I protest. Strongly. A low comedy played out today and it was too absurd even to evict any emotion resembling laughter. Our final presentations were scheduled today and a person no less than our very own HOD walked in to evaluate the students. After months of intense hard work I was looking forward to the presentations because I was looking for feedback on my work and it was an opportunity to share my experiences with my classmates.
My presentation was the first one that she evaluated. I was expecting a fair and critical analysis from the evaluators with concrete suggestions that we could incorporate in our work in the future. But what transpired was very different from my expectations.
It all started because I had essentially carried out research in the social sciences and the HOD has a chemistry background fortified by the rigors of laboratory work and being buried under piles of unnecessary paper work.
But that shouldn't make a difference, should it? Inspite of being from a pure science background, she could have been more open to the fact that research in social science is possible. She refused to believe that data in social science is generated by talking to people, by taking into account people's perceptions and relying on independent observations. Why else would it be called a 'social' science then? Her eyebrows were in danger of disappearing into her hair when I informed her that I generated primary data by interviewing people. Why else would it be called primary data?
She expressed extreme surprise, astonishment and dismissed my entire work because I spent only 21 days doing field work. How could I explain to her that I encountered conditions where I had to eat food infested with rat shit and cockroaches and that some nights I went without food as I was too disgusted to eat the crap anymore? But I am digressing here. Why does the number of days that I spend on field matter as long as I collect data that is reliable and proves my hypothesis right? It is immaterial whether I spend 10 days or 30 days. All the days of walking for 10 kms everyday for long hours in the sun boiled down to this. The quality of the time spent should matter and not the quantity.
She was also disbelieving of the fact that I conducted 50 interviews and that each interview consisted of nearly 200 closed and open ended questions. She expected me to list all the questions on the slides that I had prepared. Really now, come on!
According to her, I spending 21 days on field for my work is very less because a period of 6 months is granted to us. Just to make it clear- we are granted only 4 months out of which the major chunk is spent in conducting a literature review, working out and managing the logistics of the field visit, scheduling interviews, framing relevant questions to be included in the questionnaire and analysing data.
Another problematic area was the classification of my respondents. I had used the standard method of classification where respondents are grouped in categories based on the amount of land that they possess.
Large Farmers: >10 acres
Medium Farmers: 5-10 acres
Small Farmers: 0.01-5 acres
Herders
Landless
This is the protocol followed in my field of interest (watershed development). She said that this kind of classification is wrong because a farmer cannot be large, medium or small in the real sense. Really madam, your quibbling over semantics exposed your pettiness and your scientific approach. Pray, where is the logic?
And it is not just about me. When another student gave her presentation, our HOD was disbelieving that Self Help Groups are formed by NGOs in areas where watershed development projects are carried out to bring the community together. Her ignorance can be forgiven but not her arrogance.
She was keen to drive home the point that conducting a thesis out of the University is an exercise in futility as students end up having a gala time outside their homes. Sorry, this did not hold true in majority of my classmates. We got an opportunity to step out of the hallowed precincts of our department and explore the world outside. Unfortunately she sees that as a waste of time and now has scrapped this system for our juniors who will be expected to conduct their projects under faculty (which is virtually non-existent and the few that are there are incompetent) who are all from the chemistry background. They will be expected to perfect their skills in titration, BOD and COD estimation, chromatography and the like. Now I don't have anything against laboratory work. I myself come from a pure science background and I just discovered my calling pulling me in another direction. But I believe that our HOD needs to wake and understand that research in pure science and social science is complementary to each other. Research is but not limited to sitting for long hours in the laboratory where one has to prepare chemicals and medium, autoclave and sterilize instruments, incubate microorganisms, etc. She dismissed the fields of anthropology, history and ethnography in a wave of her hand. She believes that what people say is not does not come under the realm of hard and verifiable facts. Of course she doesn't know that there are certain methods used in social science to verify what people say. Like I said, her ignorance can be forgiven.
To be fair, there was another evaluator who despite being an ecologist asked me fair and pertinent questions about my work. She was neither judgmental nor did she have any preconceived biases against the social sciences. She interrogated me in a way that could be called real defense. My close friend gave her presentation before mine in which the HOD was not present and even she had conducted her research in the domain of the social sciences. This evaluator was fair to her too and asked very pointed and relevant questions.
To be fair, there was another evaluator who despite being an ecologist asked me fair and pertinent questions about my work. She was neither judgmental nor did she have any preconceived biases against the social sciences. She interrogated me in a way that could be called real defense. My close friend gave her presentation before mine in which the HOD was not present and even she had conducted her research in the domain of the social sciences. This evaluator was fair to her too and asked very pointed and relevant questions.
This is not a personal vendetta against our HOD. It is just a ranting by a frustrated student who is caught is the grasp of people who come from a peculiar mindset that looks down upon the social sciences. It speaks volumes about the encouragement the department provides when people try to do something other than spending time in the closed and controlled conditions of the laboratory.
I will be giving a seminar shortly where I work and I believe that this will be where that I will be truly evaluated. The faculty here come from varied backgrounds but they are not dismissive about other fields. They listen and understand and encourage research from all fields. It is progressive while my department seems to be stepping into the middle ages with their initiatives of scrapping the policy of conducting projects outside Pune. She thinks that we have wasted our time having 'fun'. Stepping out of my department have opened up new avenues for me. I have learnt what it means to work in the field of academics and it was like a breath of fresh air after the unnecessary hurdles of slow and lumbering pace of work of our department.
And this wasn't true only for me. I being from a city decided to spend 4 months of my time someplace else all because of the opportunities that open up when one is out of one's comfort zone. There are some people in my class who come from rural Maharashtra and they worked in institutes like ISRO and it has done wonders for their confidence.
However, our HOD is quite determined to believe otherwise.
All is not all right in this world and the injustice rankles. I wish that I could proudly state that I have done my Masters from this department. But even I am determined to believe otherwise.
And so I rest my case.
