Soon & Armchair Researchers
... Tyler's coming home soon... around a monthish.
... Playing hookie, well a planned hookie day, with coworkers soon... Darien Lake here we come!
... Camping with family for a few days soon... in 8 weeks.
... CUC RoadTrip of Aut-Six soon... in just over 8 weeks.
... Enjoying life... Already started... a few years too late.
So I got thinking the other day about little research things that I would love to undertake but then realized I have no formal study in the field of research in question. It started to make me wish there was a way I could get someone to research for me or a way for me to research the entire theory I had going.
Then I remembered reading some books and there was a chapter in one devoted to armchair Archaeologists and at the time I didn't think to hard about what the book was saying but I spent the drive to work thinking about it the last few days. Here is my main reason why armchair archaeology (and similar "researchers" in general) should not be dismissed as quickly as the academic world tends to.
The box. Simply put the armchair researcher has the ability to move out of the surroundings and to think about an even larger picture than say an Archaeologist of Middle Eastern Culture. An archaeologist takes the vast volumes of knowledge they have learned over the years to analyze and assess the data and, artifacts to come up with an answer or more questions. They look at it in context to the surrounding landscape, other artifacts/ data and preconceived notions or previous research. The problem with this is the phrase "they have learned over the years".
Unfortunately any scientist can not overcome their preconceived notions of what something should be and how something should work. This is an unintended side effect of their education, they learn different theories and through exercises and pratical applications they become loyal to one or two theories over others, thereby discarding the others. An armchair researcher on the other hand will have only volumes of data from other's, all with their own preconceived notion but the notions are wide and varied so that the armchair researcher has to make decisions. He has to weigh each notion and therefore begins to remove himself from saying "Well just because this pottery shard is such and such it must be from so and so a culture." The armchair researcher is more apt to say "Why is this even considered to be from so and so a culture when I have two different sources with varying opinions?"
I believe that armchair researchers have a place in the world of research, not as scientists in the true sense of the word, but they should not be written off as lazy, or stupid and most certainly should not be ignored because of lack of a PhD behind their name.
Just my thoughts. Take it or leave it just don't flame me. I'll discuss it but not if you attack me.
... Playing hookie, well a planned hookie day, with coworkers soon... Darien Lake here we come!
... Camping with family for a few days soon... in 8 weeks.
... CUC RoadTrip of Aut-Six soon... in just over 8 weeks.
... Enjoying life... Already started... a few years too late.
So I got thinking the other day about little research things that I would love to undertake but then realized I have no formal study in the field of research in question. It started to make me wish there was a way I could get someone to research for me or a way for me to research the entire theory I had going.
Then I remembered reading some books and there was a chapter in one devoted to armchair Archaeologists and at the time I didn't think to hard about what the book was saying but I spent the drive to work thinking about it the last few days. Here is my main reason why armchair archaeology (and similar "researchers" in general) should not be dismissed as quickly as the academic world tends to.
The box. Simply put the armchair researcher has the ability to move out of the surroundings and to think about an even larger picture than say an Archaeologist of Middle Eastern Culture. An archaeologist takes the vast volumes of knowledge they have learned over the years to analyze and assess the data and, artifacts to come up with an answer or more questions. They look at it in context to the surrounding landscape, other artifacts/ data and preconceived notions or previous research. The problem with this is the phrase "they have learned over the years".
Unfortunately any scientist can not overcome their preconceived notions of what something should be and how something should work. This is an unintended side effect of their education, they learn different theories and through exercises and pratical applications they become loyal to one or two theories over others, thereby discarding the others. An armchair researcher on the other hand will have only volumes of data from other's, all with their own preconceived notion but the notions are wide and varied so that the armchair researcher has to make decisions. He has to weigh each notion and therefore begins to remove himself from saying "Well just because this pottery shard is such and such it must be from so and so a culture." The armchair researcher is more apt to say "Why is this even considered to be from so and so a culture when I have two different sources with varying opinions?"
I believe that armchair researchers have a place in the world of research, not as scientists in the true sense of the word, but they should not be written off as lazy, or stupid and most certainly should not be ignored because of lack of a PhD behind their name.
Just my thoughts. Take it or leave it just don't flame me. I'll discuss it but not if you attack me.
posted by Absolut Lush at 6:08 PM
0 comments
