In many ways, I am a data-dragon. I like to collect a lot of “just plain information” about a thing, hoarding up data-points like that mouse pressing the lever for “just-one-more” bits of pleasure, and ignoring the grander work of feeding (or contextualizing) my work. This is genius in the research phase; I’m really good at ferreting out significant and interesting quirks of past practice.
That skill is, however, less helpful when it comes time to “write a scholarly article” phase of existence.
Alas and alack, people don’t just want to hear about “cool stuff I found.” Instead, we scholars are expected to tie those interesting observations into meaningful interpretations, both in dialogue with the scholarly conversation and in the intellectual heavy-lifting of meaning-making as a historical act. We don’t just get to be antiquarians, building out a collection of items from the past, but are required instead to be curators, interpreting and signposting the important elements of the array of information and how they connect to the bigger conversations of the discipline.
So how does one decide what parts of the research findings just belong to the “cool stuff” stack, and what is going to make the case for a scholarly argument? The answer lies in the research question.
Research questions don’t just lie around like pebbles on a beach. They too are part of that intellectual work that one does, going from topic and bibliography to outline and prose. If implemented early on, they can save a lot of extraneous work by showing which threads of the investigative fabric are not going to fit into the finished garment. A good research question shows what’s necessary to the scholarly argument, and what deserves to be put into the “trash” folder. (Sob. Even though it’s inherently interesting.) Deciding what NOT to say is a real skill as a scholar.
What makes a good research question?
Well, first of all, it’s answerable with the evidence available (or reachable within a timely fashion). It’s all well and good to talk about spirituality as a driver in memorial donations, but if you don’t actually have any surviving indications of spirituality in the documents that come down from that institution or town, you probably need to revisit your question.
Likewise, the research question should be specific but significant. While I may personally be interested in “what memorial endowments were established in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Bregenz,” the likelihood of other readers caring is … low, very low. There aren’t any stakes – no doorknobs to the literature, no sense of why Bregenz matters beyond itself, nor how these endowments help us understand bigger themes. One can also err (as students often do) by being too broad. “How did memorial endowments shape religious life in late medieval and early modern Europe?” If I chose to take on something that broad, I’d have to wait and get back to you a decade from now.
A good research question facilitates connections to the literature, engaging with what’s been done, and -- especially happily -- with what hasn’t been done. Finding gaps and spaces for the “yes-and…” of scholarly contribution is a part of the gig. In the abstract, that kind of work is reflected in the allusions to scholarship. The research question typically implies a particular scholarly space inhabited by peers. For me, that’s often an intersectional space, where two subsets of scholarship come together to illuminate one another in exciting ways.
To that end, the research question moves thinking away from the descriptive (what happened / what endowments were founded in this time) toward the more stimulating landscape of the analytical. What does this case show us? Why were some endowments copied near-verbatim by other parishioners, and others just sit out there as onesies, a single unreplicated idea about how a memorial should function?
Finally, a good research question strikes a balance between being open-ended but inviting a (somewhat) complicated answer. There needs to be a need for an argument, in other words. “Did medieval Bregenz citizens use music in their memorial endowments?” “Yes.” Somehow, that didn’t make word count.
So where does that leave me?
My current working research question is this:
What role did sound, song, and graveside ritual play in establishing memorial endowments as legitimate forms of leadership giving in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Bregenz?
Does it pass the smell test?
1) answerable with the evidence available: yes, I have several dozen examples of endowments focused around two case studies that could be used in this investigation.
2) specific but significant: There’s a claim to be made about historical leadership giving that (to my eye) illuminates both the musicological assessment of memoria AND tests the theories of charitable giving currently in circulation through historical case studies...
3) facilitates connections to the literature: … and in that way facilitates scholarly engagement rather robustly
4) moves from the descriptive toward the analytical: definitely requires some slice-and-dice assessment and some significant time to be spent teasing out the implications of “mere data points”
5) Balances the open-ended and the complicated answer: Yup, there’s plenty of space to consider social nexus, posturing, leadership-followership dynamics, and so on. In fact, there’s so much space that I may need to tighten the question as I get through the writing.
But for now, it means that many of those “onsies” endowments are off my plate. The literature on chaplains and performances? Also not strictly important here. (But that has a home in another study with a different question.) Institutional history of the parish church? Interesting only, perhaps, in passing.
In other words, the research question is taking on its task as a winnowing device, separating the wheat from the chaff. Or perhaps, given the imagery with which I started, it is combing through my dragonish data-hoard, and teasing out the gems from the guff.
IMAGES:
“In dragon's form Fafner now watches the hoard.” Siegfried & The Twilight Of The Gods, by Richard Wagner, with illustrations by Arthur Rackham; translated by Margaret Armour. London: William-Heinemann, 1911, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/49507/49507-h/49507-h.htm#siegpl007
“The Chaff separated from the Grain after threshing and winnowing.” CC-BY Archibale Isolation, 2005, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bruts_de_r%C3%A9colte_et_grains_d%C3%A9cortiqu%C3%A9s_de_sa_bale.jpg
QUICK FOLLOW-ALONG:
Today I learned that “Fafner” (the sometimes-a-dragon with his hoard) and “faffing about” (wasting time or dithering by doing things in a disorganized or inefficient way) are not, in fact, related concepts. The OED tells us that the verb “faff” is attested in 1788, in the writing of William Marshall, agricultural writer and land agent. Neither data-hording like a Fafner nor faffing about inefficiently are helpful when you’re faced with a writer’s deadline. Use the research question to solve both problems!
No comments:
Post a Comment