now being a social scientist

i got a lift in to uni with N. he asked about my research topic, then said it was nice to hear of a topic with a practical element. i don't often consider my work as practical. i guess i've been floating in the realm of philosophy/cultural studies for much of this journey. but now, as i swim in a sea of health research papers, i'm starting to be won over by the potential practical effects of this 'kind' of research. i'm starting to realise that to be cross-disciplinary it doesn't really pay to be anti a particular discipline. especially if that's the discipline that pays me my way. and the one i'm likely to get work in, further down the track.

thanks to bruno latour and his actor-network theory friends i'm now okay about calling myself a social scientist. it only took 2 years, maybe longer, to realise that social science research can combine the creative, the criticial, and the philosophical. it now seems really basic that to challenge something (ie. a discourse of social health practice and research), you have to speak its language. so yes, now i'm traipsing about calling myself a social scientist. whatever that means. and i even feel a bit seduced by the things that i once riled against. which i think is a good thing. no use dismissing something outright. no use ignoring the good things in order to set up an easy argument via some sort of binary.

reading over government strategy documents today i started to realise how dodgy i've been. of course health is important. i don't wish to shout down this kind of thing. i wish to read it, think about it, and see how things might be different. with the same goal, perhaps, of promoting health. though maybe that's a different version of health. health might also mean a self determination or self production or something that might look and sound like autonomy. though i hate that word, and don't really see the merit in bandying it about. who in the world is autonomous or wants to be?

so maybe this is the next hump i need to get over. what is it i'm arguing for. seems easier to know what i'm arguing against.

reframing

one of my interviewees used the term 'reframe' which i keep thinking about. she was referring to a guy friend who had sex with another guy, only to be asked to leave immediately afterwards. for the friend, the sex was really enjoyable. but afterwards, in being kicked out of this guy's house, the experience was 're-framed' as something quite negative. he was left feeling bad/cheap/horrible. not an uncommon experience in sex that doesn't quite work. but interestingly, the act of sex itself, the precursor to the bad stuff, also becomes tainted. the experience is summed up, wholly, as negative, despite its earlier pleasures.

i wonder... to what extent is asking people about their sexual experiences all about re-framing? they're telling their tales in the context of 'an interview by a sexual health researcher', so of course the framing will be different. even to recount something that happened several years ago demands a re-framing. memories change and shift, and the interview narrative demands clarity. the number of times interviewees say 'does that make sense?' or 'if that makes sense' is quite amazing. i think this demands reflection in my phd also. the struggle for clarity and story in the re-telling of experiences. the relationship we have is different to that of peers. they probably want to make it worth my while, and assist me where they think they can. they are not just telling stories for the sake of telling. though this is unlikely to be the case in friendships either. motivations for 'telling' probably include intimacy building, generating feedback and discussion, testing our behaviours/beliefs/contemplations in a safe and familiar place.

live and breathe your phd

... was the advice given by SV today. and it seems like good advice. our meeting was a bit of a wake up call. it was also a necessary shove to get me going. she's mean and brutal, but i like her style. she puts the onus squarely on me. i wonder if that's why it was easy to dodge responsibility with SA. but with that came a feeling of not owning this project. with SV its my project only and there's almost the sense that she's not really that interested. unless i make her interested, which i've seen on occasion and got quite a buzz from.

she's Sherwood to my Leroy: