage which, by all accounts and my own experience, was characterized by a calmness that suggested a harmony of purpose and personality.   Not that my parents are/were alike in all ways. T

taking measure of 21 years

How does one measure the usefulness of anything? Does it lie in its quantum of influence--spatially, numerically, intellectually, materially? Does it lie in its ability to survive over time? Or (as some in this age would have it) in the number of mentions it generates on social media? An idea that was born just over 21 years ago is now in the process of being put to rest. Not quite given up on as an idea, but in its material form, designated "unsustainable". Teacher Plus was mooted in the second half of 1988, and given shape to in the first half of 1989, in the offices of Orient Longman Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad. The ELT team in the publishing house, of whom Lakshmi Rameshwar Rao (Buchamma), Usha Aroor and Rema Gnanadickam were a part, originated the idea of a professional magazine for school teachers that would serve as a forum for the sharing of teaching ideas and experiences, and perhaps motivate teachers to play a catalyzing role in reforming classroom practice. I was recru