{"id":8546,"date":"2021-02-04T12:42:36","date_gmt":"2021-02-03T23:42:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thesislink.aut.ac.nz\/?p=8546"},"modified":"2021-02-04T12:42:39","modified_gmt":"2021-02-03T23:42:39","slug":"throwback-thursday-how-to-disagree-diplomatically","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesislink.aut.ac.nz\/?p=8546","title":{"rendered":"Throwback Thursday: How to Disagree (Diplomatically)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This post by Dr Anaise Irvine first appeared on Thesislink in June 2018.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Have you ever read a scholarly article or book and thought: what utter rot!<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If so: good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As brand new undergrads, we are taught to think of scholarly materials as sources<\/em>, as if they are the places where knowledge originates. We are taught to use them, quote them, learn from them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As we progress, we are encouraged to think critically; to question, examine, and scrutinise our sources. Often, this means being skeptical of where information comes from (academic journals being traditionally \u2018good\u2019 sources; Wikipedia \u2018bad\u2019, and so on).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But as we become independent scholars in our own right, we need to be able to form opinions about what is acceptable or contestable in others\u2019 work based on the content<\/em>, not just the source. That means applying our subjective judgement to say: yes, I agree with this<\/em>, or no, I have other ideas.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Sometimes, you might spot a weakness in another scholar\u2019s methods that makes you question their results. Other times, you might disagree with someone\u2019s work on ideological or philosophical grounds. Whatever the case, it is completely normal, productive, and expected for scholars to disagree with each other. If we all lived in a state of permanent consensus, there would be no debate; and it would be difficult to generate new ideas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, when you\u2019re a student, it can be intimidating to disagree with a scholarly text. Often, the author of the text will be someone senior, with influence in the field. You might feel awkward about potentially offending them, especially if that could impact upon your career options. Plus, there\u2019s always that worst-case-scenario fear: what if the author you\u2019re critiquing ends up as your examiner?*<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, as independent thinkers, we all have the right to critique each others\u2019 work. However, if you\u2019re worried, there are some techniques you can use to express your disagreement diplomatically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keep it about the work, not the author<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A scholarly disagreement doesn\u2019t have to be personal. You can respectfully express reservations about someone\u2019s work by focusing on specific aspects of the work itself. Which part of their research troubles you? The methods? The approach? The interpretation of data? The underlying assumptions? By keeping your objections specific, you make it clear that you are questioning the work, but you are not attacking the author\/s personally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Give a nuanced opinion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scholarly work is complex stuff. It would be too simplistic to judge another scholars\u2019 work as simply \u2018good\u2019 or \u2018bad\u2019. Even shoddy research usually has some <\/em>redeeming qualities, and even brilliant research is not perfect. You can make your critiques more fair (and demonstrate your sophistication as an academic) by assessing others\u2019 work in a balanced way. What works? What doesn\u2019t? What do the author\/s offer that can be built upon?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Critique\u2019 doesn\u2019t mean \u2018criticise\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

You wouldn\u2019t normally write that a fellow scholar is rubbish and worthless (even if that\u2019s what you secretly think!). You might, however, select your words carefully to indicate the extent of your feeling. There are many words and phrases you can use to indicate that you see problems with a piece of research; and some are stronger than others. If you are uncomfortable critiquing others\u2019 work, you might like to choose some more gentle phrasings. However, if you feel sure that you can defend your opinion, it\u2019s OK to use more strongly-worded phrasings too. Here are a few options of varying assertiveness:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Phrase<\/strong><\/td>Implication<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
\u201cPartially addresses\u201d<\/td>This research doesn\u2019t quite go far enough<\/td><\/tr>
\u201cNeglects to address\u201d<\/td>The researchers have forgotten something major (more assertive)<\/td><\/tr>
\u201cOverlooks\u201d<\/td>Maybe this just slipped the researchers\u2019 minds<\/td><\/tr>
\u201cIgnores\u201d<\/td>The researchers actively neglected this<\/td><\/tr>
\u201cDoes not account for\u201d<\/td>This research excludes an important factor<\/td><\/tr>
\u201cIs not relevant to\u201d<\/td>A group is not represented or included<\/td><\/tr>
\u201cExcludes\u201d<\/td>A group has been actively excluded (more assertive)<\/td><\/tr>
\u201cCould be interpreted as implying\u201d<\/td>The researchers have been slightly careless with their wording<\/td><\/tr>
\u201cMisleadingly implies\u201d<\/td>The researchers have shown some bias<\/td><\/tr>
\u201cErroneously states\u201d<\/td>The researchers have made a factual mistake or false claim<\/td><\/tr>
\u201c[Alternative method] could have been used\u2026\u201d<\/td>The chosen method wasn\u2019t quite right<\/td><\/tr>
\u201cThis limits the application of the results\u201d<\/td>The results are robust but only for certain circumstances<\/td><\/tr>
\u201cThis casts doubt on the results\u201d<\/td>The results might have some merit but with caveats<\/td><\/tr>
\u201cThis invalidates the results\u201d<\/td>The results cannot be trusted at all<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

*Fortunately, you can stop that from happening! You can provide your supervisor with a list of people who you do not <\/em>want to be examiners (within reason), and they will not be appointed. Even if you don\u2019t speak up, your supervisors can advise against a person becoming your examiner if they are aware that you have critiqued that person\u2019s work.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This post by Dr Anaise Irvine first appeared on Thesislink in June 2018. Have you ever read a scholarly article or book and thought: what utter rot! If so: good. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6725,"featured_media":6555,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[29,1],"tags":[75,101,93,78],"class_list":["post-8546","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-throwback-thursday","category-category-5","tag-academia","tag-argument-construction","tag-literature-reviews","tag-writing"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesislink.aut.ac.nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/1024px-Mocking_Bird_Argument.jpg?fit=1024%2C640&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p83npQ-2dQ","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesislink.aut.ac.nz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8546","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesislink.aut.ac.nz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesislink.aut.ac.nz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesislink.aut.ac.nz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/6725"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesislink.aut.ac.nz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8546"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/thesislink.aut.ac.nz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8546\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8553,"href":"https:\/\/thesislink.aut.ac.nz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8546\/revisions\/8553"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesislink.aut.ac.nz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/6555"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesislink.aut.ac.nz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8546"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesislink.aut.ac.nz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8546"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesislink.aut.ac.nz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8546"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}