Friends,
With respect to drudgery, there are moments in all research that involve drudgery. A friend of mine once ground sheep's brains in a blender for a w years to extract a few tablespoons of material for the core problem in his work. Marie and Pierre Curie had to process tons of pitchblende to get on with their work. To solve a problem in organization theory, I suggested once that two of my students use symbolic interactinist research methods. There is a lot of open territory in symbolic intractionism, and the simplicity and elegance of symbolic intractionist theory requires high tolerance for ambiguity and the restless data of the human world. At one point, they came back to say that they felt as if they were trying to take a longboat across the ocean with one oar. On reflection, I suggested they try grounded theory. After struggling with the coding system for a month or so, they came back to say that they felt like letter sorters in a massive post office. My answer was that their problem was great, but it posed challenges no matter what method they chose.
Most of my life, I have had the feeling that I am struggling to cross a difficult sea against a headwind. I've gotten used to it, and I suppose that the willingness to feel like a fool has served me reasonably well in a world of mistaken certainties. I appreciate Jack Ox's view and Teena Clerke's optimism. My view is that I have generally followed the path I took because the ideas fascinated me and because I couldn't imagine a better life doing something else.
Yours from the Melbourne airport where I fly off on a Sunday to meet a colleague in Adelaide to see how we can tackle a research project.
Ken Friedman
|