Despite earlier misgivings, I am beginning to appreciate that ‘innovation’ may turn out to be an important theme within my topic. I discover a highly non-Latourian note amongst my papers to the effect that “the social dimension of innovation can be equally as disruptive as technology or market-led innovation.” This possibly means nothing, as it is (technological) innovation itself that is disruptive – and society or the market that is disrupted.
“Write a letter to your younger self” – what would I say? Eliot’s “in my end is my beginning” comes to mind (the last line of East Coker, number two of The Four Quartets) following the Latourian assertion that “Old men ought to be explorers/Here or there does not matter” because the poem in fact started “in my beginning is my end.” With the submission date for Doc2 rushing towards me, and helpless feelings that there’s so much more to read, that I’ve wasted a lot of time reading the wrong kinds of material in the wrong kinds of way, reinforced by the little Library Support Seminar attended yesterday ‘Searching for Literature – Top 10 Tips’ which would clearly have been much more beneficial back in July or September, I realise that – just as the end of the process is in sight – I at last understand how I should have proceeded. Do I conclude my Literature Review with the observation that it represents little more than a point of departure, serving merely to identify some of the material to which I will need to continue making references through the remainder of the DArch programme? Or should I seek permission to submit my Doc 2 later than the February deadline – on the grounds that only now do I feel I have acquired the tools to proceed with my task? I must have a chat with Tom Fisher, show him all I’ve done to date, and seek his opinion.
What grounds for postponement could I possibly cite? The truth is, I’ve simply been too slow – long-ingrained habits of being rigorously methodical in organising and examining my material, hopelessly illiterate with regard to taking advantage of IT, and ridiculously painstaking with the formation of sentences. If my aim is to stick to the deadline, I need to lighten up, proceed chaotically rather than systematically, write first and enrich with references afterwards rather than vice-versa. How serious am I about the quality of this research? Do I sacrifice standards in order to satisfy a timetable? Which matters more – quality or speed? I feel I know myself well enough to admit that, even if I were permitted more time, I would be quite likely to find myself in an identical position as the deadline approaches – spending ages looking up obscure and possibly irrelevant references, panicking over trivia, exceeding my wordcount and then having to make difficult cuts, etc. Even writing these reflections, instead of getting on with the job. Tomorrow, I tell myself, and for the next six weeks, I’ll work frenetically in Boots library – on my main text 6.30-8.30am each morning, and extending my literature search 5.30-8pm each evening, and only attending to emails, admin tasks, teaching preparation, feedback etc during ‘office hours.’ In the evenings at home, I can continue to sort, filter, and reflect on my material in the slow and steady manner with which I am more familiar, but the point is to set my alarm each night for a 5.30am start. Let’s see how that goes. New year’s resolution, then.