Impressions from The 61st Annual Meeting of the RSA in Berlin, March 26–28, 2015. Part 1: Finding the right session (wersja polska poniżej)

Going to my second conference with the Renaissance Society of America, I was convinced that this time my choice of papers will prove more accurate thanks to the experience gathered two years ago. But finding the right session was as difficult as always. It had to do with two major limitations: incomprehensibility and irrelevance (from the perspective of my research, of course).  

 

Society's and conference name from the cover of the book of abstracts

Starting with the first point: I discovered that too quick and careless pronunciation of native speakers, rather than foreign accents, presented often the biggest obstacle to understanding. Those whose first language was other than English usually proceeded more slowly with their presentations and thus could be followed more easily. 

But the problem of comprehension does not end there – papers are not only read aloud rather than spoken, but also have style and form of a written article rather than an oration they should, I think, resemble. Most notable example is a completely ‘typographical’ phrase ‘quote-unquote’, which breaks the rhythm of a sentence, making it very hard to understand.

Finally, one notices the problem of presenters so familiar to a given topic they forget to provide other scholars with sufficient information on it. Sure, they are talking to specialists. But the specialties are so narrow nowadays that only very limited common knowledge should be assumed. 

Yet comprehensibility alone does not suffice. A given topic has to be moreover perceived as relevant by the audience. There, the paper’s title and its abstract should provide necessary information. However, they rather tend to lead to confusion. Behind very ‘inclusive’ titles and abstracts, which promise considerations interesting for many, hide presentations on very limited, narrow topics. Authors probably hope to attract bigger audiences this way, but somebody who expects, say, an analysis of theological trends in the sixteenth century yet ends up hearing about a single Italian manuscript will be only frustrated.

 

Given these limitations, one can imagine the number of ‘successful’ choices to be quite small, but at least papers in this group will be long remembered for their outstanding quality.

Scholarship applications. Part 2: Time is money (wersja polska poniżej)

In my previous post, I wrote about different kinds of applications for funding in the academic world and criticized the rhetoric of success present in the ‘descriptive’ type of applications. One has to admit, however, that the ‘descriptive’ type has one huge advantage over the purely ‘factual’ one: not all important information can be contained in bullet points, listed under specific categories of achievements. For instance, only in the descriptive applications, one can make the evaluator aware of the amount of work that is required to obtain results in a given discipline. If a researcher’s success is measured by sheer number of publications and the quality of a given journal, as it is often the case, then e.g. an archaeologist will be from the outset disadvantaged compared to, let’s say, a literary theorist. The former needs to commit much more time to fieldwork and travels, before he is ready to publish his results. In a longer description, he will have the opportunity to remind the evaluator of such special circumstances regarding his profession. The same is true of perfecting research skills, especially at the beginning of one’s career. If, for instance, one’s research requires extensive knowledge of a number of foreign languages, he, in terms of points earned, will stay behind his colleagues who need only Polish and English in their work. So once more the ‘time is money’ catchphrase proves to be true.

Benjamin Franklin, the author of the ‘Time is money’ phrase; artist: Joseph-Siffred Duplessis (National Portrait Gallery, Washington; available at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BenFranklinDuplessis.jpg)

Scholarship applications. Part 1: Rhetoric of success (wersja polska poniżej)

Fall of each year is usually the time of intense submitting scholarship applications to various institutions. In recent weeks, graduate students at my university were informed whether they received any support for the upcoming semester. Some applications are still pending. Surely, applying is a ‘year-round’ business for many students, but we definitely experience cumulation of this activity in October of each year.

There are applications consisting of mere facts about ourselves: publications, conferences, subjects taught etc. There are then applications where one is supposed to present their achievements in a descriptive manner. Sometimes one has to do both.

Personally, I am fine with the first type of application (facts). However, being convincingly enthusiastic about my own achievements, which is usually expected in a descriptive type of application, presents for me some difficulties. An example: explaining why some research is ‘ground-breaking’ and ‘fundamental’ for a given discipline belongs to a repertoire of commonplaces of a descriptive application. Although any junior scholar seeks interesting research topics, trying to achieve results as accurate and innovative as possible, one has to admit that ground-breaking character of these achievements isn’t always an obvious thing. Everyone knows that young researchers are still perfecting their research skills while working on some smaller topics. ‘Fundamental’ syntheses are usually written later in one’s career. And even if a graduate student has an exceptional research potential for his age, he still has no financial means to realise it: institutions set limits to funding a young researcher can apply for. This funding is sufficient to conduct a ‘good enough’, interesting project, but not – a ground-breaking project, which usually requires establishing and paying a research team. Ideally, a student should work in a team led by an experienced researcher. In humanities, however, at least in Poland, this kind of situation is still relatively rare.

So the rhetoric of descriptive applications tends sometimes to be at odds with reality. But even if it wasn’t, it would still be psychologically doubtful, especially for those who aren’t keen to flatter themselves openly.

 

'I refuse to award...'

'Scholarship awarded...'

How to reduce your travel costs as an academic in Poland (wersja polska poniżej)

He who has some public money to spend on his research knows that these resources are never in abundance. In the course of the project, one will almost certainly think at one point or another to do something extra that was not provided for in the budget. So it’s always better to be prepared for it in advance and to spare money on every occasion.

One way to do this is to plan your travel expenses as tight as possible. I most of the time travel to visit libraries and make use of their collections. These trips typically last from a week to a month. It is really hard to rent a decent flat for a month, let alone for a shorter period of time. On the other hand, a hotel or even a hostel will cost us a lot if we stay longer and want a minimum of privacy. It seems almost impossible to be getting a solution we want, but here it is: the so-called guest rooms in the student dormitories of Polish cities. I can only try to explain how these kind of rooms evade the normal rules of the free market. Probably, it’s caused by the fact that the dormitories host students as their primary function rather than rent apartments to people from outside; these public institutions are thus not customer-oriented – you will face difficulties in reserving a place, you can call only in certain hours and you will get mixed information as to the room availability. And you would be expected to speak Polish. But if you are able to overcome these hurdles, you will be getting a nice room with a bathroom, and possibly – a small kitchen for a price that you would pay for a room in a shared apartment. Not all dormitories are equally cheap – an extended research is needed each time to compare and get an idea about prices. In Wrocław, I can highly recommend staying on the University of Economics campus. Also, Hotel Savoy, a half-dormitory located in the strict city centre, offers big reductions for students and PhD students after the manager of the hotel is consulted (‘it’s strange but it’s true’).

 

Interesting devices, that can be found in th so-called guest rooms - an orignal Unitra casette deck with a radio

Tadeusza Kościuszki Square in Wrocław as seen from a window of Hotel Savoy

A really good thing in such rooms is that one can usually use a kitchen – either a private or a shared one. Although most of the time we will dine out, we may also want to cook a couple of times and for sure – prepare our own breakfast and supper. Especially in Warsaw, where prices are far higher than average, this presents a considerable advantage. Here I list some things that are always needed in an empty kitchen which you newly enter:

- small sugars – it’s a good idea to collect such 5 gram sugars, unless we never sweeten anything or we want to end up with a kilogram of sugar in our luggage each time we travel

- small salt

- small oil – I’ve seen such small oil portions in a supermarket

- a wipe

- a piece of kitchen foil.