A student of mine has been doing a lot of thinking, reading, researching and writing on types of etymology lately. It's not the topic that interests me so much as the this student has gone about it.
While he does try to focus on Greek and latin forms of word and how they're used, his primary reference base seems to be a few books and the internet. I'm not trying to slam the guy here, mind you. Perhaps it's the fact that I'm a few years older and the internet was really only available for research purposes when I was in high school, but I'm always mystified by the use of internet documents as primary sources. Yes, I'm an academic and I tend to lean towards peer-reviewed periodicals on some things, but this is...different.
I was trying to work it out in my own head--Was it that every source he give me make me uneasy, with the banners along the top and advertisements down the side? Somewhat, but it was the author's name I was drawn to in each. Did I know it? No. Could I google it and find out their credentials? No. Did HE know this person and/or their work and methodologies? No. It was this last "no" that was bothering me more than anything.
This reminded me of something I'd heard/seen during interviews with Rose, Amira, and several community members. "Do you know X?" they asked. "Well, he studied with Y and is an important scholar in modern Islam." I was then told to look the person up in some cases, or sent articles by the person (or related to their biographies). When talking about Qu'ranic knowledge, they referenced a well-known scholar's interpretations.
This also made me think of a recent discussion with my advisor. I was again lamenting my choice in schools because of some of the silliness I'd seen recently accepted as "doctoral level work." I told her though that I really loved working with her and that I was so glad I had her pushing me ahead. She confided that she sometimes worried how she was perceived as a scholar when she worked for this somewhat no-name school. "But you look at, okay, I studied under X and Y, who studied under Z and T, who studied with A and hopefully, in the end, its this chain of scholarship that matters."
Hence my revelation today that knowledge itself is important, but far more important seems to be the chain of scholarship and the way in which the story and method is passed down from generation to generation. In our narrative, those we learn from and their approach to research and to stories tell just as much about our world lens as the story itself.
When asked about people other than their families who impacted their identities, Amira, Rose and Hannah all immediately listed teachers. Teachers of faith and Qu'ran, teachers of English language skills and teachers of music, but all were influential in their lives within particular disciplines.
I think the most important thing I drew out of this revelation today is something I've said before but in a different light. Our stories intertwine and overlap and our lives end but the stories continue--this I've said. What I'd never thought about was the importance of previous knowledge and methods coloring those stories in such a way that they flow so nicely together, often in ways that people listen to you and then say, "hey, you're Brian Hartley's daughter, aren't you?" or "You studied under Dr. Dorner, didn't you. I can tell."
I guess that there really is no 'objective' research or search for truth, as all of our methods are shaped and influenced by those who profoundly impact us. Then again, isn't there great value in this shaping along the pursuit for knowledge? I can't help but believe that observed methodologies and practices have been far more helpful to me for really learning and DOING than anything I've read about methodologies over the past 3-4 years. A guiding hand has been worth 10,000 words at times.
No comments:
Post a Comment