Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

On Finding Your Place at the Academic Table

I’ve been watching my students struggle with something that shouldn’t be difficult, and it’s starting to irritate me. Not them—they’re doing their best with an impossible task. What irritates me is how we’ve managed to turn one of the most natural human activities—having a conversation—into an exercise in intellectual contortion that would impress a medieval theologian.

Take one student, who spent our last meeting apologizing for their research interests. They’d discovered something genuinely fascinating about how Syrian refugees navigate bureaucratic systems, something that could reshape how we think about agency and institutional power. But instead of telling me about their insights, they spent twenty minutes explaining why their work wasn’t as important as what other scholars had done, why their methods weren’t as sophisticated as so-and-so’s, why their theoretical framework was “just building on” established thinkers. By the time they finished diminishing their contribution, I’d forgotten why I’d been excited about their project in the first place.

This pathological humility isn’t serving anyone. We’ve somehow convinced graduate students that scholarly conversation requires a kind of intellectual genuflection—bow before established authorities, apologize for your existence, then maybe, if you’re very good and very careful, add one tiny brick to the cathedral of knowledge. The metaphor breaks down immediately. Cathedrals aren’t built through conversation; they’re monuments to institutional power. Real conversations happen in kitchens, on park benches, in places where people feel comfortable enough to think out loud.

The problem starts with how we teach literature reviews. We treat them like diplomatic exercises where the goal is to acknowledge everyone important without offending anyone powerful. Students learn to write sentences like “While Smith’s groundbreaking work has contributed significantly to our understanding, and Jones’s influential framework has provided valuable insights, this study seeks to modestly extend the conversation by examining…” By the time you get to the actual point, everyone’s asleep. Including the writer.

What if we tried something different? What if we taught students to write like they actually think? Sarah Ahmed does this beautifully—they’ll start a paragraph with something like “I am struck by how…” or “This makes me wonder…” They’re not apologizing for having thoughts; they’re inviting us to think with them. That’s what conversation actually looks like. Someone notices something, gets curious, shares what they’re seeing, and invites others to look more closely.

The “gaps” obsession particularly annoys me—and I’ve written about this here before. We’ve trained students to scan scholarship like archaeologists looking for empty sites to excavate. “No one has studied X” becomes the magical incantation that justifies existence. But the most interesting research rarely emerges from obvious gaps. It comes from noticing that something everyone thinks they understand actually doesn’t make sense. Toni Morrison didn’t write “Beloved” because no one had written about slavery. They wrote it because the stories being told weren’t true to the complexity of the experience.

I’ve started asking students different questions. Instead of “What’s missing from the literature?” I ask “What’s bothering you about how people talk about this topic?” Instead of “What’s your contribution?” I ask “What do you notice that others seem to miss?” The shift is subtle but significant. It moves from deficit thinking to curiosity, from gaps to puzzles, from contribution to perspective.

The voice problem is trickier. Academic writing demands this weird register where you sound authoritative without seeming arrogant, innovative without being disrespectful, passionate without being unprofessional. It’s like being asked to perform enthusiasm at a funeral. Most students solve this by writing in the passive voice and hedging everything: “It might be suggested that there could potentially be some indication that…” This isn’t humility; it’s hiding.

Real intellectual humility looks different. It’s Octavia Butler saying something like “I’m not trying to predict the future; I’m trying to prevent it.” It’s James Baldwin writing something like “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.” These writers take full responsibility for their ideas while acknowledging the provisional nature of knowledge. They’re not hedging; they’re being honest about what thinking actually involves.

Some of the so-called digital natives—or so we think of them—in our seminar rooms understand this intuitively. They’re used to building ideas collaboratively, testing thoughts in public, refining arguments through response and revision. They know that knowledge emerges through interaction, not individual genius. Yet we ask them to write as if they’re Victorian scholars working alone in libraries, occasionally citing dead authorities for legitimization.

Maybe the conversation metaphor is wrong entirely. Conversations are temporal, ephemeral, responsive. Academic writing feels more like contributing to an archive—adding your voice to an ongoing record that others will encounter later, asynchronously, in contexts you can’t predict. That’s both more intimidating and more liberating than conversation. You can’t control how others will read your work, but you also don’t need to manage their immediate reactions.

The students who eventually find their scholarly voice seem to share something: they stop trying to sound like scholars and start trying to think clearly about things that matter to them. They realize that academic writing, at its best, is just a particular way of paying attention—systematic, rigorous, accountable to evidence, but still fundamentally human. They learn to trust their curiosity while developing tools to pursue it responsibly.

This might be the real challenge: helping students understand that becoming a scholar doesn’t require abandoning their intellect or personality or experiences or interests. It requires bringing these aspects more fully into engagement with ideas that deserve serious attention. The conversation they’re joining isn’t happening in some rarefied atmosphere where only perfect thoughts are welcome. It’s happening wherever people are trying to understand something important about the world. They belong in that conversation not because they’ve earned the right through proper citations, but because they’re curious, thoughtful humans with something to contribute.

The rest is just learning the craft.

Architectural Thinking: Reimagining the Broken Structures of Academic Writing

Last semester, I watched a brilliant student struggle with her dissertation structure for months. Despite having compelling research and sharp insights, she couldn’t find a way to organize her material that felt both intellectually honest and academically legitimate. “I feel like I’m trying to force my ideas into someone else’s house,” she told me, “and none of the rooms are the right shape.” Her frustration stayed with me, crystallizing something I’ve been uncomfortable with for years: the rigid architectural templates we impose on academic writing often undermine rather than serve the knowledge we’re trying to create.

The metaphor of architecture seems particularly apt when thinking about academic writing. We speak of “building” arguments, creating “frameworks,” establishing “foundations,” and designing “structures” for our texts. This language isn’t accidental—it reflects deep assumptions about what scholarly writing should be: solid, stable, carefully engineered, and built to withstand scrutiny. There’s value in this approach, certainly. But I’ve come to believe that our attachment to conventional textual architectures often constrains thinking rather than supporting it. Perhaps it’s time to question the blueprints we’ve inherited.

Gloria Anzaldúa’s groundbreaking work “Borderlands/La Frontera” fundamentally challenged these inherited structures. By blending poetry, memoir, historical analysis, and cultural theory—switching between languages and refusing to separate the personal from the theoretical—she created a form that accurately reflected her content: the experience of existing between cultures, languages, and identities. Reading her work for the first time was revelatory for me. It demonstrated how structure itself could be an argument, how the organization of a text could do intellectual work beyond merely containing ideas. Why, I wondered, was this approach so rare in academic writing?

The conventional architecture of scholarly writing emerged from specific historical contexts and served particular purposes. The familiar IMRaD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) reflected positivist assumptions about knowledge production that made sense for certain kinds of scientific inquiry. The problem isn’t that these structures exist—it’s that they’ve been universalized and naturalized, applied uncritically across disciplines with wildly different epistemological foundations. We’ve mistaken one architectural style for the only legitimate way to build scholarly knowledge.

I recall submitting an article to a prestigious journal early in my career, experimenting with a more recursive, reflective structure that mirrored the iterative nature of my research process. The rejection letter was polite but clear: the reviewers found the structure “confusing” and suggested I reorganize into standard sections. I complied, of course—tenure was at stake—but something important was lost in the translation. The conventional structure flattened the complexity of the research experience, presented as linear and orderly what had been anything but. I’ve often wondered how much knowledge we lose by forcing complex ideas into standardized forms.

Adrienne Rich wrote about “the dream of a common language,” a phrase that has always resonated with me. Academic writing conventions aspire to something similar—a common architectural language that allows scholars to communicate across differences. There’s undeniable utility in this. When we know what to expect from a text’s organization, we can more easily locate information, evaluate arguments, and engage with ideas. But whose conventions have become standard? Whose ways of organizing knowledge have been marginalized? These questions seem especially important for those of us working in interdisciplinary fields, where no single structural approach fully accommodates the complexity of our research.

Perhaps what we need is a more flexible understanding of scholarly architecture—less like modern skyscrapers with their rigid grids and more like vernacular architectures that respond to local conditions, materials, and needs. I think of Zora Neale Hurston’s methodological innovations in “Mules and Men,” where she created a nested structure of stories within stories that perfectly captured the oral tradition she was documenting. The form wasn’t arbitrary or decorative; it was integral to the knowledge being conveyed. What might academic writing look like if we approached structure with this kind of intentionality and creativity?

To be clear, I’m not suggesting we abandon structure altogether—that would be neither possible nor desirable. Architecture, whether in buildings or texts, is necessary. It creates spaces for ideas to inhabit, pathways for readers to follow, and points of connection between concepts. But I am suggesting that we might hold our structural conventions more lightly, seeing them as possibilities rather than requirements, as tools rather than rules. The question shouldn’t be “Does this follow the standard format?” but rather “Does this structure serve the knowledge I’m trying to create and share?”

This shift requires a different kind of architectural thinking—one that begins with the specific knowledge being developed rather than with predetermined blueprints. It means asking: What structure would best reflect the relationships between these ideas? How can the organization of this text enact the theoretical frameworks I’m employing? What would make this argument not just clear but compelling, not just logical but alive? These questions invite us to see structure as an integral part of the argument rather than a neutral container for it.

I’ve been experimenting with this approach in my own writing, with mixed results. Some readers find it refreshing; others find it disorienting. I sympathize with both reactions. When we encounter unfamiliar textual architectures, we must work harder as readers, developing new navigational strategies rather than relying on established conventions. Is it fair to ask this of our audiences? I’m not always sure. But I’m increasingly convinced that some ideas simply cannot be adequately expressed within conventional structures, that some knowledge requires new forms to be fully realized.

Susan Leigh Star’s work on “boundary objects” offers a useful concept here. Boundary objects are things that maintain a common identity across different contexts while being adapted to local needs—flexible enough to accommodate different perspectives but robust enough to maintain coherence. Perhaps academic structures could function more like boundary objects: recognizable enough to facilitate communication while adaptable enough to accommodate diverse ways of knowing. This seems particularly important in an era of increasing interdisciplinarity, when scholars are working across traditional boundaries and bringing different structural logics into conversation.

I think about my struggling student often, wondering what might have happened if she’d been encouraged to design a structure specifically for her unique research rather than trying to fit her ideas into pre-existing containers. What knowledge might have emerged more clearly? What connections might have become visible? What arguments might have been more persuasive? These aren’t just questions about writing; they’re questions about how we produce, validate, and share knowledge in the academy.

The stakes of these questions extend beyond individual scholarly careers. Academic architecture reflects and reinforces hierarchies of knowledge—determining whose ideas count, which approaches are legitimate, what kinds of evidence matter. Audre Lorde’s famous statement that “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” seems relevant here. If we’re serious about creating more inclusive, equitable academic spaces, we must reconsider not just what we study but how we structure what we learn. The architecture of our texts matters because it shapes what can be thought, said, and known.

I’m not naive about institutional constraints. Journals have submission guidelines, dissertation committees have expectations, and hiring committees have limited time to evaluate unfamiliar formats. Working within these realities is necessary for many scholars, especially those without the protection of tenure or institutional prestige. But even small architectural experiments—a reflexive section here, a narrative interlude there—can create spaces for different kinds of knowledge to emerge. And those with more security can push harder, creating precedents that make space for others.

Ultimately, what I’m advocating is a more conscious, intentional relationship to the structures of academic writing—one that recognizes their power and approaches them as creative possibilities rather than fixed requirements. In architecture, form follows function; in academic writing, structure should follow substance. Our ideas deserve houses built to their exact specifications, with rooms that accommodate their particular shapes. Isn’t it time we became more thoughtful builders?

The Subtle Art of Crafting Researchable Questions: Beyond Academic Formulas

I’ve been thinking a lot about research questions lately—not just as academic exercises, but as genuine attempts to make sense of the world. Last week, as I was guiding my graduate students through their thesis proposals, I realized something: most of us struggle profoundly with formulating questions that are both intellectually rigorous and practically researchable. We either swing wildly toward the grandiose (“How has globalization transformed human consciousness?”) or retreat into the painfully narrow (“How many times does the word ‘sovereignty’ appear in Johnson’s 2018 speech?”). Finding that middle ground—that sweet spot where curiosity meets feasibility—seems to elude even the most brilliant minds.

This challenge reminds me of Donna Haraway’s concept of “situated knowledges,” which has shaped my thinking since I first encountered it in graduate school. Haraway argues that all knowledge is produced from somewhere—from a specific position that is never neutral or all-seeing. Our research questions emerge from our particular locations in the world, colored by our experiences, assumptions, and blind spots. I think this perspective offers a valuable entry point into thinking about what makes a question not just answerable but worth answering. When we acknowledge the situatedness of our inquiries, we can more honestly assess both their limitations and their potential contributions.

Perhaps what makes question formulation so difficult is that it requires holding contradictory impulses in tension. A good research question must be specific enough to be feasible yet open enough to yield meaningful insights. It must be original yet grounded in existing scholarship. It must reflect your personal interests while speaking to broader academic and social concerns. I remember spending months iterating through versions of my dissertation question, each attempt feeling either too ambitious or too trivial. My advisor finally told me something I now share with my own students: “Your question won’t be perfect. It just needs to be good enough to guide meaningful research.”

That advice shifted something for me. I started to see the research question not as a perfect crystallization of intellectual brilliance, but as a tool—imperfect but useful, provisional but necessary. Rebecca Solnit captures this sensibility beautifully in her essay “Woolf’s Darkness,” where she writes about the value of uncertainty: “To me, the grounds for hope are simply that we don’t know what will happen next, and that the unlikely and the unimaginable transpire quite regularly.” Good research questions, I’ve come to believe, embrace this productive uncertainty. They open spaces for exploration rather than prescribing conclusions.

What does this look like in practice? I think it means moving beyond the formulaic approach often taught in research methods courses. Those approaches have their place—particularly for students learning the basics of research design—but they can sometimes flatten the intellectual vibrancy that makes research worthwhile. Sara Ahmed’s work offers a compelling alternative. In her book “Living a Feminist Life,” she demonstrates how research questions can emerge organically from our encounters with the world, from moments when something doesn’t quite make sense or when accepted explanations feel insufficient. Her questions arise from her lived experience while simultaneously challenging dominant frameworks of understanding.

I’ve noticed in my own work that my most productive questions often begin not with grand theoretical ambitions but with genuine puzzlement. Why did this particular policy intervention succeed when similar ones failed? How do researchers in different disciplines approach the same phenomenon so differently? What explains the persistent gap between stated institutional values and actual practices? These questions don’t necessarily follow the textbook formula of independent and dependent variables, but they’ve led me to insights I couldn’t have anticipated.

The challenge, of course, is transforming these initial curiosities into questions that can actually guide systematic inquiry. This is where craft comes in. I sometimes think of it as sculpting—starting with a rough shape and gradually refining it, removing excess material until the essential form emerges. It requires patience and a willingness to discard earlier versions that no longer serve. It also requires a certain comfort with imperfection, with the knowledge that even our most carefully crafted questions will inevitably miss something important.

I used to think this kind of question formulation was a preliminary stage of research—something to get right before the “real work” began. Now I see it as an ongoing process, one that continues throughout a project as our understanding deepens and shifts. Judith Butler’s approach in “Gender Trouble” exemplifies this iterative process. Her central questions about gender and performance weren’t formulated once and then methodically answered; they evolved as her exploration progressed, opening new lines of inquiry that she couldn’t have anticipated at the outset.

Maybe that’s the most important shift in my thinking: seeing research questions not as fixed destinations but as evolving companions in a journey of understanding. They guide us while being transformed by what we discover along the way. The art lies not in formulating the perfect question from the start, but in developing questions that are alive enough to grow with us.

As I work with students now, I try to encourage this more dynamic, emergent approach to questioning. Rather than pushing them toward premature precision, I ask: What genuinely puzzles you? What assumption would you like to test? Whose perspective is missing from current accounts? What would make your research matter to someone besides yourself and your committee? These questions don’t always yield immediately researchable formulations, but they often lead to more authentic and meaningful inquiry.

I’ve found that the most researchable questions often emerge at the intersection of disciplinary conversations. Kimberlé Crenshaw’s development of intersectionality theory arose from her recognition that neither feminist theory nor critical race theory alone could adequately address the experiences of Black women. Her research questions emerged from this gap, this space between established frameworks. Similarly, some of the most compelling work I’ve seen from students happens when they notice connections or contradictions between different bodies of literature and allow themselves to be puzzled by them.

These reflections don’t offer a neat formula for crafting researchable questions—and maybe that’s the point. Perhaps what we need isn’t another technique but a different orientation: more curiosity and less certainty, more patience with the messy process of refinement, more trust in our capacity to follow questions where they lead. Research, at its best, isn’t about confirming what we already know but about venturing into uncertainty with thoughtful questions as our guides. Doesn’t that seem like a more honest way to approach knowledge-making? I think so, though I’m still figuring it out myself.