researchfirst

It's possible to have some distance from research without claiming that one's view comes from "outside", which, as I think you're pointing out here, isn't possible. There is no view from "outside", especially in social research. I think distance is healthy, because becoming overly invested in the outcomes of research really begins to introduce some trouble. Being captured by one's cause limits what they're willing to say. I don't think it's as simple as saying, for example, "well politics is always a part of research, so let's throw measured analysis out the window!". But yes, we have different epistemological stances, and that's fine. I would consider myself more of a critical realist--there are, objectively, mechanisms that govern social relations, but there's no "view from nowhere" that can fully capture it in a holistic/detached way. Nonetheless, it is good to have some ground rules around how far one is willing to become personally captured by their research and participants.

I understand this. As a social researcher you can't get very far in the game without understanding how research comes with the ability to oppress and marginalize. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, because while I think research can (and should) inform interventions to make more equitable and just outcomes for individuals and populations, I think blurring the lines completely between the two, which this particular committee seemed intent on doing by way of choosing candidates, is a dangerous exercise. It's dangerous insofar as it captures researchers to certain causes and limits the epistemological vision and sight of individuals producing knowledge. Sometimes knowledge that is produced is inconvenient to progressive causes and champions. The same thing happens when you have conservative researchers (see e.g. Charles Murray) who have their conclusions decided on before even reaching the data they're analyzing. If the main or only goal is "emancipation", for example, then data and knowledge become slaves to causes rather than sophisticated explanations. I'm not saying that those who won don't deserve it, because yes, I don't have "access to their files". Of course I don't. At the same time, I'm simply expressing that I think this informal criterion of "must be an activist" is a potentially rigid yet increasingly common requirement, from what I've seen, that can actually be detrimental to how knowledge is produced.

Application was not funded. High scores on the excellence/CV and synergy parts, but the proposal sank me. I've since learned the CVs of several individuals who received one, and there seems to be a theme: activism over research. People with as little as two actual peer-reviewed publications getting the most prestigious postdoctoral award in Canada. I understand that "putting ideas into action" and promoting equity/inclusion/diversity and whatnot are important, but seriously? This committee seems to have forgotten that, in their own words, the fellowship is meant to drive "research-based growth" and build "research leaders of tomorrow". Starting non-profits and rallying world citizens to protest inequality and whatnot are certainly noble and worthwhile activities, but this is not research leadership. I'm sorry. I understand this will come off as salty, and I guess it is a little, but I just don't understand this field anymore.