..."the notion of a veneer of disinterest over the top of it is still perceived as being present. In the humanities, we are in the middle of the task of stripping away that veneer."
Ah, if only this obtained across *all* the disciplines I work in! Next week I'll be at the Pop Culture/Amer.Culture conference (SW/TX regional) and I know that my utter enthusiasm for my subject, my first-person engagement with the material and the students I care about (presenting on an "environmental worldviews in music" teaching approach - mediated philosophy, lol) will be welcome. In fact, its absence might seem odd.
But most of my work is reviewed by your classic stodgy-male (and male-like female, ack) faculty who have a knee-jerk habit of expecting elaborate statistical measures of "objectivity" and rejecting enthusiastic work - or reception - as "popular". LOL. Freudian case study, that. I have more than one faculty who quite srsly believes "analysis" = "quantitative measures," preferably in a chemistry lab. I love that humanities has started to melt the ice of the obsessive emulation of "Science." However, even where humanities are represented on committees at my university (rarely, alas) or acknowledged in many my professional societies, it's as the lesser Other approach, the shabby relative of Real (heavily funded) Science.
But hey, the hell with them :-) Times, and the ethos, are changing. TWC's startup offers all the concrete "proof" one could demand.
I have Lewis on my shelf, but largely unread, like most of my media and fandom items. I'll eagerly check out the research ethics link - Thanks!
I appreciate your careful and explicit stance wrt OTW's, TWC's, and your own personal framings of fanwork research ethics. Simply seeing that the nuances and inevitable dilemmas are acknowledged may often be (and at least in my anthropology experience, has been) good enough warrant for a community to extend their trust.
Thanks for all your thoughtful replies, and sharing these observations! I very much look forward to seeing TWC's work.
no subject
Ah, if only this obtained across *all* the disciplines I work in! Next week I'll be at the Pop Culture/Amer.Culture conference (SW/TX regional) and I know that my utter enthusiasm for my subject, my first-person engagement with the material and the students I care about (presenting on an "environmental worldviews in music" teaching approach - mediated philosophy, lol) will be welcome. In fact, its absence might seem odd.
But most of my work is reviewed by your classic stodgy-male (and male-like female, ack) faculty who have a knee-jerk habit of expecting elaborate statistical measures of "objectivity" and rejecting enthusiastic work - or reception - as "popular". LOL. Freudian case study, that. I have more than one faculty who quite srsly believes "analysis" = "quantitative measures," preferably in a chemistry lab. I love that humanities has started to melt the ice of the obsessive emulation of "Science." However, even where humanities are represented on committees at my university (rarely, alas) or acknowledged in many my professional societies, it's as the lesser Other approach, the shabby relative of Real (heavily funded) Science.
But hey, the hell with them :-) Times, and the ethos, are changing. TWC's startup offers all the concrete "proof" one could demand.
I have Lewis on my shelf, but largely unread, like most of my media and fandom items. I'll eagerly check out the research ethics link - Thanks!
I appreciate your careful and explicit stance wrt OTW's, TWC's, and your own personal framings of fanwork research ethics. Simply seeing that the nuances and inevitable dilemmas are acknowledged may often be (and at least in my anthropology experience, has been) good enough warrant for a community to extend their trust.
Thanks for all your thoughtful replies, and sharing these observations! I very much look forward to seeing TWC's work.