I had my first real post-comprehensive exams academic challenge this past week. I presented a couple of scholarly articles behind my proposed research to a seminar of the environmental geography group in the Institute for Cultural Geography…a small group of scholars and doctoral students. While billed as discussion, I soon realized (that sinking sort of realization) that it was to be more presentation and defense than actual discussion…meaning that I found myself in the position of explaining my exploration of the concept friluftsliv to a group of native Swedes and then faced questions about the research methodology used by Mayers and Frantz (2004) in their Connectedness to Nature studies. Whoa, it went from interesting discussion to intense self-doubt real fast. Good practice for the next stage, i.e. being able to articulate the ideas, theories and research behind my interest in the intersection of friluftsliv and environmental connectedness for my oral exams in January.
Anyhow, as I reflect on the Seminar, I feel that despite my surprise, I got a lot out of the exchange. I know made one woman uncomfortable in my pressing the question of just what is friluftsliv?—I think she interpreted my questioning as being relativist about it all, i.e. redefining to fit any context I choose—not at all what I wanted to project (I’d like to blame the Swenglish, but not sure that was the problem). Further, the challenges to research methodology helped me identify questions of quantitative methodology and analysis. Perhaps most importantly, one of the faculty provided me with access to a leading Swedish environmental psychologist, i.e. an intro. email asking his colleague to meet with me to discuss concepts and methodology. YES! Contact, conversation, discussion...much needed, I have been in a bit of a Tom Beery bubble and need access to others.
No comments:
Post a Comment