Here is a rough outline of the final paper. Please comment, but especially on the bold parts of the outline, which specifically contains questions that I might not be able to figure out or decide on my own.
I. Introduction
-Main question: What is the effect of character in research, and how do different disciplines weigh the importance of character/personality in someone’s work?
-Thesis: Although all of the disciplines, especially the natural sciences, try to be objective about someone’s work, character plays an unexpectedly large role in how someone’s work is received. In turn, the value, at least the perceived value, of the work also affects how the public view the scholar’s character.
– define character/personality – What is the distinction, if any? ; define research/researcher/scholar – in a very general sense of the work (for example, an author would also be a researcher and a scholar, at least in this paper. A con man is also referred to as a researcher and their hoax/fraud will be considered their “research” work)
II. Methodology, at least in theory, within different disciplines
– What are the research principles, especially in terms of separating the researcher and their work, in different disciplines? (Science, History, English, Anthropology, etc)
III. Case study in History
– Academic fame brings scrutiny of the persona: Character can bring down/undermine one’s work just as much as it can exaggerate/enhance it (Robin, 10).
– (need more quotes from Scandals and Scoundrels)
IV. Case study in Art History
– John Drewe: Salisbury and Sujo continually emphasizes Drewe’s character as one of the main factors, if not the main factor, that allowed him to get away with so much for as long as he did.
– Quotes, some from “Provenance” post
V. Case study in English
– Susan Hill’s comment about how works and their authors should be separated, and yet she admits to feeling uncomfortable doing that. Even her colleague shows uneasiness about taking a poem at its face value when the poet lived a contradictory life (questionable if it is a representative example, though)
– Quotes, some from “Authors and their Books” post
VI. Case study in Breast Cancer Research 1
– Dr. Roger Poisson’s character & his work
VII. Case study in Breast Cancer Research 2
– Dr. Bernard Fisher: effect of the fraud scandal on how the public viewed him and his previous work despite the fact that he was not directly involved in laundering the data (chapter 3 in Scientific Characters)
– Quotes, some from “Scientific Characters” post
VIII. Case study in Art/Music/Pop culture
– In Wilson’s book “Let’s Talk about Love,” Elliott Smith defends Celine Dion: “She was really sweet which has made it impossible for me to dislike Celine Dion anymore. Even though I can’t stand the music that she makes – with all due respect, I don’t like it much at all – she herself was very, very nice” (Wilson, 21)
IX. More evidence
– Even David H. Freedman focuses on the character of Ioannidis, researcher who works to re-evaluate the mass of medical data that is presented as facts, despite the fact that he is arguing for a more objective research method.
– “Considering his willingness, even eagerness, to slap the face of the medical-research community, Ioannidis comes off as thoughtful, upbeat, and deeply civil. He’s a careful listener, and his frequent grin and semi-apologetic chuckle can make the sharp prodding of his arguments seem almost good-natured […] The humility and graciousness seem to serve him well in getting across a message that is not easy to digest or, for that matter, believe” (Freedman)
IX. Larger questions
– How much rests on trust: in theory vs. practicality?
– Does the research act create a certain idea/playing field for fraud?
– Does it bother us that character plays such a big part in how we receive and rate someone’s work? What are the advantages, disadvantages, and necessities (if any at all) of the influence of character/personality?
X. Conclusion
– Practically speaking, it will be impossible to completely separate the scholar/researcher and their work, because who we are affects how we see the world and what we do with our work. (Is this claim too general and not grounded enough in text? Can I make such psychological claim in this paper?)
Purenbit 