Dr Patrick Thomsen’s lecture early this semester stood out to me, for a number of reasons. His open attitude, his area of study, and, most significantly, his research method.
Dr Thomsen collected his data through Talanoa, a Pasifika term derived from the words “Tatala nonoa”, to “undo knots”. It involves forming a bond between the researcher and the subject. The researcher first befriends the study’s subject, and then simply has a conversation with the subject; this conversation is recorded and included in the final study.
My initial reaction when hearing this was confusion. ‘What about objectivity?’ I thought, ‘How can this research possibly be impartial?!’ After listening to the rest of Dr Thomsen’s lecture, I realised how mistaken I was. Talanoa makes perfect sense – How much of your personal life would you share with a complete stranger? The bond between researcher and subject was a great strength to Dr Thomsen’s research, not a weakness.
This epiphany caused an investigation into my own thinking. I wanted to uncover where my initial dismissiveness originated from, and how to root out that part of my thought process. This rejection of Talanoa arose from my Westernised upbringing. Dr Thomsen highlighted this phenomenon with his example of The Orient, using the ‘great work’ to demonstrate the inherent Western bias in academia. I had been raised academically to prioritise Western research methods, a methodology which is cold, numeric, objective. All the studies presented to me throughout my education fit the Westernised mould, and thus I had difficulty fully understanding research outside that narrow scope. This breakthrough broke down walls that Westernised education has built around me.
I believe moments like this, where students reframe their thinking, are where the true value of Arts Scholars lie; the real benefits are found within the learning beyond just lecture content.
