Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Courage

I don't often praise myself. But today, I want to say that I am very courageous.

It's the third day since I have received that rejection. The day I got rejected, I spoke to some friends and gained encouragement to continue on. Yesterday, I spent the time retrieving the relevant working copy from my computer, and converted all the citations back to Endnote format to aid the change of style for the new journal and I sent an email to a publisher to ask for permission to reproduce some data in that article. I felt that what I am trying to say would be clearer with the help of some figures I had previously deleted as I did not want to ask for permission. So... I am also learning something new about asking permissions and copyrights.

Today, I have re-read my article once. And I have seriously considered the reviewers comments. I understand how they have misunderstood my article, because of the poor way I have positioned my findings in the existing literature and how I had made simplistic links between nationality and attitudes of patriotism. I also did not explain why I did what I did, which caused one of my reviewers to be confused about what I did. So, yes, I find the reviewers comments very helpful. Also, I will work on strengthening my methodology section, to make it more rigorous. Again, because reviewer 1 doubted that I could make conclusions on just 4 teachers in 1 school.

The major parts I need to work on is the introduction, literature review and the conclusion.

I think I am courageous, because if I were Shuyi 1 year ago, I would not have been able to do this exercise so quickly. I would still be wallowing in self-doubt and pain.

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Writer's rite of passage: REJECTION



I had thought the most painful emotion an academic writer could experience was "rejected with MAJOR revisions". Now, I know there is an even more painful emotion - REJECTED!

But the strange thing is that after this experience, I feel even more like a writer. I feel like an ordinary academic, one who also experiences rejections. The previous two experiences of acceptance with major revisions were perhaps very lucky or blessed events, where the stars happened to align, and God winked at me, to give me a helpful boost of confidence to continue this journey as a researcher.

But the real world of the researcher is fraught with rejections.

I am hesitant to look at the article again. As I said before, when you submit something, you think it's really good, you're almost blind to its flaws. But now, I need to objectively look at it again, to see the validity of the reviewers comments, convert this article into another style for another journal. I hope to get this done by next week perhaps? Oh, bother, how time flies and it's already approaching December.

It did humble me. I felt there was a lot I didn't know after this experience. That I needed to read more. But maybe I'll start with trying to find out what that other journal we want to submit to is like and read some of their articles.

I need to come up with a strategy to convert this rejected article into a format that is worthy of acceptance in another journal now! But tactically, I have a higher chance now, as the journal we are currently targeting likes this genre of articles.

Friday, November 20, 2015

Patriotism through different disciplines

I just discovered something really fun and wanted to share with you.

Many disciplines deal with patriotism. The first book I found on patriotism was from the social psychology field, later on, I discovered works from the political psychology field. Of course, I tried to find works from the educational field, where I am based mainly at. But other cool fields (sorry I used this term interchangeably with discipline, still rather confused) that discuss patriotism are: political science, philosophy and history!

And what I recently discovered from reading historical research articles is that historians like to see patriotism as a narrative, an ongoing story. They see patriotism as constantly morphing, and political.

This is different from the psychologist who often see patriotism as a trait in a person, that they either have it or do not have. People like Adorno try to measure "patriotism" in people, thinking that "pseudo-patriotism" inclines people towards racism. Political scientists also like to measure patriotism in people using surveys.

Social and political psychologists approach patriotism from the standpoint of identity, patriotism is what is needed for people to feel a sense of belonging, and national identity. It is also a tool used by politicians to rouse emotions and get support for unpopular policies. Being psychologists, they also measure this trait in people using surveys.

Philosophers are the interesting ones. They like to debate whether patriotism is a virtue or vice, whether it's morally obligatory, permissible or forbidden!

Of course, educators, like me, are interested in the process of socialization or initiation into citizenship. How to do you develop patriotism in people. How does loyalty develop? What does loyalty mean? Does it include critique of the nation and government, or only trying to help the students see everything good about them? How does the school develop loyalty in their students?

Isn't this fun!? One concept, but thought about so differently by different disciplines!

EDIT: I just realized I have not included sociological works. I think it's because I am unsure what constitutes sociology. I hope I can find some works from this discipline soon!

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

If I could investigate any problem in the social world...

... and would be "absolutely guaranteed" I would not fail (p. 21). [I am doing an exercise in a book now.]

I would like to investigate the challenges of setting up a political party and why do people do that? And why do people join these political parties? Why do they join one, rather than the other? Why are the challenges of running an election campaign and contesting in one? Is the lack of resources really an issue personally? What are the backgrounds of these people who join political parties? Are they mostly from the less privileged in society? Is there really no way to strategize, such that the opposition parties can still find a way to compete, despite the uneven playing field? What keeps them trying again and again, election after election, despite the odds stacked against them? For those who only join for a period of time, what made them join and leave? Where are they now? What do these people really hope to achieve? What can of Singapore do they envision we can be? And how to make that transition?

I would like to investigate why do people leave churches, or change churches? Is it merely because God asked them to? Or is it a complex array of factors - discontentment with church, fighting among members or with leaders, disagreement with core values, or loss of faith? And if God asked them to, what are the reasons God asked someone to leave a church they were loyal to? Is it to try and start something new? Is it because the former church is no good? What kind of reasons does God give for asking a person to change his community? And what are these people feeling? Do they still keep in touch with their old friends and family? Or is it a complete disconnect? How do they feel about their experience in the former church? Do they hold grudges against anyone?

I would like to investigate how employers employ their employees in a variety of sectors and make comparisons. For example, I would like to sit into offices and see how HR personnel deal with resumes, soft copy and hard. I want to see if they read cover letters and analyze them? Do they care whether an applicant is referred by someone credible or a cold case? I want to sit into interviews with the decision makers. I want to see the questions asked by the bosses. After the interview, I want to interview both the decision makers and the applicants. I will ask the decision makers: How do you rate this applicant. Do you think he's suitable candidate for your job? Did you expect him to ask more questions? I will ask the applicants: How do you rate the interview. What did you think your chances are for this interview? I will do many sets of this, then I will compare... I will see how accurate is the decision maker and applicants account. I also want to follow through with both the applicant and employer. I want to find out how the employer eventually selects an employee. I want to know how the job seeker goes on his search and other interviews and if he received many offers, which does he eventually choose? How hard is it to find a job in Singapore? Is it easier if you're confident and brilliant? Is it harder if you're shy, introverted and nervous? If so, how can I have conclusions that can encourage employers not to be so judgmental towards shy-types?

Yes... I guess if I had a free rein in my research, I may pursue one of these three strains of research.

Luker, K. (2010) Salsa dancing into the social sciences: Research in an age of info-glut. Cambridge: Harvard University Press

Monday, November 2, 2015

How to read philosophy?

"... the method according to which you should read a philosophical book is very similar to the method according to which it is written. A philosopher, faced with a problem, can do nothing but think about it. A reader, faced with a philosophical book, can do nothing but read it - which means, as we know, thinking about it. There are no other aids except the mind itself. 
But this essential loneliness of reader and book is precisely the situation that we imagined at the beginning of our long discussion of the rules of analytical reading. Thus you can see why we say that the rules of reading, as we have stated and explained them, apply more directly to the reading of philosophical books than to the reading of any other kind." (p. 284)
Okay, there's this particular book that I want to review, but I am facing some difficulties. I believe I had read it three times, but I am still having difficulty grasping it and understanding it. I think partly is because I read it with a biased mind and with my own idea of how it should be, instead of adopting the author's perspective. I was impatient as well. I did not want to spend so much time on a philosophical book which (I think) doesn't have that much bearing on my main work.
"The fact that philosophers disagree should not trouble you, for two reasons. First, the fact of disagreement, if it is persistent, may point to a great unsolved and, perhaps, insoluble problem. It is good to know where the true mysteries are. Second, the disagreements of others are relatively unimportant. Your responsibility is only to make up your own mind. In the presence of the long conversation that the philosophers have carried on through their books, you must judge what is true and what is false. When you have read a philosophical book well - and that means reading other philosophers on the same subject, too - you are in a position to judge." (p. 285)
Here, I am getting frustrated because three authors are using a different approach to argue for different positions. They all strongly believe in what they are arguing and they are solid in their reasoning. So... the question I have is... Why? Why does the philosopher try so hard to be right? Okay, maybe, I phrased it wrongly. Why do they try so hard to find answers to their questions? Is it true that the questions philosophers ask are more important than the questions asked by anyone else?
 "The philosophers have carried on a long conversation with each other in the history of thought. You had better listen in on it before you make up your mind about what any of them says." (p. 285)
The book is currently really beyond and above me. Should I invest another week to read it? They say books are our teachers, should I invest even more to to be educated by this teacher? Or should I give up, and perhaps wait until I am more ready? Will a time come that I am more ready to engage in this sort of books? Or is the time now? That if I spend some good investment in this particular book, all other philosophical writings will become easier to comprehend in the future?

Adler, M. J. & Van Doren, C. (2014) How to read a book: The classical guide to intelligent reading. New York: Simon & Schuster.