Translate

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Acceptance of Sasquatch Research in Academia

As researchers the highest priority is, we need to be real researchers. That does not mean the Wikipedia definition in which,

     A researcher is somebody who performs 
research, independently as a principal investigator, the search for        knowledge or in general any systematic investigation to establish facts. Researchers can work in academic,        industrial, government, or private institutions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Researcher

Being a researcher does not mean just dedicating yourself to a subject and finding evidence of the existence of Bigfoot. 

As a researcher there is a need for academic skills. It is important to produce good quality written work in the form of research papers. These are composed to reflect the argument and supporting evidence so they are clearly understood by the intended audience. Some audiences will be the casual reader where others may be more academic or specialized such as primatologists or anthropologists. A good researcher recognizes information sources that support their opinions and assertions.  They also gather, organize, and analyze information or data as well as document their research in detail.




The definition we should meet is as academic researchers. We do not have to be college educated, but it does help.  In order to fulfill the role of researcher we should develop skills in recognizing and framing key problems. A researcher needs to think both critically and analytically. In addition they must devise thoughtful, interesting and original insights. Though it is difficult to have original insights concerning unknown animals or creatures it is still possible. Some suppositions must be made based upon experience reported with other animal species.

Researchers need ambition and the ability to work toward higher standards than the next guy.  In addition to taking initiative and responsibility, they must have organized, set procedures for handling evidence and be balanced in their judgment to make sure they understand the evidence they are reviewing. Researchers must also take constructive criticism and use it in a responsible and responsive way to help support or strengthen their case.

Effective researchers collaborate and liaise with other researchers and academics from other institutions, such as universities or even other research groups. All of this is necessary to integrate the subject to a larger community of scholars and research organizations. Researchers cannot always shun the next person or group who studies the same subject.  That is what conferences are for.

Having defined the researcher's role how do we meet these goals? In the field of Sasquatch research there are very few who meet these criteria.  Those that meet the requirements are already in academia. Many fail at consistently understanding the supposed evidence and underestimate the importance of handling and documenting the evidence.  Because there are no rules then they should not have to follow any or should make them up right?  Not so.  It is time to stop calling ourselves researchers if we cannot fit the bill.

Please check back on this blog. This is the first in a series of posts concerning the academic acceptance of Bigfoot/Sasquatch research.


2 comments:

  1. There are a number of problems with academic research in general and specifically how it applies to the research of bigfoot and other cryptids.

    First, there is much bias in the world of academics against cryptids and those who study them. A lot of this arises from how academics works - the basis for career advancement in academia often resembles middle-school social cliques as much or more than merit-based advancement systems in other fields. One must fit in to be deemed worthy of tenure. And all too frequently, that old adage - Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach - proves to be true, so that fitting in means not rocking the boat too much, not outshining the often useless more senior faculty members, not doing anything unique or controversial. Taking a minor issue, applying some study to it, and safely arguing both sides without forming a conclusion, has been a formula for success for thousands of tepid academics.

    Attempting to study a controversial subject will be viewed negatively by the mediocre masses in university halls. I recall one of the televised bigfoot specials seeking the opinion of an Univ. of Chicago anthropology professor on the authenticity of the Patterson-Gimlin film. This pompous gray-bearded academic baldly pronounced it a hoax, stated it looked like a man in a gorilla suit and stated in a conclusory fashion that it did not resemble a real living creature. He provided no specific details, observations or examples to support his opinions, he just spewed them and sat back with haughty satisfaction. This professor's opinions had more in common with juvenile commentary on videogame websites stating "Dewd, this game sux!" than it did with acceptable scientific analysis. But I am confident that most fellow academics would simply nod in unison without noting the lack of a basis for those opinions.

    One problem with the study of sasquatch is that no one is doing it in an altogether scientifically acceptable manner. Even leading expert Jeffrey Meldrum, Ph.D., associate professor of anthropology at Idaho State University, fell short in his seminal publication Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, as he decided (or gave in to his publisher's suggestions) to make that book one for the masses, rather than make it one that could be readily acceptable to both laypersons and academics alike. I am quite positive that the lack of a single footnote/endnote in that book will lower its credibility significantly in the eyes of many academics, who want to see every single assertion footnoted and a source provided. Meldrum could have provided sources in endnotes at the back of the book that would have given his book more credence to fellow academics without bogging down the main work with half a page of footnotes at the bottom of every page, as so many academic works do, but he failed to do so. To my knowledge, no one else publishing about sasquatches has written a book that would be deemed to have provided sufficient sources to satisfy academics, either.

    Another issue that Meldrum and others fail to address, surely out of apprehension that it would weaken their already less-than-rock-solid positions too much, is they do no address all counter arguments as thoroughly as they should. Meldrum does address the misidentification and confusion with bears argument very convincingly by showing drawings of front and side profiles showing how different a bear looks from common reports of a sasquatch. He addresses original bigfoot hoaxer Ray Wallace, but then basically fails to address any other hoaxer or discuss equivocal evidence as being doubtful or questionable. He would have increased his credibility, rather than lowered it, by acknowledging, perhaps in an appendix about hoaxes, that a substantial portion of the bigfoot evidence is in fact the work of hoaxers and candidly admit some of it is of sufficient quantity that it initially fooled the author himself (I understand that Meldrum has been duped by hoaxes a few times and is extremely reluctant to admit this).

    -NMRNG

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice comment NMRNG. I couldn't agree more. The credibility is lacking because of documentation and it will not be treated seriously until enough evidence is verified and proven. "proven" that is the most difficult thing. In reviewing the evidence provided so far, much of it can be denied based upon current assumptions.

    True academicians will try hard to disprove their own work. Sure it may be the hard road but it is the most credible.

    This is why I proposed to put a site together for suspected Sasquatch evidence to be reviewed by a couple of professionals and other site members including believers and skeptics. Test the evidence and we will find that 80 to 90 percent of it is not actual evidence of the existence of Bigfoot. It's the 10 to 15 percent, which is the actual evidence that we should be after.

    ReplyDelete