InfiniteBarnacle2020 t1_ix72rrr wrote
Reply to comment by MeatballDom in An archaeologist's rebuttal against Graham Hancock and Netflix's Ancient Apocalypse by MeatballDom
I've got quite a lot of exposure to academia although I'm not in it and there an element of truth to what he's saying, even though it's not like a deliberate conspiracy.
For instance you talk about PhDs wanting to disprove things, or scientists as a whole.
Any research would have to be signed off by a HOD. The HOD definitely didn't get there by their research into alternative views, more than likely has extensive papers in the current model. So they have a reason to decline research into these alternatives as they think it's a waste of time as theyre invested in the standing theory. The professor probably didn't get to where they are in papers in alternative views as their H score will be a lot higher from being cited with views inline with the consensus. Plus a professor wouldn't want their name attached to a paper that might be considered 'alternative' because 9 times out of 10 it would be shown to be wrong and there's a reputational cost to that.
Then of course all the other ways to get funding to do research goes to committees and boards which again, often are staffed by people who have heavy investment in the accepted views.
These things combined with limited resources in research funding does lead to a very narrow research field.
It would be extremely difficult to actually get funding or the support to study things that goes against what is accepted.
MeatballDom OP t1_ix73g24 wrote
This is why reviewers of PhD theses (and sometimes MAs, it depends) are people outside of the department, outside of the university, and often anonymous. It's also why it's highly discouraged that people work at the same universities that they got their degrees at (although it's not unheard of). We don't care if you can make your supervisor happy. We don't care if you can repeat what your department head likes. We need to show that you can work with the wider academia, and that you can tread water in groups outside of your safety net.
My supervisors and I regularly disagreed on things. But it was my work, and they only stepped in to strongly discourage if they knew for a fact that I was wrong -- and could show it. If I had the evidence to back up my points that's what mattered in the long run.
There is no grand conspiracy to keep people all thinking the same way, it's just a fundamental misunderstanding of how academia works. If your idea has no basis in reality then yes, it's going to get shot down, but that doesn't mean that the department isn't open to new ideas, it's just that that idea sucks.
InfiniteBarnacle2020 t1_ix751bl wrote
I actually don't know how History or Arts etc are taught or where you are but here, it's the supervisors that pick the topic for the student (99% of the time anyway). It would often be in the field that the professor is studying usually supporting their work. Maybe in a highly resourced university there may be some blue sky research but as far as I'm aware here, they're all funded to support the work of the professor with topics chosen or suggested by them.
I realise it may vary from country to country and field to field though.
MeatballDom OP t1_ix75qp2 wrote
Yeah I've never heard of anyone having a topic for a PhD in History chosen for them. If someone has ended up in that situation they really didn't try hard to find a supervisor.
Typically how this works is you recognise an area where there is a gap, this is typically something that comes up during your MA research, or otherwise something you've been thinking of for a bit before then. You build up a good base knowledge of the historiography surrounding that topic, and then reach out to those working on or around that topic and see if they would be interested in supervising.
Sometimes it's an outright "sorry, no" for a variety of reasons, and usually there is some discussion and debate about how the project will go, "have you thought of this, have you read this, this has already been done but if you approach it from this angle then..." etc. but not outright "you do this project instead".
There are research projects that professors may be looking for help in that are specific, but that's not PhD level. I.e. "I need a summer researcher to go through these coins and look for x, y, z; build a database that filters a, b, c" or whatever. But that's a different area completely.
thatsandwizard t1_ix75shg wrote
Curious what field you study, as my understanding of PhD research is that it is highly personal and interest driven. Now, I do know people who chose their research based on grants (oh hey, saw-whet owls are getting extra funding, I can eat more than ramen while doing my thesis and similar stories exist) but it’s still a choice/topic of interest in the end
InfiniteBarnacle2020 t1_ix76kxh wrote
My experience is with Earth Science and often they put out adverts for students to study specific topics. They actually have to apply for funding with the topics before even looking for a student.
If you had a topic in mind you would have to convince a professor or supervisor to then pitch that in a funding round. Often they have their own topics they want studied so it would have to be a convincing topic.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments