Posted in Reflection

Dr. Pritchard & Mr. VanKirk Discussion

I enjoyed the juxtaposition between Mr. V’s perspective from a place of scientific research and Dr. Pritchard’s from a point of research in the humanities. What I took away from the discussion as a whole is that, while any type of research has its surface appeals, there is much more monotonous work that goes in for every sliver of this romanticized research. In Mr. V’s case, it was the months of analysis he had to do on his oceanographic findings, while in Mr. Pritchard’s case, it was the meticulous typing of his dissertation amidst the dig through countless archives. What I realized from their discussions is that the less romantic part of the job doesn’t make the adventures any less valuable. If anything, it makes them mean more, because then they achieve something. They would be interesting on their own, but that meticulous analysis afterward is what makes them mean something, and allows them to contribute to further discovery. That is the beauty of research at its core, at least in my opinion. It’s never finished and it’s constantly growing, built up from every shred of information anyone has ever discovered about a certain topic. It’s thrilling to think about, and I can’t wait to  apply all of the lessons we’ve learned about it to my own research process.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s