Geography for geography's own sake?

Further to my rather academic-angst outbust yesterday.

I realise that I am not, by any long shot, the only person to have questioned my reasons for doing what I do - infact there is a fair body of literature which deals specifically with the idea of relevance. Today's seminar, and the discussion of the papers that had caused my little mental implosion, have managed to calm me down somewhat: everyone else had run into a similar question at some point, this was to be expected if you are genuinly thinking about the point of your work. Small mental implosions seem to be an up-shot of Geographical research, it would seem (further reinforcing my thorough belief that Geographers are the Emo-kids of the academic world).

However, with that came the REAL realisation: What IS my answer? Why AM I doing this?

Honestly, and somewhat cynically: my research training will give me better prospects of getting a job - purely and simply. Sad isn't it? I came into my MSc a few months ago with a very idealised vision of what I would achieve: my work would be relevant, and would actively contribute to debate. And now...well...things change: my work deals with minuta of lifestyle, and doesn't tackle any big topics, not really. It will probably be a very competant piece of work, but will have very little merit beyond that.

So, here's what I would like to propose to all academics: be normative and progressive! Think about how things ought to be and propose ways of getting there: social justice, remember? Don't get so bogged down in the world of red-tape which governs universities and academia in general - remember what your passions are and use those passions to help change the world. That's what all this is about, right?

Research for research's own sake?

Of late I have come to question much of what I know, or suppose to know, about Geography as a research area. Through my own reading, research and interaction with fellow Geographers, and those who work outwith this area, I had concluded that Geography in it's various guises (economic, social, cultural, marxist, feminist, post-radical, to name but a few sub-disciplines) is a socio-economic meltingpot; a crossroads of sorts, linking and interconnected with every other research area imaginable by virtue of the simple fact that all human activity and endevour is spacial. I used to imagine Geography, or rather the action of 'doing' Geography, was part of an over-arching project of information desemination, and aiming toward greater social justice. But gradually I have come to loose my faith in the reality of this project: much of what I read seems to be research for research's own sake. There is a lot of highlighting of problems and inequity, but very few 'solutions' or blue-prints for progress being advanced: for example, I recently read a paper discussing the issue of reflexivity in research which made me really think about how inward-looking Geography as a discipline has become. It is all very well to think about research methodology, but there are much, much bigger issues at stake. Where has the radical streak of the 1960s-70s gone; where is the revolutionary fire? In other words - where does the minuta of research methodology impact upon social justice?

I am not saying, any means, that research into methodology hasn't got a place in geographical research - indeed in terms of helping us regulate research and maintain the rigour we strive towards, it is very helpful - but somewhere along the line we have lost our way and become bogged down in the detail, rather than striving toward changing the big picture. Especially as an undergrad I noticed that the 'teaching' within the Geography and Politics was just that - teaching: we were not encouraged to think radically and engage in the discourse studied: we were encouraged to examine the debates and know the relative strengths and weaknesses of each facate, but not to think beyond the discourse and actually engage with the 'big picture'.

As an MSc student I question the validity of my own reasearch: Why am I interested in ethics and retail, and who will my research benefit, either directly or indirectly? To the best of my knowledge; I have no idea, and no one seem to be the answers. I'm not even sure I can write my dissertation as part of a wider debate on life styles vs. 'moral duty': my research skills are just not up to the challenge, nor do I really think that I have sufficient insight to make my research relavent in any other sector. Ultimately I feel a bit like I am standing at the cross-roads of research, but with no where to go: just standing there seems to have become an end in itself.

As per usual...

I have come to the conclusion that women were designed with a deliberate flaw which proves that God is indeed male: we were designed with the fundamental flaw of 'emotion'. It is a dirty trick which makes women vulnerable to the most stupid of feelings and ideas, and we are in no way in control of how we are affected. God has given men an unfair advantage in this respect: not that they are (for the most part...) without emotions, but some how they are less swayed by them. Bloody hormones. Dirty trick I tell you. Ok, maybe it's just PMS speaking, but I feel women have generally been given the fuzzy end off the lollipop: I'd like to see your average guy deal with the mood swings, irrational emotions, obsessive thoughts and cramps once a month! Bah!

(Yeah, ok - there are lots of exceptions to this statement - and yes, I could be accused of generalization)

Bleugh

My brain has turned into some sort of mush - think it must be the post-food slump...bleugh...