Response to David Akenson’s Lecture:
‘Suspicious Minds: Lizard People and Research’ 2016
It’s interesting listening to David talk about
the presence of paranoia in research and I was trying to see how this can apply
to my own research. How does the presence of a paranoid enquiry effect the qualitative
and quantitative research elements for example? I know what paranoia is, but
felt like I had to see the exact meaning to qualify its entire effect on any
line of research. I looked up ‘paranoid’ first and then ‘paranoia’.
paranoid
adjective: paranoid
1.
characterized by or suffering from the mental
condition of paranoia.
"paranoid schizophrenia"
unreasonably or obsessively anxious, suspicious, or
mistrustful.
"you think I'm paranoid but I tell you there
is something going on"
synonyms:
|
irrationally anxious, over-suspicious, paranoiac, suspicious, mistrustful, distrustful, fearful, insecure;
informalpara
"they probably don't mean me at all—I'm
probably just being paranoid"
|
noun
noun: paranoid; plural noun: paranoids
1.
a person who is paranoid.
"further accusations would sound like the
ramblings of a paranoid"
paranoia
noun
noun: paranoia
- a mental condition characterized by delusions of persecution, unwarranted jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance, typically worked into an organized system. It may be an aspect of chronic personality disorder, of drug abuse, or of a serious condition such as schizophrenia in which the person loses touch with reality.
synonyms:
|
persecution complex, delusions, obsession, megalomania, monomania;
|
o
unjustified suspicion and mistrust of other people.
"mild paranoia
afflicts all prime ministers"
For me these definitions confirmed some of the
uncomfortable feeling I had when David explained this paranoid element of his
research or of proposed research. How does this fit? I think I know what he’s
pushing at; the quizzical element of research that we must consider when doing
so. But paranoia, for me, is a construct that draws in too many conditions
related to an imbalanced mind. Delusions, persecution, jealousy and such seem
far removed from say the quantitative research elements we have examined so
far. Quantitative research method is not necessarily employee by the practice-led
researcher of course but it is still part of the foundation of the research
that is evolving into a Practice-led field.
I think for this to have a place in practice-led
research it could in a sense jeopardise some of the hard fought for credibility
that the field is starting to acquire (based upon what was said in the lecture).
To have a place it would, I believe, need to be clearly defined in the
methodology as an element that is being researched rather than a method to
achieve a result. Researching paranoia and its presence could be an incredibly
interesting and fruitful endeavour, especially as society increasingly seems to
embrace this mode.
I think a clearer resolution on this paranoid
element would be a rewording to potentially help us anchor this strain which
runs through an inquiring mind and further remove it from an irrational
interpretation. Potential it may be classed as ‘diagnostic reinterpretation’ or
‘polemic reasoning’ which maybe too harsh or ‘instinctual suspicion’ to place
it within a research frame work that seems to take responsibility for its use
of language. I am therefore unsure about this presence of paranoia, but does
that make me paranoid? Or simply instinctively suspicious? And are researchers’
paranoid and therefore ‘unreasonably or obsessively anxious, suspicious, or
mistrustful’ or are they simply open to many possibilities
that higher research reveals?
No comments:
Post a Comment