Report R1.3 The Calling of Creative Social Research: Rethinking Theories and Methods Seminar Leader: Ananta Kumar Giri, MIDS, Chennai aumkrishna[at]yahoo.com This seminar covered a broad range of topics, but the focus was on exploring creativity in social research. One way to describe the seminar may be in terms of the following two questions: What is creative social research? Why do we need social research to be creative? [The examples and metaphors used in the seminar were mostly drawn from anthropology, cultural studies, sociology, and related subjects, given the seminar facilitator's background in these areas.] What is Creative Social Research? Typically, various human (or social) practices are taken to be fields of creative action, e.g., doing agriculture, teaching, doing sports, making shoes, and cooking. Similarly, doing research can also be taken to be a field of creative action. Like in the other creative practices, the goals and methods of research can also undergo changes when the internal and/or external circumstances change. Generally, arriving at a theory is taken to be a goal in research. This goal is going through some rethinking. Apart from being considered as mere predictive rules, theories are also being considered as torch lights that illuminate how we conduct our lives and our encounters with reality. Similarly, the methods of research are also going through some rethinking. Apart from being considered as formal techniques to collect and analyse objective data, methods are also being considered as episodes of encounter and engagement with different forms of life, so as to trigger a process of reflection and self-transcendence, for both the researchers and the co-participants. There can be two ways to talk about creative social research. (i) It can be talked about definitionally, i.e., by defining some characteristics of creative social research; (ii) it can also be talked about ethnographically, i.e., by pointing out concrete instances of creative social research. The seminar tended to use both the approaches. It was proposed that rethinking theories and methods would be facilitated by first rethinking our notions of self and society. In the social sciences, it is not uncommon to see individuals being treated as role-occupants and society as founded on some presupposition. These can lead to a partial view of things. What is worse, in the practice of social research, such narrow views tend to get unnecessarily valorised to the detriment of any possible alternative views. It is possible to embrace much richer conceptions of self and society and develop a more creative research practice on its basis. Dr. Giri presented self as a participant and society as a form of play--or a festival of multiple presuppositions. On this view, self emerges through participation in two sets of practices--practices of self-cultivation and practices of learning, in constant dialogue with each other. This participation produces many different forms of living and relationships. To explore these relationships, a set of thoughtful insights from some contributors were presented and discussed during this part of the seminar. Insights from Various Contributors Touraine (in his book Can We Live Together? Equality and Difference) argues that our notion of the individual may be social or non-social, highlighting the social-individual's critical and creative relationship with the rules of social life as distinguished from mere following of the rules. Wilfred (in his work on liberation theology) presents us with a historical understanding of human practices. This is in sharp contrast with the universalistic notions of modernity (e.g., truth, method, and determinism) that tend to restrain creative practice. Van Staveren reminds us of the multiple commitments of humans acting as economic agents--commitment to freedom, justice, and care. These have been embedded in the institutions of market, state, and family, respectively. Researchers often treat these as separate domains although they inter-penetrate to a degree. This calls for a pluralization of what we are studying. Giri's own attempt at pluralizing in the area of historiography produces three autonomous but inter-penetrative domains of historical enterprise--vision, reason, and power. Although the common historiography privileges the enterprise of power, a more creative treatment of the subject will not ignore the other two enterprises inter-woven with it. Harvey (in Spaces of Hope) encourages us to recognise the contingencies of our actions and ourselves. Our presence, perspectives, and possibilities are not entirely determined by any law-like generalisations. There is nothing inevitable about how we think and act. We emerge through concrete and diverse practices. Pani (in his writings on the Gandhian economic methods) emphasises the need to include the subjective dimension of the inquirer in any research endeavour. This urges us not to treat the results of research as conclusive or final, but subject to refinement as the researcher improves own subjectivity through self-development. Dash presents a formulation of action research in which the task of research is seen as bringing forth and improving local configurations that prove to be a form of support within some living contexts. Gasper pleads for a type of interdisciplinarity based on an ecological view of knowledge disciplines. This would recognise multiple roles, niches, and activities, which generate complex systemic results that transcend the original participating elements. At this stage, an open discussion happened, with contributions from many participants. The following questions were asked: Why should we be creative? Is it possible to be creative? Are we looking at creative outputs (through mundane steps) or creative processes? Is there some recognition to be gained through creativity? Isn't research always creative? The discussion on these questions indicated that creative research would always be marginalized at the periphery, until it builds up sufficient strength so as to dislodge the more established results and assume centrality (thus creating a new periphery!). Working on the periphery may also be a personal choice of a researcher. Examples of researchers who have laid down their lives in the pursuit of creative research were mentioned. An argument was presented to help us appreciate the challenges before intellectual workers working at the level of storing, structuring, and prioritising social learning in any domain (e.g., journal editors). It seems that the concern for reducing the cost of the social learning process might sometimes conflict with the concern for allowing researchers to be creative in their research. Why Do We Need Social Research to be Creative? Social research has to engage with established human practices and institutions. But, established practices and institutions are not always stable or invariant. They are subject to transformation. For example, the institution of family is slowly transforming to accept single-gender families (as in the Netherlands, for example). Therefore, if we continue to use established and familiar elements in our research process, we are likely to miss out the essence of the changes taking place in the relevant domains. For research results to be relevant to a changing and transforming reality, the resources and rules inside research need to be adapted accordingly to engage with that reality. In this part of the seminar too, a number of contributors were mentioned (e.g., Wallerstein--making social sciences matter, Flyvbjerg--phronetic research, Mohanty--multi-valued logic, Bhaskar--dialectical universalism, and Gandhi--sharing space and time with others). The main message seemed to be the following: Practising creative social research requires practices on different fronts, involves sharing space and time with the others--in conversation and play, and involves the picture of an emergent self, emerging out of the journey of life. The facilitator characterised Indian social research in terms of a parochial fixation (parochialism of location and language). What is required instead, is the systematic development of a comparative global perspective. Indian social researchers' role in the public sphere is nearly indistinguishable from that of journalists. It is desirable that social researchers should contribute to the development of a rich public discourse on issues that significantly affect public life today. There was a discussion on the nature of academic institutions in India (and elsewhere). It was argued that these institutions are likely to stifle creative research. They are also likely to repress any view that goes against the views of the established order. It was also pointed out that such repression could come from sources other than the state. The message, as aptly expressed by Prof. Chittaranjan Dash, was this: To be creative, you have to be courageous. In addition to courage, personal investment as well as a will to keep research relatively free from any form of incorporation may also be important. References Giri, A. (n.d.). Creative social research: Rethinking theories and methods. Unpublished draft. Giri, A. (n.d.). Social science research in India: The calling of home and the world. Unpublished draft.
Xavier Institute of Management, Xavier Square, Bhubaneswar 751013, India Research World (ISSN 0974-2379) http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/Home |
