When I was a graduate student, I always felt that I had to come to academic conferences to present pretty-much-completed work, or if it was work-in-progress, I always had to present empirical results. This was perhaps the way I was trained during my PhD. I have followed this policy through my scholarly career but in recent years, and now even more encouraged by a recent seminar presentation by Dr. Martha Finnemore (one of the world’s top constructivist scholars in international relations) at the Liu Institute for Global Issues at UBC, I have decided to use academic conferences and invited seminars to request feedback.
Dr. Martha Finnemore at the Liu Institute for Global Issues at The University of British Columbia
At her recent presentation (on “Constructing Statistics for Global Governance“), Dr. Finnemore specifically requested of her audience to help her think through her preliminary analysis and the way her research design was set up. What ensued was a lively discussion that I’m sure enabled Dr. Finnemore to gain insight into other ways of looking at the problem she was specifically looking at.
My experience using this method of requesting feedback on newly-launched projects has been nothing short of superb. At CALACS and CAG, I outlined the rationale for comparing waste pickers in Sao Paulo (Brazil), Buenos Aires (Argentina) and Mexico City (Mexico). I specified the research questions that drove my interest and provided some preliminary comparative data on solid waste production, number of waste pickers at the national and city-level. I also offered a preliminary theoretical and analytical framework that would guide my project.
Feedback I received was great, and I think that a number of scholars shun the opportunity to present very-early-stages research for fear of criticism. I also made a not-so-in-jest joke that I was paying for attending the conference (registration fees) so I was going to put my fellow scholars to work. And in a way, I kind of think so. I think that since we are (in some cases) paying exorbitant fees to attend conferences where we present our work, we might as well get as much from the conference as possible.
I have taken the same approach with departmental seminars. I don’t really favour this approach when giving an invited talk, as I believe that invited seminars are mostly an opportunity for the host university/department to learn about my completed or almost-finished research projects. But if the host university specifically asks me to discuss either my future research agenda or my newer scholarly stuff, then I make it explicit that I am in the early stages of a project.
I have taught doctoral-level, Masters-level and undergraduate level courses before, and in most of these, much to most of my fellow professors’ dismay, I did a lot of lecturing and less seminar-style discussions (though my undergraduate students thought I did a little bit too much seminar-style teaching! – what a paradox). I am currently designing two doctoral-level courses and I want them to be taught as seminars, rather than me lecturing most of the time. Both courses would be surveys of the field (with reading lists similar to a PhD field comprehensive exam). I did not provide much context for my request, for which I apologize.
One of the seminars would be more than a survey of the field (Doctoral Seminar on Frontiers in Water Research) and thus I would need to increase the breadth (so that my students would read in the humanities, engineering and social sciences). Regardless, because of the fact that I speed-read and I have a photographic memory, I often feel out of touch with how much reading is appropriate. I have read very widely simply because (a) I love scholarship and (b) I have the physical capability to read a lot and understand and absorb it. Not everyone reads and comprehends at my speed.
So I turned to my Twitter following (which includes many fellow professors, graduate students and folks who have been touched by academia in one way or another) to ask what an appropriate reading load for a PhD level seminar would be. This resulted in an enlightening and lively discussion. For those scholars who shun social media for scholarly applications, THIS is the reason I stay on Twitter: I can have wonderful, fast-paced, interactive conversations with fellow scholars and learn from them. I would not have had the chance to have this discussion in an asynchronous medium like a conference or even a departmental seminar. I encourage scholars who don’t see the value of using social media (and in this case, Twitter) to read the discussions below (which I created using a tool called Storify).
I am designing two new PhD-level seminars. Because I haven’t taught these types of seminars before, I asked on Twitter what would the appropriate reading load (in number of pages) be for a doctoral seminar. I Storified the tweets from our discussions.
Storified by Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega · Sat, Jul 07 2012 08:01:49
While pondering my questions, a few other scholars asked questions that could help them refine their answer, like “will a student require accomodations?”
@raulpacheco Any students with reading or learning disabilities that will need accommodation? Any other courses?P. F. Anderson
@raulpacheco to whom? Eg what field?Sara Goldrick-Rab
The first question (e.g. how many pages is too many) sparked some really great responses, both from graduate students as well as from professors/academics.
@raulpacheco I’m a grad student not a professor. but reading 10+ pages is agony (in applied math). But I spend 30+ hrs/week doing homework.Mike
@raulpacheco Too much. My experience is no more than 1/3 that (though, I taught stats in nursing where students did 4 courses at once).Jennifer Lloyd
@raulpacheco too much.Valerie Irvine
@raulpacheco I always ask myself what I could do and still have a shot at well-being.Valerie Irvine
@_valeriei @raulpacheco Me too. But I’ve learned that what I could do myself as an expert biases my judgem’t about what’s fair for students.Jennifer Lloyd
@JEVLloyd @raulpacheco yes BUT they don’t have the workload we do. So it equals out.Valerie Irvine
@raulpacheco 400-500 pages per week per seminar about right depending on field @pfandersonMichelle S
@cyberslate @raulpacheco That sure wouldn’t be mathematics or computer science. 😉 Humanities? Sure.P. F. Anderson
@raulpacheco then yes 400 pages right on the money @pfandersonMichelle S
@cyberslate @raulpacheco For seminar, with skimming, superficial reading, well structured articles, fast reader can keep up. IMHO. :)P. F. Anderson
@pfanderson um… Both. Depending how much secondary literature expected. @raulpachecoMichelle S
@cyberslate @raulpacheco 2ndary lit is a good point. In grad school, I always dug into the bibs of required articles.P. F. Anderson
@cyberslate @raulpacheco This says 750 pages/week TOTAL for 3 classes http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~stone/GradSchoolGuide.htmlP. F. Anderson
@cyberslate @raulpacheco "2nd year grad student in humanities PhD. For some courses, reading loads >200 pages/wk." http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php?action=printpage;topic=85581.0P. F. Anderson
@pfanderson seems light | grad schools vary greatly in course work and load | PhD level shouldn’t skim rather synthesize @raulpachecoMichelle S
@raulpacheco, it’s not the number of pages but the quality and relevance of the assigned readings.Salvador Espinosa
@raulpacheco if u don’t want to spark a revolution: PhD 200-250; MA 100-125. Also, reco modulate volume based on rhythms of the year/term.Josh Greenberg
@raulpacheco Too much. Assign less but have them read "deeper"; assign reading responses or divide the readings as suggested by @_valerieiJenny Shaw
@raulpacheco Number depends on equation density for me. Also, I’m kinda trying to do research as PhD student, coursework takes a backseat.Sarcozona
We also discussed volume of readings across all levels (undergraduate through graduate).
@raulpacheco as a grad student that would have been overly onerous. An undergrad? No waycaparsons
Not 1st year! I vary for course/year. Increases 100+ level of course. @raulpachecojanniaragon
@raulpacheco I’ve got my 4th years at under 100 pages/week. If I gave them more, no way that they’d read anythingcaparsons
@ScottTimcke @raulpacheco @caparsons @janniaragon ultimately reading req’s shld reflect objective. I pref volume for comps, depth for class.Josh Greenberg
During our discussions, PhD student Scott Timke made a good point
@raulpacheco @caparsons @janniaragon @josh_greenberg, When did a book a week per class become unreasonable?Scott Timcke
To which Professor Josh Greenberg (Carleton University) responded
@ScottTimcke @raulpacheco @caparsons @janniaragon a) when unis hiked tuition, reduced funding & drove more students into non-acad labourJosh Greenberg
@ScottTimcke @raulpacheco @caparsons @janniaragon b) when grad programs started to fill with students who don’t aspire for jobs in academeJosh Greenberg
@ScottTimcke @raulpacheco @caparsons @janniaragon c) it has always been unreasonable – students just say so now instead of grin & bear itJosh Greenberg
Chris Parsons is completing his PhD in Political Science at University of Victoria, and he shared his view as well on this particular point. The discussion on one book a week seemed to spart a lot of responses (including Dr. Lenore Newman, Canada Research Chair in Food Studies at University of the Fraser Valley)
@ScottTimcke @raulpacheco @janniaragon @josh_greenberg I’m from a diff discipline, but 1 book a week seems excessive. We did 2-3/termcaparsons
@josh_greenberg @ScottTimcke @raulpacheco @caparsons @janniaragon I expect a lot from my student, but don’t judge by # of pages.Lenore Newman
@josh_greenberg @ScottTimcke @raulpacheco @caparsons @janniaragon Density of readings, importance, relevance more important than # of pages.Lenore Newman
From here, responses included the hashtag #PhDCourseReadingLoad
@raulpacheco @josh_greenberg @caparsons @janniaragon @_valeriei @pfanderson, I will reply using #PhDCourseReadingLoadScott Timcke
I agree that 1) there is alot of posturing "back in my day" with reading loads & 2) conditions have changed. #PhDCourseReadingLoadScott Timcke
3) Further, its not about pages, but about quality, the discipline, and objectives #PhDCourseReadingLoadScott Timcke
But controlling for those factors, I think the generation of new knowledge in new venues plays a role #PhDCourseReadingLoadScott Timcke
eg, wt a course on modern philosophy, a student can buy a second hand copy of the social contract fairly easily #PhDCourseReadingLoadScott Timcke
A new book on sound studies will be considerably more expensive. Hence profs likely to assign articles over books #PhDCourseReadingLoadScott Timcke
However, good articles for undergrads are hard to come by, and are not sufficient, hence more articles required #PhDCourseReadingLoadScott Timcke
That’s me for the moment. Over and out. #PhDCourseReadingLoadScott Timcke
@ScottTimcke I really like your thoughts on #PhDCourseReadingLoad Thanks for continuing conversationP. F. Anderson
Some great suggestions on how to make reading loads for PhD-level courses more manageable were also shared.
@raulpacheco @jevlloyd if you want to squeeze in that much. Divide it up and have them each make summaries to share.Valerie Irvine
Review syll of colleagues for dept norm, too. @raulpachecojanniaragon
I looked for norm across Canada & then faculty of So Sci at UVic. I def assigned too much prior to this. @raulpachecojanniaragon
What became clear from my request for feedback and the discussion it ensued was how much variation there is (and how little consensus) on how much reading is too much. But one thing is for certain: my colleagues made it clear that regardless of amount of reading, one should make sure that the readings are relevant, dense in content and manageable within a 3-4 courses/term courseload.
@cyberslate @raulpacheco I would read the conversation at the Chronicle link I sent, and inform the decision from that. Not a consensusP. F. Anderson
@cyberslate @raulpacheco That Chronicle forum link was fascinating. Huge differences in what was acceptable reading loads per week.P. F. Anderson
To everyone who participated in the #PhDCourseReadingLoad discussion: THANK YOU!
Mexican elections for governors, President, local and federal deputies were held on July 1st, 2012. For the first time in more than 15 years, I was lucky enough to be in Mexico to be able to vote in this election (because I usually live abroad, I am almost never in the country when federal elections are held, let alone state-level or municipal-level elections). My field of specialization is comparative public policy across North America with a focus on environmental issues, and more specifically, I study water governance, solid waste policy and urban/industrial/regional transformation. Thus, I confess I’m not really a scholar of elections, let alone Mexican domestic politics. With that caveat, here are a couple of thoughts and a question for scholars of Mexican domestic politics and/or electoral geography.
I have always been fascinated by electoral geography. Using geography to further our understanding of voting patterns and outcomes is, to me, one of the best interdisciplinary research methods. If we combine electoral geography with domestic voting behavior analysis (I am going to guess most of the work done here is quantitative) we can discern why voting occurred in one way and not in other.
Here are some (non-scholarly) musings on the 2012 Mexican election. I also have to fully disclose that I am not associated with any Mexican political party, nor do I have any particular leaning. I’m just a scholarly observer (even if Mexican domestic politics isn’t really my field).
I expected PAN to be ousted at the federal level. Anecdotally, almost every Mexican I knew was thoroughly disappointed with PAN and were planning to vote either PRI or PRD. Public’s expectations of democracy and high governmental performance were instead met with an increase in domestic violence and increasing security issues. I am thinking that the Mexican electorate punished PAN for poor performance at the federal level by voting PRI or even PRD (see for example Miguel Mancera’s alleged 65% win in Mexico City)
I expected PAN to be ousted in Leon, Guanajuato (the largest city in the state). Again, I am thinking that the Leon electorate were tired of 24 years of PAN and wanted a change. What I did NOT expect was for the state of Guanajuato to remain PANista despite Leon (the city with largest population numbers at 2.2 million people) voting a PRI female municipal president (a first, actually).
I’m still puzzled by some of the results of the 2012 Mexican elections, but I can foresee a lot of change coming for Mexico.
I first met Dr. Elinor Ostrom when she came to The University of British Columbia as a Visiting Professor and stayed at Green College. While at the time, none of my PhD research really had anything to do with neoinstitutionalism or rational choice theory per se, I knew of her work and read much of her scholarly production because I wrote PhD comprehensive exams in Political Science and Comparative Public Policy. She was invited to speak at the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability (where I did my PhD) and also gave a few other public lectures, several of them at Green College (where I lived as a graduate student). Dr. Ostrom brought along on her trip her husband, Dr. Vincent Ostrom. After giving a brown-bag lecture, I walked them back to Green College and they graciously offered to buy me lunch.
We spent the next 3 hours discussing neoinstitutionalism, rational choice theory, and which Mexican scholars were doing common pool resource theory (CPR). Elinor (or Lin as most people called her) wanted to connect me with a fantastic Mexican scholar who went to become a very close friend of mine, Dr. Leticia Merino-Perez from the Social Research Institute at UNAM. Lin and Leti had done collaborative work on Mexican forest resources management.
Lin and Vincent were incredibly generous with their time during their visit, we spent breakfasts, lunches and dinners at Green College chatting and they were very sweet to me, teaching me about ways of looking at governing natural resources using robust institutions and I can confidently say that they were the reason, and in particular Lin Ostrom, that much of my scholarly work now uses neoinstitutional theory. I feel this loss as a very personal one as I did have a personal albeit brief connection to the Ostroms, but I can’t help but also share in the collective grief of everybody who knew Lin Ostrom. Her work demonstrated that ordinary folks can and often do build robust norms and rules (institutions) to govern resources in a sustainable manner. I became fascinated by the study of institutions when I met Lin Ostrom, and I hope to carry the torch in the future with my own scholarly work.
Rest in peace, Lin. You made your mark in the world, much more beyond the Nobel Prize. And thank you for your teachings.
Making Contact: A Panel Discussion with Eric M. Johnson and Raul Pacheco-Vega, PhD.
May 15th, 2012 6:30-9:00pm.
Science World (Telus World of Science)
1455 Quebec St.
Vancouver, BC Canada
I have given dozens of talks on how academics could/should use social media platforms to advance their research, how my own undergraduate students use Twitter for collaborative projects and I have encouraged scholars to share their research on Twitter using the #MyResearch hashtag. But this is the first time I get to share this with the knowledge mobilization and science reporting community, and I’m thrilled to have been invited by my friend and colleague, Dr. Peter Newbury, to speak about using social media for research, teaching and scholarship advancement. I will be sharing the stage with Eric M. Johnson, a doctoral student at The University of British Columbia and the acclaimed writer behind Primate Dairies. I hope to see many of you there. The event has no cover charge.
From the ScienceOnlineVancouver website event:
Do you have facts that could could clear up confusion or an informed opinion to share? Do you know the question whose answer would help you and others better understand the issue? How do you contribute your knowledge and expertise to your community? Social media is supposed to make it easy but how to you pick between Facebook friends, twitter hashtags, google circles, blog posts and countless other online options?
In the 2nd ScienceOnlineVancouver event on Tuesday, May 15, [updated — it’s on the 15th, not the 17th] you’ll meet people who successfully use social media to communicate with their professional communities, Eric Michael Johnson (@ericmjohnson, primatediaries.com) and Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco, raulpacheco.org) They’ll describe what they do, what works (and what doesn’t.) You’ll have a chance to ask questions and share what you know, whether you’re a professional blogger or just-got-a-twitter-account-now-what-do-I-do?
By popular demand, the event will start at 6:30 pm with a chance to mingle with your friends, new and old and we are investigating ways to have alcohol available. The discussion will begin at 7:00 pm. In accordance with the liquor license, please RSVP for the event, even right up to the last minute.
This month’s raffle: your very own Galileoscope telescope, complete with tripod and carrying case. For the price of a ticket, you could see the rings of Saturn and the moons of Jupiter!
All proceeds from drink sales and raffle tickets are used to run ScienceOnlineVancouver events, including materials and the licenses.
I was talking this past week with four of my undergraduate students (all of whom are working on research projects with me – I try to involve undergraduate students in my research all the time – it’s a valuable experience for post-graduation), and I asked them what their career plans were. Obviously, there are several of my students (who currently are undertaking research with me) who will not go on to academia, but the experience of collaborating in my scholarly work is (hopefully) one that will leave them with employable skills (I emphasize hire-able skills in my teaching too).
When I mentioned to my students that I was keen to know where they went and that I would always keep tabs on what they did, they all were extremely impressed and grateful. Even my former students whom I have not mentored directly (in collaborative research relationships) know that they can always count on me if they need advice or direction, or a letter of reference written for graduate school or a job. And while it’s nice to get the “thank you” cards that I do (rather frequently), it’s more what Professor Saideman indicates what drives me (and the heritage from my academic parents too, who did the same for their own students), and I quote:
It was not my intention that my last four graduate students at McGill have been women, but it is a point of pride that they are thriving and succeeding. I know that they will face a lot of crap in this business, but I also know that they know that I will always be there for them. In my view, agreeing to be an adviser is akin to an unbreakable vow–a magical binding contract. And as always, with great power, comes great responsibility.
I completely agree. Agreeing to work with you (as a student of mine) means to me that I will keep tabs on you in the future, regardless of which country you (or I) live in. It’s a binding contract whereby I agree to help you develop your skills and make a contribution in this world. That’s the underlying reason of why I agree to teach at the university level, and that’s the reason why I became an academic in the first place: to make a positive impact in the world, hopefully not only with my own scholarship but also through my students too.
In the last 50 years, the world’s cultivated area has grown by 12% and agricultural production has grown 2.5 to 3 times (FAO, SOLAW, 2011). Agricultural water use has helped meet rapidly rising demand for food and has contributed to the growth of farm profitability and poverty reduction as well as to regional rural development and environmental protection. 55% of the food production comes from irrigated or drained areas and 45% from the other areas. But…It takes in average 3 000 litres of water to produce the food needed to feed one person for a day. With the world population increasing to 9 billion by 2050, and most of that growth expected in urban areas, the challenge of feeding the world in a resource scarce environment has never been greater.
Already today in an increasing number of regions and watersheds, the demand for water outpaces available supply, translating into environmental degradation and increased competition among di erent users. About 12%of the global land area is currently in use for cultivation of agricultural crops. Agriculture also uses 70% of all water withdrawn from aquifers, streams and lakes. After water has been used for domestic, industrial and agricultural purposes, only lower quality water is returned to the system, directly or by non point sources pollution (nutrients, pesticides derived from crop and livestock management). Yet in some countries in the arid and semi-arid zone, food production is only possible by irrigating. Food production is
not negotiable but what can be negotiated is where, when and how food is produced and consumed.
At no point did I read in these materials any discussion on the use of wastewater in agricultural irrigation (a practice that is relatively frequent in Mexico and that I have documented and discussed previously in my research on wastewater governance – see for example Pacheco-Vega 2005, Pacheco-Vega and Basurto 2008, Pacheco-Vega 2011). This is sometimes a bit of a taboo topic, as the use of wastewater in agricultural irrigation has inherent risks (as noted by Scott, Zarazua and Levine 2000). Yet, in regions afflicted with drought, wastewater use may not be a luxury but a necessity.
To ensure food security we may need to consider access to non-conventional sources of water, and bring this topic to the table. I hope UN-WATER and the FAO can make this topic part of the global discussion on water scarcity. As I have predicated at length in my research (and teaching), looking at water from an integrated, closed-cycle perspective is extremely important. Wastewater can’t continue to be the “ugly duckling” of social studies of water. We need to get beyond the culture of flushing and learn to really govern water properly.
Recent online (and offline) discussions around the fact that the academic system is ripe for disruption have encountered a high degree of resonance amongst the scholarly community at all levels (on the tenure-track, tenured, non-tenure-track, adjuncts or contingent faculty, graduate students). The topic itself (reforming academia) is extremely complex, and a systematic review would be outside of the scope of this particular blog entry. But one of the areas that really needs profound reform, I believe, is the scholarly publishing system (and I am not even going to discuss the open-access vs. non-open-access topic here).
In particular, the one element that I think needs profound reform in order to catch up to the realities of online, speedy publishing is the peer review process. Some of the “top ranked journals” have waiting times of 4-6 months (in some case, this is the “fast” speed!). Full disclosure: the journals on whose editorial board I sit have a one-month review policy and the editors in chief are quite good at getting reviews back on a timely fashion.
Personally, I have a one-month policy for every review I do, and most of the journals who have asked me to peer-review know this, and I encourage them to email me gentle reminders. I do also know of other journals who have withdrawn their requests to peer-review manuscripts to reviewers when the time to respond/review goes beyond one month. I am not 100% sure what can be done to reform this small part of the system, but I think it’s one of the most important ones. Manuscripts that sit on reviewers’ desks for months without review make authors frustrated and obviously, the publication of data and results ends up being sometimes rather untimely (and outdated). I don’t have an answer to this question, but I remain frustrated.
While it’s quite publicly known that I don’t do scholarly research on the politics of climate change, I am a specialist in environmental politics, I’m well aware of the issues around global environmental change and my work on pollution reduction/control and water governance also has systemic implications that necessitate my awareness of research around climatic change. Global environmental issues don’t have clearly defined boundaries and thus require us to at least maintain a certain level of understanding of the issues. Thus, I made the time to attend the event “Our Canada, Our Future: Stop the Carbon Pipeline” at UBC this week.
Yesterday, I sat in to listen (and for a change, not to speak!) on a panel of colleagues of mine (Dr. Kathryn Harrison from the Department of Political Science at The University of British Columbia, Dr. Hisham Zerriffi from the Liu Institute for Global Issues at UBC, Dr. George Hoberg from the Department of Forest Resources Management at UBC), and a former student of mine, Gordon Katic (Political Science, UBC). The panel was organized by UBCC 350, and was primarily an information session where speakers presented about issues surrounding the construction of the Northern Gateway Pipeline and other plans to increase BC carbon exports. My colleagues presented some really interesting data on carbon exports, projections of carbon emissions, the need to engage in scholarly activism and my former student Gordon Katic gave a vibrant, engaging and galvanizing talk that resulted in a call to action for the event participants. Very well done, everyone.
For someone like me, who doesn’t work in the specific field of climate policy, this session was very informative and provided me some talking points that I plan to use in my teaching on global environmental politics and on Canadian environmental policy. From an outsider perspective, it looks like it was a successful event as the room was pretty packed; considering that the event took place on a Thursday evening, when it is hard to bring out anybody to events, I would applaud UBCC 350.
This session was a refreshing reminder that, even though I am a scholar, I myself have grappled with questions of whether we academics can afford NOT to be activists when we see pressing issues and the need for action. This is not an easy debate to have. I find myself increasingly frustrated with how little politicians listen to scholars like me and colleagues of mine on pressing policy issues. Much of what I do involves knowledge mobilization (and I use a variety of avenues to engage with the public, not only public lectures and speaking, but also sharing tidbits of my own research on this blog and on my social media platforms). But I share my colleagues’ frustration that behavioral change to deal with pressing climate issues isn’t coming about fast enough.
It is encouraging to see so many undergraduate students (many of my own, in fact) involved in sustainability-focused activities, such as UBCC350. I have long argued that behavioral change needs to happen earlier in life (e.g. high-school, grade school and university).
Inspired by the global climate movement fostered by 350.org, UBCC350 is a group of UBC students, faculty, and staff committed to advocating for meaningful government climate action. We strongly support aggressive global and national action to address the climate crisis, but our immediate focus is on carbon exports from British Columbia. BC has enacted progressive climate policies, but they have yet to be implemented. Recent proposals for projects that would increase BC’s carbon exports threaten to negate and even overwhelm BC’s commitments to reduce greenhouse gases. There are three main channels of carbon exports from BC: coal, tarsands pipelines, and unconventional natural gas/shale gas. UBCC350 is an independent group of students, faculty and staff and do not represent the views of the University.
Whatever your take is on climatic change, I strongly encourage you to educate yourself on the issues and to engage with the topic. The rest of my photo set from the evening is here. And should you be interested in the March 31st event (Storm The Riding), here is some information.
The biggest challenge I have had in the past decade or so has been to remove myself from continue to investigate topics I have undertaken scholarly research on. For a solid decade, I studied transnational networks of environmental organizations. During the same period, I completed my doctoral dissertation on a completely different topic (the industrial/urban restructuring of cities and their associated leather and footwear industrial clusters). I also began working on water issues even before finishing my doctoral dissertation. I realize that not every scholar has faced the same issue, but I have a really hard time letting go of research avenues. It’s incredibly hard to maintain my fingers on the pulse of the literature on transnational environmental social movements.
The field of environmental economic geography continues to expand. And water? Social sciences’ scholarship on water has bloomed in the past 20 years. And yet, if you ask me, I would want to never have to stop studying these topics. I find, however, that I don’t have the actual time nor space of mind (nor have I dug in the literature enough) to continue conducting research on topics whose bodies of literature I no longer have at my fingertips.
I was having a conversation with a very close friend of mine with whom I’m working on a water/energy project, and I asked him how he dealt with “closing down projects”. That is, how do you leave projects behind? How do you convince yourself not to continue to want to do research on something that still interests you?
I think the answer is clear when the research project is associated with a specific dataset, or with a stream of research income (e.g. a grant). You were funded for N years. You committed to write A, B and C scholarly products and to present at W, Z and X conferences and to fund R, S and T graduate students. You end the project once you have gotten all the products you committed to at the end of the project.
But what do you do with projects that you feel you could still “wring”? Projects that could potentially help you build a new research trajectory? For example, I am right now extremely excited about work I’m doing on the water and energy nexus. I don’t foresee my excitement will wane in the next 5 years. What to do? Just out of the fact that I am only one individual, I will most likely have to give up on exploring other research avenues. This is a trade-off (money, time, human resources) I am sure other scholars face, so I’m putting the question out for you all to answer.
All feedback appreciated. How do you decide when you no longer want to pursue a particular research avenue?
I am a Full Professor with the Methods Lab at the Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO) Sede Mexico. My research is interdisciplinary by nature, and I identify both as a political scientist and as a human geographer, the two fields in which I trained during my doctorate. For a long time, my work centered […]more →
Recent Comments