I was beset with this problem. This intellectual problem of the differences in the country between the states. It was a vast country neatly divided into states on linguistic lines each with its own language not understood by the rest, even neighbours. One affiliated mostly on linguistic lines and not on religious lines although religion was everywhere in the country. So I proposed a study on the differences across the states like the IBM study of Hofstede.
The guide got a hint of it somehow although it was a different university. When I discussed, he said it can be a post doctoral one. So I was left with a post doctoral proposal ahead of a doctoral one. I was beset and fascinated by the culture thing and in the meanwhile I noticed behavioural changes in my former wife, the only intervening variable being her job in a highly competitive marketing oriented insurance company. Sadly I noticed that she was slipping into the abyss that with all my insights and persuasive abilities I was unable to correct. The sadness of knowing and still being unable to correct is a peculiarly unique occupational hazard of the teacher perhaps shared only by a priest. Even the medical doctor is detached from his patients. The psychiatrist finds himself in such a quandary with the Passive aggressive personality where even the helpful Psychiatrist may be considered an adversary by the patient.
I could then formulate a thesis that a job or rather the industry was responsible for a certain behavior which was the point of a story that a trainer narrated in the case of his brother who had recently took up a job as a salesperson.
I tried to propose a research in industy mindsets aka culture. An industry level of culture was the nearest that I could find. I pushed it for sometime before I realized that the guide was not in favour of it and the need was something to bite. But when the proposal was presented he told me to keep the title broad enough so one could change it.
I went through the process of interview and was asked many questions. They never knew that I had moved on since the original proposal and they were looking at version 1.0 when I had moved to version 1.7 perhaps. Had I said I am with version 1.7 because it was a while since I presented the original I would have been grilled on it prematurely. They grilled me even on version 1.0 prematurely so to speak. In the end one of them said that I lacked clarity. Before I could answer that at the proposal stage if all the clarity was expected there would be nothing much to do, the one who had grilled me and had developed into a critic of mine in such a short encounter said as an aside “haven’t we cleared even worse ones”. It was magical realism so to speak. He thought I was not hearing and I kept smiling. Later when the guide said that I was a bad teacher, a bad student and a bad person I had no regrets. Had they gone through the same life as mine, they would have turned out to be criminals. Besides if they could judge me so in such a short while then they should be recruited to the CIA.
When the proposal was put across to the syndicate they made a comment to resubmit the application with the specific title of research. So I went back to the guide and he proposed to bring it down to the organizational level from the industry level. I researched on the occupational level which was a clear streak in the literature. My arguments were based on the proposition that the two sets, practitioners and academics in the same discipline tended to be on two different ends of the occupational community dimensions as proposed by Hofstede. My guide was thrilled and said why don’t it be a qualitative study, but he quickly added that he would not be the guide. I showed the model which I had heard he was fond of and he wanted it to be strong so as to avoid future complications.
I started suspecting that there was some ploy of his own working through first in negating the proposal to post doc then to ask to make it general and then to ask for bite and now for a different methodology, qualitative and about solid models. But in true lone wolf style knowing well that even if he is so I would go on which would strike a chord here and there and by sheer power of nerve lone wolf is accepted.
The perils of the frog in the well hits you even though you are not. The episodes themselves inform us immensely about the proposal. That one’s geography, organization and occupation influences behavior more than the inherent tendencies. In a way lone wolf has followed the research convention of fine tuning the proposal first broadly and then bringing it to a level in an inverted pyramid manner.
------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment