This paper is an attempt to create the bridge between how academic writing is shaped in the traditional training, and how it often desires to be expressed in subjective voices. Conducting a research into the twilight zone of sexual identities does desire unconventional methods, however, there are degrees that can be explored between subjectivity and objectivity to create a space beyond binary specificities. So, if presented traditionally, this paper is a collection of stories, which elucidates the need to accommodate creative writing within academic boundaries.
When we undertake discourses about issues of marginality and exclusion in society, within a strictly academic objective view, it tends to dilute the possibilities of addressing the individual as an active agent. The tradition of academic writing follows this standpoint, thereby undermining the poetics of social relations. The primary aim of social science research is the foundation of objective analysis: creating a link between an emotional organic being and the politics of evolution. The same objectivity also creates vast lacuna of knowledge, which could otherwise produce more deductive results, in research into human relationships.
My doctoral dissertation is a compilation of narratives collected over a period of three years, from individuals who voluntarily identify with the “alternative sexuality” category. I spoke to over fifteen respondents during this fieldwork, and collected their stories by conducting detailed interviews, in the regionally spoken tongue. During the translation, I realized that the tradition of compiling narratives is in a format, which clearly inhibits the possibility of writing them with the poetry of it, uncorrupted.
Table of Contents
1. Transcending Subjectivities: Academic Writing, Narrative Method, and the Creation of Discourse
2. How we write: Reconsidering boundaries of academic writing
3. How we could write: Creating new spaces of writing in academics
4. Transcending boundaries: Creating discourse
Research Objectives and Core Themes
The paper explores the tension between objective academic writing and the subjective, experiential nature of field research, arguing for a more inclusive methodology that integrates the researcher's subjectivity. It seeks to challenge traditional, reductionist approaches by demonstrating how narrative stories can be effectively documented to capture the complexity of human experience, particularly within marginalized contexts.
- Critique of traditional academic writing boundaries.
- The role of researcher subjectivity in qualitative inquiry.
- Methodological challenges in translating and reporting narrative data.
- Integrating human experience and "poetics" into social science discourse.
- Reconsidering the relationship between the researcher and the subjects of research.
Excerpt from the Book
How we write: Reconsidering boundaries of academic writing
As a social scientist, working in a field defined by subjective relations, I also confronted the impasse that is the “self” within the scope of this research. Was I to undermine the “self” in all paradigmatic scopes? Not only was I expected to maintain objectivity between the subject and the science, but also extend it to my “self” as the researcher and my work. I often resort to Weber to understand the extent of verstehen allowed within the parameters of rationality, as a researcher. Social science argues that the distance between one’s own prejudices and the research would qualify for an objective analysis, which is required for rational thought. I, however, fail to see this parity between objectivity and rationality as the - be all and end all - rule of thumb.
To express this discontent, I would present two comparative narrative excerpts. The first is an excerpt from a compilation of interviews with lesbian, bisexual and transgender women, by the research and support based non-profit organization ‘Sappho For Equality’ working with such individuals and volunteers from Kolkata, India. As a part of their awareness program, they publish these personal histories, simply as a methodical tool to: first, spread the knowledge to overcome the deep-seated prejudice in society against deviant sexualities and gender identities; and second, to be able to put forward multifaceted individual accounts to both attract newer members who empathize with the accounts as well provide a space for critical associations, based on identity politics and heteronormative regulations.
Chapter Summaries
Transcending Subjectivities: Academic Writing, Narrative Method, and the Creation of Discourse: Introduces the core tension between objective social science and the subjective, experiential reality of marginalized subjects.
How we write: Reconsidering boundaries of academic writing: Critiques the limitations of conventional academic objectivity and discusses the methodological challenges of translating personal, emotional narratives into scientific data.
How we could write: Creating new spaces of writing in academics: Proposes a middle path where academic objectivity can exist alongside subjective involvement, illustrated through ethnographic examples.
Transcending boundaries: Creating discourse: Concludes the argument by advocating for a shift in how researchers document field findings to avoid omitting the "humane" aspects of experience.
Keywords
Academic writing, qualitative research, narrative method, subjectivity, objectivity, subalternism, governmentality, marginalized identities, gender identity, discourse, social science, field research, methodology, poetics, identity politics.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this academic paper?
The paper fundamentally examines the limitations of traditional, overly objective academic writing when applied to qualitative research that deals with deeply personal and emotional human narratives.
What are the central thematic fields addressed?
The central themes include the politics of human experience, the intersection of identity politics and social marginality, and the methodological constraints of social science research.
What is the core research goal or question?
The primary goal is to advocate for a "middle path" in academic research, where the researcher can embrace subjective engagement and capture the complexity of human narratives without succumbing to reductionist scientific methods.
Which scientific methods does the author discuss?
The author discusses qualitative research, narrative analysis, and the use of interviews as tools for social understanding, while critiquing the traditional move toward passive, mechanical translation of field data.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body focuses on the "dilemma of the self" for the researcher, the challenges of translating interviews from regional languages, and the ethics of reporting intimate, sensitive narratives.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
The paper is characterized by terms such as academic writing, narrative method, subjectivity, subalternism, governmentality, and marginalized identities.
How does the author define the role of the researcher in this context?
The author posits that the researcher is not merely an objective observer, but an active participant who must acknowledge their own role in the creation of discourse when engaging with the field.
What does the author suggest regarding "incestuous" relationships in social science analysis?
The author argues that labeling complex relationships solely through detached or traditional categories is "parochial and myopic," suggesting instead that researchers should seek to understand the contexts and personal survival mechanisms involved.
What is the significance of the "voice" in translation?
The author emphasizes that maintaining the original "poetry" and subjective tone of the interviewees, rather than standardizing their speech to meet academic norms, is essential for preserving the integrity of the data.
- Quote paper
- Kamalini Mukherjee (Author), 2014, Transcending Subjectivities. Academic writing, narrative method, and the creation of discourse, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/321356
