From this Summer School , I reaffirm a no novelty question from my own reflection: can it be the case that one of the deep meanings of a PhD is to learn to argue?
Key elements that might help to reach that goal (meaning) are:
1) Clear thinking
2) Keep it simple
Tons of critical reading will (might) help on this process as well 😉
But I go back to the lecture now.
I do not consider myself, still, at any moment any language fascist. However, I can realized how my affinity to those language fascist speaking supporters increases.
In just some minutes trying to read the procedures of WMUTE , I realized the use of the terms are ambiguous. Specially the magic word “FRAMEWORK”. Maybe I had pushed myself to much with lectures in cultural and media studies. For them the proper use of TERMS is fundamental. Well their lectures had generated gray hair while trying to understand, for me, this new way of thinking. The challenge increases when I have to express myself, because clarity in thoughts and concepts are important, and I am just building them.
Nevertheless, knowing that I am not an exemplar of the correct use of language in ANYWAY, I admit I am trying to learn it. Not only as a personal challenge, also on account of realizing the importance of it for clear communication and thinking.
But oh gosh!!!! the actual type of lectures do not really facilitate my learning process and understanding. Or maybe it does, while showing me clearly how important is to improve on proper and fundamented use of terms.
For those making research:
what do you think about this data collection (just scroll the bottom bar to your right) 😉