Description
How "far" can and will you go in your research to discover relevant facts? Consistent with ethics (including the "golden rule, " as we have already discussed) my general counsel is that you should think big, "and maybe a little "crazy," about how to reach sources. In my own experience, for example, doing historical research, I have done such "off the wall" things as calling a surviving member of the team that prosecuted the Nazis at Nuremberg to ask a question, not covered in other sources, about how the prosecutors in that trial used "natural law" theory to indict defendants. I've also contacted authors of academic books directly, to question--and sometimes have inadvertently disproven--them about evidence that they have used. Recently as part of a book I'm working on for University of Virginia Press, I traced a putative, surviving lock of George Washington's hair (really) across the centuries from his own time to a family in Michigan that was astonished (but happy) to be hunted down--and, yes, they still have the hair as an heirloom in their family, they just didn't know (but were thrilled to find out) all of the historical evidence that links their heirloom to a fascinating backstory from early American history. What would it look like in your own research if--consistent with ethics--you were to think, way "outside the box" about how to find and weigh evidence? What kinds of "crazy," long-shot, unconventional (but, again, ethical, and considerate) things might you do to find apropos evidence? Share some of your best ideas here, whether or not you ever act upon them. |
Explanation & Answer
Find attached
Running head: DISCUSSION
1
DISCUSSION
Name
Course
University
DISCUSSION
2
My proposed research area is to answer the question, " Does society support art? ...