I have recently encountered people studying subjects that seem to be superficial. So I wonder, is it the subject that makes us say "this is scholarly writing" or is it the WAY that the subject is studied that makes it scholarly?
Superficial? I study a whole bunch of topics from organizational communication, to popular culture, to communication theory. I look at the various economic discourses surrounding volunteerism in a local nonprofit. On the other hand, I examine the discourses of identity in popular television shows. In the theory pieces I attempt to shed light on an underdeveloped philosophical approach to interpersonal communication. Some might call the pop culture research (on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Supernatural) superficial, but those tend to be the most read pieces. Why? Because pop culture is, in a word, popular. And an interrogation into the hegemonic discourses of pop culture that effect our culture needs to be done. Others could not care a lick about a very small nonprofit. And many could think that inquiries into theory are not only superficial, but frivolous and useless. I think it is not necessarily the subject under investigation, but the manner by which it is studied, how it is connected to extant literature, how it adds to our knowledge. Of course there are multiple ways to study a topic from focus groups, to surveys, to autoethnography, etc. There's simply not one right way - or one right subject - by which to do research.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Writing