Positions in Academia

POSITIONS IN ACADEMIA Dr. A. R. Woollock “Opinions are for bars and friends.” Academia does not allow academics to have opinions, rather it allows them to hold or take a position. A position (literally: 位 置 ) is a temporary vantage point from which an academic espouses a hypothesis which is not subjective, but which is arrived at after scholarly engagement with the prevailing Literature in the field. The position an academic takes on a given subject is not the absolute Truth, rather it is a position based upon the best research, evidence, and scholarship available to them at that point in time. An academic must not hold on to the position as an absolute or unwavering Truth, rather they should see it as a posit, theory, or a temporary position which will be superseded by a more advanced theory. Academics should not be ‘academically’ selfish and should not be myopic in their worldview (weltanschauung), rather they should be concerned about the advancement of academia and scholarship (the communities to which they belong) and they should be working towards expanding knowledge and moving theories forwards for the benefit of academia and hopefully society. Any academic discourse begins in the same way, it begins by engaging with the Literature on the topic to be examined; who has researched your topic before you? What ground has already been trodden? What were the findings? What did the major scholars in that field hypothesise? Is their work still relevant, or has it been superseded? What is the ‘gap’ in the field or the Literature which will make your research of interest and/or original? Once that groundwork has been completed and a very thorough literature review has been completed, the scholar can then set about formulating their hypothesis. As noted above, an hypothesis is simply a working model and is not absolute Truth. We should not be myopic or dishonest (negating or ignoring counter research which disproves our hypothesis), likewise we should not guard or hold on to our position to the detriment of scholarship and academia. At the college level all positions you espouse, whether in an essay, a presentation, or a graduation thesis, must be the result of engagement with both the pros and the cons of the subject. Before reaching your conclusion therefore, you must have read and understood both opposing positions on the subject before you arrive at your own. In both higher (tertiary) education and academia, it is extremely unprofessional to first decide on your position or outcome (results) and then working backwards set out to prove them retrospectively by cherry-picking or selectively choosing favourable data or biased examples ©WOOLLOCK 2022 1 which help substantiate your ideas or opinion. Without exception each and every subject, no matter how narrow or apparently concrete can be argued against. There is always alternative data, alternative witnesses to historical events, and alternative philosophies which provide an alternative1. Whilst, for political, social, or ethical reasons we may not like or agree with apparently controversial or radical viewpoints as junior scholars or academics we have to accept that within discourse such phenomena exist and we can only present an alternative truth not an absolute. This may sometimes mean ‘agreeing to disagree’ with those whose positions we do not align personally in the interests of maintaining proper academic protocols or standards, and the integrity of academia as a domain of fair and balanced scholarship. When you defend your doctoral thesis (viva voce) if there is any subjectivity, conjecture, bias, or hyperbole in the thesis, the team of examiners (who bestow the academic rank of Doctor on you) will insist that this be removed and the thesis be resubmitted with corrections. Likewise the language you must use, even if critical of other scholars or other positions must always be respectful and polite, should never be derogatory, insultory, accusatory, or loaded. With regard to your positions expressed in your academic writings at this university, a very useful and professional approach to adopt is to firstly compare and contrast the data and information on your selected topic. Once you have examined both sides fairly and equally you can then (and only then) arrive at your position or stance. However, this is not the final stage and your position is not absolute. In order to be able to defend your position properly, you need to try to disprove it. A useful approach to adopt here is to approach your position as a Disjunctive syllogism (A and B, if not A, then B2), i.e. a position arrived at after failing to disprove your hypothesis; having your position proved by default – by a lack of counter evidence. Another useful logic is Modus Tollens (If A then B, if not B, then not A3). In the first instance (disjunctive syllogism) by working to refute our position and trying to disprove our own hypothesis, if we do not succeed (i.e. we fail to significantly counter our position), then we can state that by default it is (albeit temporarily) a sound hypothesis. If we have engaged widely with the Literature and pre-existing scholarship (in many fields, not just within our own discipline), and we have worked hard to provide solid arguments against our own positions. When others try to counter us, we should not be defensive or feel threatened because we should hopefully (if we have been thorough) be aware of the likely possible rebuttals and hold counter evidence to refute these arguments. 1 2 3 It is important to move away from ideas of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ here, and shift the idea towards competing arguments. Pepsi and Coke; if not Coke, then Pepsi If the sun shines, it’s hot; it’s not hot therefore the sun is not shining ©WOOLLOCK 2022 2 Finally, it is worth noting that an academic viewpoint is not necessarily proven by working in a straight or linear manner collecting points along the way which add up to tip the scale or opinion in our favour. Rather, even when you have arrived at your position and failed to disprove it, you should still acknowledge and explain the flaws in your argument, acknowledge the limitations of the research; explain how and what further research is necessary and what is and what is not within the scope of your hypothesis and findings. USEFUL VOCABULARY i) (an) Hypothesis/__________________ [_][_][_] ii) (a) Thesis/__________________ [_][_][_] iii) (a) Posit/__________________ [_][_][_] iv) Conjecture/__________________ [_][_][_] v) (an) Absolute truth/__________________ [_][_][_] vi) (a) Relative truth/__________________ [_][_][_] vii) (a) Bias/__________________ [_][_][_] viii) Weasel words/__________________ [_][_][_] ix) (to be) Myopic/__________________ [_][_][_] x) Fair and balanced/__________________ [_][_][_] xi) (a) Pro/__________________ [_][_][_] xii) (a) Con/__________________ [_][_][_] xiii) (to present) Both sides of an argument/______________________ [_][_][_] xiv) The Literature/__________________ [_][_][_] xv) (a) Position/__________________ [_][_][_] xvi) Thomas Kuhn (Paradigm Shift) /__________________ [_][_][_] xvii) Malcolm Gladwell (Tipping Point) /__________________ [_][_][_] xviii) W.B. Gallie (Essentially Contested Concept) /__________________ [_][_][_] xix) Higher Order Skills/__________________ [_][_][_] xx) Criticality/__________________ [_][_][_] xxi) Discourse/__________________ [_][_][_] xxii) Synthesis/__________________ [_][_][_] xxiii) Analysis/__________________ [_][_][_] xxiv) Deconstruction/__________________ [_][_][_] xxv) Modernism/__________________ [_][_][_] xxvi) Postmodernism/__________________ [_][_][_] xxvii) Plurality/__________________ [_][_][_] ©WOOLLOCK 2022 3 xxviii) Heterogeneity/__________________ [_][_][_] xxix) (to) Discuss/__________________ [_][_][_] xxx) (to) Debate/__________________ [_][_][_] xxxi) (to) Espouse/__________________ [_][_][_] xxxii) (to) Put forward/__________________ [_][_][_] xxxiii) (to) Argue/__________________ [_][_][_] xxxiv) (to) Defend/__________________ [_][_][_] xxxv) [_][_][_] (to) Refute) /__________________ xxxvi) Literature review /__________________ [_][_][_] xxxvii) The passive voice/__________________ [_][_][_] xxxviii) The middle voice/__________________ [_][_][_] xxxix) Non sequitur/__________________ [_][_][_] xl) Ambiguous/__________________ [_][_][_] xli) Vague/__________________ [_][_][_] xlii) Euphemism/__________________ [_][_][_] xliii) Euphemistic/__________________ [_][_][_] xliv) (to) Mislead/__________________ [_][_][_] xlv) (to) Lead/__________________ [_][_][_] xlvi) Responsibility/__________________ [_][_][_] xlvii) Generalisations/__________________ [_][_][_] xlviii) Irrelevant/__________________ [_][_][_] xlix) Illogical/__________________ [_][_][_] l) (to) Negate (one’s responsibility) /__________________ [_][_][_] li) (to) Obfuscate/__________________ [_][_][_] lii) Argot/__________________ [_][_][_] liii) Jargon/__________________ [_][_][_] liv) Buzzword/__________________ [_][_][_] lv) Acronym/__________________ [_][_][_] lvi) Fallacy/__________________ [_][_][_] lvii) False Authority/__________________ [_][_][_] lviii) Retrospective/__________________ [_][_][_] lix) Frequency fallacy/__________________ [_][_][_] lx) Frequency illusion (Baader-Meinhof phenomenon) /__________________ [_][_][_] lxi) A posteriori/__________________ [_][_][_] lxii) A priori/__________________ [_][_][_] lxiii) Rational/__________________ [_][_][_] ©WOOLLOCK 2022 4 lxiv) Rationale/__________________ [_][_][_] lxv) Rationalism/__________________ [_][_][_] lxvi) Epistemology/__________________ [_][_][_] lxvii) Robust/__________________ [_][_][_] lxviii) Empirical (data) /__________________ [_][_][_] lxix) Empiricism/__________________ [_][_][_] lxx) Primary data/__________________ [_][_][_] lxxi) Secondary data/__________________ [_][_][_] lxxii) Findings/__________________ [_][_][_] lxxiii) (a)(to) Lie/__________________ [_][_][_] lxxiv) (to) Deceive /__________________ [_][_][_] lxxv) Deception/__________________ [_][_][_] lxxvi) (to) Omit/__________________ [_][_][_] lxxvii) (an) Omission/__________________ [_][_][_] lxxviii) (to) Fudge/__________________ [_][_][_] lxxix) (to) Conceal/__________________ [_][_][_] lxxx) (to) Wash/__________________ [_][_][_] lxxxi) Logic/__________________ [_][_][_] lxxxii) (to) Appeal (to one’s emotions) /__________________ [_][_][_] lxxxiii) Emotionality/__________________ [_][_][_] lxxxiv) Scholarship/__________________ [_][_][_] lxxxv) Academic integrity/__________________ [_][_][_] lxxxvi) Peer-review/__________________ [_][_][_] lxxxvii) (to stand before/to be judged by) One’s peers/_______________________ [_][_][_] lxxxviii) (the) Academic community/__________________ [_][_][_] lxxxix) (a) Community of scholars/__________________ [_][_][_] xc) Polite discourse/__________________ [_][_][_] xci) ‘Gentlemanly conduct’ /__________________ [_][_][_] xcii) Irrelevant/__________________ [_][_][_] xciii) Respectful dialogue/__________________ [_][_][_] xciv) Limitations/__________________ [_][_][_] xcv) Inadequacies/__________________ [_][_][_] xcvi) Shortcomings/__________________ [_][_][_] xcvii) Flaws/__________________ [_][_][_] ©WOOLLOCK 2022 5