Research is inherently scientific, whether us Arts students would like to admit it or not. However, common-sense understandings of research are inherently based on a Western construction of “science”, thus, can scientific reasoning produce appropriate results when culture and context join the party?
This was certainly a contention that was on my mind when Dr. Patrick Thomsen addressed the application of essentialism and Orientalism on the expression of gay identity within South Korean men. By analysing Edward Said’s, Orientalism, this enabled Patrick to unpack the shortcomings of how the West defines general perceptions of the East, and why this should be avoided in research. By inappropriately shoehorning subjects into methods and results we believe to be “scientifically-accurate” by Western values, we are only doing a disservice to who or what we are studying.
Additionally, he described how the essentialist theory, The Cass Homosexuality Model, portrays the process of “coming out” as a series of linear stages that eventually lead to a state where homosexual identity has synthesised with personal identity. We are often led to believe that “scientific” models like this can be used universally to measure results, however, Patrick’s approach to researching his subjects deviated from this by using more culturally-appropriate methods, such as talanoa. Now that we better understand different cultural expressions of gay identity through Patrick’s research, it’s almost laughable to imagine that this model could accurately capture such a contextual experience.
With this in mind, Patrick’s research (built upon the critical analysis of his “Great Works”) acts in opposition to the idea that research which is based on Western ideals is “scientifically-accurate” to all walks of life. When constructing our own research narratives, we have to be mindful of the eyes through which we’re telling our stories. Perhaps, this way, we can truly produce culturally-appropriate “science”.
