Did we develop lousy habits of presentation in college because of all those research papers? For example, THE NEW YORK TIMES discussion on this weighty topic raises the question: Does the genre of the "research paper"encourage conventional thinking and a suppression of voice?
There may be something to that. For four years, I had hammered into me, whether it was a research paper on Richard Wagner's music or on the history of the labor movement in America, that I had to seek objectivity and not superimpose my personality or opinion. In the last few paragraphs, the student was permitted to summarize the findings and in one sentence or two of that to opine on what the "facts" [we believed they existed] indicated.
It took me decades to drop all that. Even when I started blogging, my coach Paul Chaney had to struggle to release me from the stance of great objectivity and zilch personality. The process of finding a voice required about 10 months.
Commercially speaking, there isn't a big market for the the old myth of objectivity. Traditional journalism, which claimed to be impartial except in editorials, is dying. Even THE NEW YORK TIMES could have a financial heart attack and keel over. Meanwhile media properties with a clear point of view and bellowing voice are thriving. They range from Mashable to Abovethelaw.
Yes, academia should review the ritual of the research paper. If Harvard ditches them, so will the rest of higher education.
Comments