Calame, Alexandre. Swiss painter (b. 1810, Vevey, d. 1864, Menton). Mountainous Landscape with a Torrent. 1840. Oil on canvas, 55 x 81 cm. Private collection. Downloaded with express permission from the Web Gallery of Art at http://www.wga.hu from site admin Emil Kren, Ph.D.. Thanks.
I don’t like it when a student wants to interview me for a paper and the interview is not necessary for the empirical basis of the study — in other words, the student is just trying to get ideas from you; like, what is important or how to conduct their study or how to analyze — i should be getting the grade for the paper! So i first ask what the study is, and what the empirical basis of the study is. Empirical basis; like : a survey, several hundreds respondents; or quantitative and qualitative analysis of content (i usually prefer “comparative”); or a case study of a firm based on first-hand observation. In instances when i’m not part of the empirical basis, the student is just using me to get ideas.
Sometimes the student-researchers tell you the study is about how a certain subject is taught, say, in three big universities, so they’ll ask about your syllabus and method. And it’s really their topic, believe it or not. But my syllabus is available in the library and the department! And a person’s practice is better observed first-hand, by direct observation (of course, that’s more time-consuming, but that’s why it’s called a study), rather than asking the person what he or she does or what he or she thinks of what he or she does, for god’s sake, it’s like a personality interview. (Even if you ask reporters and producers, they’ll tell you i’ve stopped granting personality interviews because i’m not a politician i don’t need to promote it’s self-indulgent and terribly boring. okay, sometimes i accede if i owe you a favor, ha-ha; or if i’m involved in a campaign, i grant personality interviews but to use it for the campaign). In other words, i don’t approve of that methodology of asking a person what they think of what they do, as methodology of study. (i’m going to hear whining and complaining; but i’ve known of researchers, or even feature-writers, who actually lived with their subjects; of course, you can’t live with your subjects here under the circumstances, but you can attend some of the person’s classes if that is the subject of the study.)
Of course, you could catch me when i’m irritated, like now, in which case you’ll get a mouthful but not necessarily on the subject-matter of your study ha-ha-ha-ha. Well, i’m not really irritated right now, i just don’t like what i’m reading.
In other words, i don’t like giving interviews to researchers who are doing a study for their own grade or credit when: 1)they are just using you to get ideas on how to do the study (and i’m not their adviser) or 2)the material should be acquired by direct observation. Don’t ask me. (It’s like asking me about my observations of myself, duh.)
Of course, it’s going to be more flattering of yourself if you talk about yourself; but that’s not research.
(unless the subject of your research is that. “how people talk about themselves”, or some-such useless (!)topic.).
I hope those “researchers” learned something here.
(by the way, dear viewers, my comments-section is on moderated mode; all commenters will get approved most likely; i hope people respect my decision not to make the acquiantance of a creep (and i’m not referring to ideas which the slime is bereft of but “creepiness” creep). if you don’t talk to creeps in the real world, why should you be forced to do so here just because you’re blogging, di ba. In the real world, di ba, we don’t talk to creeps. i know you understand. so just keep posting your comments; except for one. Ang hirap ano; lahat ng commenters pati readers nadamay. we’ve been kind for too long in this blog, the creep can’t take a hint; but that’s why they’re creeps, they don’t know it. )