Dr Thomsen’s personal story is related to, but, uniquely different from those revealed in his research. I think this is both empowering and potentially hazardous. There are of course benefits to working in a familiar space; having connections, understanding jargon, navigational and communication skills which can only be picked up with experience. However, I know that I for one find my experience & familiarity with a subject solidifies my perspectives. Dr Thomsen was open about how he fell into this trap, imposing his western queer experience onto his research in an entirely separate culture.
We discussed the genealogy of knowledge and how something becomes known, how our influences shape the knowledge we create and, in turn, the knowledge we create in the future. The genealogies of knowledge relate heavily to our later discussion about Ontology, and the various understandings of information, from positivism to pragmatism, or from a singular ‘Truth’ to various interpretations or negotiations of truth, more like a ‘yes, but…’ or a classic kiwi ‘yeah, nah’.
The idea of negotiating the truth or meaning is present in my communications studies. Reception theory empowers audiences to perceive their own meaning in a text, but in this context, the researcher fills the role of the audience and the info takes place of the text. From this, the researcher creates an understanding which then becomes knowledge. But I don’t see a reason to limit this model to researchers;
perhaps we can imagine a large game of Chinese Whispers, with each participant reinterpreting the knowledge.
