I really like the detective and lawyer analogy here. I know from social sciences, when you do field research, you absolutely take on different roles. In the field you have to be open, curious, check your preconceptions, gather notes and observations, cause everything could be important. At your desk, the work and approach change. Now you have to evaluate, find connections and consider that after your experiences in the field, your view of said field changes. So now you are exploring it all over again, discovering the connections, evidence, and craft them into arguments for the resulting article. Which is very important. When I craft arguments for scientific writing, I like to use the field evidence, as it feels convicing, actual and real. You can't dispute what a person has seen or felt or said, and criticism in such cases has higher chance to truly lead to new ideas and exchange of experiences. And when you look at feedback and criticism that way, as a way to improve your work, then it's nothing to be feared.😁
Skylar! Thanks so much for your reflections on the analogy from a different vantage point! I purposely wrote that with humanists and qualitative social sciences in mind because I wasn't quite sure how it might apply in quantitative or scientific work. I'm glad to hear that it still works and appreciate your thoughts on how your seeking the "actual and real" to make your arguments. I'm sure it will be helpful for others in those fields as well. Thanks again!
I really like the detective and lawyer analogy here. I know from social sciences, when you do field research, you absolutely take on different roles. In the field you have to be open, curious, check your preconceptions, gather notes and observations, cause everything could be important. At your desk, the work and approach change. Now you have to evaluate, find connections and consider that after your experiences in the field, your view of said field changes. So now you are exploring it all over again, discovering the connections, evidence, and craft them into arguments for the resulting article. Which is very important. When I craft arguments for scientific writing, I like to use the field evidence, as it feels convicing, actual and real. You can't dispute what a person has seen or felt or said, and criticism in such cases has higher chance to truly lead to new ideas and exchange of experiences. And when you look at feedback and criticism that way, as a way to improve your work, then it's nothing to be feared.😁
Skylar! Thanks so much for your reflections on the analogy from a different vantage point! I purposely wrote that with humanists and qualitative social sciences in mind because I wasn't quite sure how it might apply in quantitative or scientific work. I'm glad to hear that it still works and appreciate your thoughts on how your seeking the "actual and real" to make your arguments. I'm sure it will be helpful for others in those fields as well. Thanks again!