The UGC-Sponsored two-day Workshop on Research Methodology, conducted by Gandhigram Research Institute - Deemed University, was an eye-opener for all research scholars numbering 160, who had gathered at the Silver Jubilee Hall of GRI, for a mind-boggling Workshop of sorts.
Pro.N.Narayanasamy, Registrar, GRI, inaugurated the Workshop on Research Methodology at 9.45 am. Prof.MA Sudhir spoke extensively on selecting one’s area of research, which requires a lot of reading. He also stressed the importance of taking notes while reading, so that one doesn’t miss out on valuable information.
 |
| Dr.Joseph Dorairaj, addressing the gathering |
Elaborating on David Émile Durkheim’s research on suicides, on why people kill themselves, who found out, after having systematically collected data for 20 years, that, there was a relative stability in suicides over 20 years with age variations, seasonal variations etc. and then proceeded to classify suicide into three types, namely, The egoistic, altruistic and the anomic modes of suicide.
The fundamental concept of Egoistic Suicide is that if an individual lacked integration with the larger society that individual will have no sense of belonging. "Egotistic suicide, he believed, is the most common form of suicide and was caused by under-integration with society, and excessive individualism." This can be seen when individuals are unable to continual linkages within social groups such as sporting teams or on a more personal level such as marriage.
Altruistic is where the individual becomes dependent on social integration and can no longer function without group social contact. "Altruistic suicide, which for Durkheim is the opposite of egotistic suicide, is caused by over integration with society, when individuals become so immersed into their social group that they will sacrifice their lives." A picture of this type of suicide was recently seen in America when a group of men belonging to a specific religious group sacrificed their lives for the beliefs of the religious group and its theology.
Anomic suicide is characterised as a sense of under-achievement. "Durkheim meant anomie as a state of collective evil or derangement characterized by a painful state of infinite desires that are never satiated". An example of this is where an individual who is studying to become a Lawyer and is unable to obtain that goal cannot compete with the feelings of disappointment.
Durkheim argued that although suicide seems very personal and psychological, the suicide rate for a particular region is a social fact. If the suicide rate is particularly high, then this could be considered a social problem. We should focus on the understanding of the social control mechanisms that relate to suicide and resolve social conflicts faced by individuals caused by the social mechanisms developed through modern societies.
Durkhiem ideology of the social phenomenon of suicide focuses on suicide as an act that derives through an individual’s integration level. As such, Durkhiem merely gave us the study. He never gave solutions or condemned them.
Altruistic is where the individual becomes dependent on social integration and can no longer function without group social contact. "Altruistic suicide, which for Durkheim is the opposite of egotistic suicide, is caused by over integration with society, when individuals become so immersed into their social group that they will sacrifice their lives." A picture of this type of suicide was recently seen in America when a group of men belonging to a specific religious group sacrificed their lives for the beliefs of the religious group and its theology.
Anomic suicide is characterised as a sense of under-achievement. "Durkheim meant anomie as a state of collective evil or derangement characterized by a painful state of infinite desires that are never satiated". An example of this is where an individual who is studying to become a Lawyer and is unable to obtain that goal cannot compete with the feelings of disappointment.
Durkheim argued that although suicide seems very personal and psychological, the suicide rate for a particular region is a social fact. If the suicide rate is particularly high, then this could be considered a social problem. We should focus on the understanding of the social control mechanisms that relate to suicide and resolve social conflicts faced by individuals caused by the social mechanisms developed through modern societies.
Durkhiem ideology of the social phenomenon of suicide focuses on suicide as an act that derives through an individual’s integration level. As such, Durkhiem merely gave us the study. He never gave solutions or condemned them.
Speaking next, on the Taxonomy of Research, he outlined the three modes of Research.
Fundamental, Basic, Pure Research: The purpose is to discover, improve new knowledge and theory.
Applied Research: To find solution to a real life problem
Action Research: Focussed on immediate actions.
He also stressed on the need for psychic integration with the superego and the ego, and for social solidarity.
Finally, Prof.Sudhir concluded with his thoughts on Appreciative enquiry: the study of what gives life to human systems when they are at their best – a methodology based on the assumption that inquiry into and dialogue about strengths, successes, values, hopes and dreams is itself transformational. The Appreciative Inquiry 4-D cycle unleashes the energy of the positive core for transformation and sustainable success - the 4-D Cycle of Discovery, Dream, Design and Destiny.
Speaking next was Dr.Joseph Dorairaj, who gave an enlightening talk on the various nuances of doing research (which will form part of a separate blog post). Elucidating on the criteria for original research, he also outlined what the research supervisors expect from their wards, and how to go about contributing to the domain of knowledge.
Dr.Francis M. Peter who manned the entire afternoon session, established an emotional connection with the audience. Pulling off a stage banter, and that too in the afternoon session is no easy thing. By a judicious combination of witty asides and a plethora of information to back his lecture, Fr.Peter waxed eloquently, in his own inimitable way on Academic and Thesis Writing, and thereby elegantly drove home the salient features of Writing a research paper.
The second day, saw Dr.Dominic Savio speaking on Research openings in literature. A scholar of great academic standing, Dr.Dominic Savio spoke on the frontiers of research in Literature today. (which will form part of a separate blog post).
Dr.Balasubramanian, who spoke next, dwelt on Southern American Women Writers, the various misconceptions about them etc. The Northerners were amused by and contemptuous of the Southern American Women writers, he said. He also spoke at length on the four kinds of discourse, and the points to observe while doing a psychoanalytical study on any author. Ridiculing the concept of doing a ‘thematic study’ on any author or poet, he said, “let this phrase be the most derisive term for any researcher!!” He also stressed the importance of a study of language before embarking on a study of literature. On these lines, he said, “Only if you develop a capacity for interpreting language can you interpret literature”. Hence, every literature student must be a student of language primarily and then a student of literature, he opined.
The panel discussion that followed had scholars drawn from various fields of study, and the session was moderated by Dr.Balasubramanian, former Professor of English, Bharathidasan University. Dr.N.Narayanasamy, Prof.MG Sethuraman, Prof.MA Jeyaraju etc were the panelists. When the panel was thrown open for discussion, three research scholars came up with their questions to the panelists. One question was, “Can a PhD scholar publish part of his or her PhD work, before submitting one’s thesis?” The second question was, by a scholar from Mother Teresa University. She asked, if it’s really a fact that the Sciences are encroaching upon Literature? The third one was, “To what extent can a literature student go into the domain of Ecology when it comes to doing a research on Ecoliterature?” The panelists were able to give convincing answers to each of the queries.
Inspite of the fact that it was the post-lunch session, Dr.MA Jeyaraju’s talk on the Mechanics of Research kept the audience glued to their seats and literally spell-bound. Documentation is one key area where the majority of the research scholars tend to be misled, and hence, Dr.Jeyaraju’s lecture was very informative and speaks to the scholarship of this warm gentleman. Such was the clarity and appeal of this noble scholar par excellence. He stole our hearts.
The Documentation session that followed, was one of the most sought-after lectures, as that is one area that many researchers easily falter. Dr.Joseph Dorairaj, in his own inimitable clear and lucid style, dwelt on the mechanics of documentation with a model documentation work sheet. His simple analogies to explain complicated terms helped all the research scholars discern the nuances and the concepts easily. His lecture was imbued with great academic fervour and elan.
The accommodation, food and other amenities were modest and highly praiseworthy. The volunteers walked the extra mile to make the participants feel at home. A word of appreciation also goes to the skilful time management, mostly due to the efforts of Dr.Joe who could be seen exercising conscious control over the amount of time spent on each session.
To sum up, the Workshop was really a pioneering attempt in the realm of English language and Literature and as such, deserves appreciation and kudos to the organisers, especially to Dr.Joseph Dorairaj, the brain behind the Workshop. Thank you dear Sir :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment