This blog explores two key aspects presented by Richard D. Altick in the first chapter of his seminal work, The Art of Literary Research. The first focus is on the distinction between the roles of the critic, the scholar, and the researcher. The second examines the essential qualities of mind and temperament required of a research scholar. To develop a deeper understanding of these concepts, the blog also draws upon insights shared by Prof. Dilip Barad in his lectures discussing Altick’s work.
Video 1: Critic, Scholar, Researcher by Prof. Dilip Barad
This video aims to explore the distinct yet interconnected roles of the critic, scholar, and researcher, and to reflect upon the mindset and temperament required of a true research scholar. These thoughts emerge from a close reading of the first chapter of The Art of Literary Research by Richard D. Altick.
At first glance, the terms critic, scholar, and researcher may seem interchangeable, blurring their specific identities. However, Altick offers a nuanced distinction among them, while affirming that all are united by a common pursuit—the discovery of truth.(Altick)
The critic is primarily concerned with the literary work itself—its style, structure, content, and ideas. In contrast, the scholar investigates the historical, cultural, and factual contexts surrounding a literary work. A scholar's role extends beyond textual analysis to include the work's genesis, reception, and evolution through time. The researcher, on the other hand, combines these perspectives, requiring not only analytical precision but also a vivid sense of history and the imaginative capacity to enter various epochs, adopting diverse intellectual standpoints.
To illustrate: in the study of Amitav Ghosh’s The Hungry Tide, a critic may analyze its narrative style, thematic patterns, or character construction. A scholar, however, might approach the text through various critical lenses—eco-critical, postcolonial, or socio-political frameworks such as human trafficking. The researcher synthesizes both these approaches, drawing upon interdisciplinary insights and contextual grounding.(Ghosh)
Importantly, neither criticism nor scholarship lays exclusive claim to method or territory. Both engage with literary texts and incorporate external knowledge. As George Whalley, in his work, Scholarship and Criticism(1959) asserts:
“No true scholar can lack critical acumen; and the scholar’s eye is rather like the poet’s—not, to be sure, ‘in a fine frenzy rolling,’ but at least looking for something as yet unknown which it knows it will find, with perceptions heightened and modified by the act of looking… Without scholarship, every synoptic view will be cursory, every attempt at a synthesis a wind-egg; without scholarship the criticism of a poem may easily become a free fantasia on a non-existent theme.”
A scholar, therefore, must cultivate critical observation, intellectual versatility, and historical consciousness. Their vision must encompass a broader cultural and temporal spectrum—what T.S. Eliot refers to in Tradition and the Individual Talent as “the pastness of the past”—while also bringing that past meaningfully into the present.(Eliot)
Finally, the temperament of a research scholar must mirror the rigor of scientific inquiry. This includes intellectual curiosity, precision, shrewdness, and imaginative innovation. The scholar must be ever in search of new strategies, unexplored sources, and accurate methods of interpretation and evaluation.
Distinction Between a Scholar and a Researcher:
According to Richard D. Altick, there is a crucial distinction between a researcher and a scholar. A person may be an active researcher—diligent in collecting information—without necessarily embodying the qualities of a true scholar. Research is the method; scholarship is the goal. Research may be considered an occupation, but scholarship is a cultivated habit of mind and a way of life.
A scholar transcends the role of a mere researcher. While a researcher might excel at discovering and analyzing facts, a scholar possesses a broader and more enlightened understanding. He or she not only gathers knowledge but also applies wisdom to interpret and contextualize information within the larger framework of human artistic and intellectual achievement. A scholar is not overwhelmed by data; instead, they view facts through a wide, reflective lens, situating them meaningfully within the continuum of human culture and creativity.
In essence, the vocations of critic, scholar, and researcher are not isolated silos but rather overlapping roles that enrich literary inquiry. A true research scholar synthesizes all three, driven by a persistent quest for deeper understanding and truth.
Video 2: Mind and Temperament of Research Scholar by Prof. Dilip Barad
The Mental Make-up of a Research Scholar
The transition from student to research scholar requires more than technical skill; it demands a distinct mental framework. Key attributes include:
-
Imagination: Not limited to creative writing, imagination fuels critical thinking and enables scholars to approach texts with fresh perspectives.
-
Originality of Approach: A good scholar explores uncharted or underexplored aspects of literature.
-
Solidity of Learning: A strong foundational understanding of literature and criticism is essential.
-
Intellectual Curiosity: A true scholar is driven by the desire to see literature through new lenses.
“Publish or Perish” and the Unhappy Scholar
Altick critically examines the "publish or perish" culture prevalent in academia. This pressure to produce frequent publications for career advancement often leads to personal dissatisfaction and diminished scholarly quality. He warns: “Scholarship performed under duress is seldom very good scholarship.”
This pressure contributes to a proliferation of trivial or poorly executed work, often cluttering academic journals with content that adds little value. Research done merely for the sake of publishing diverges from the true purpose of scholarship: to contribute meaningfully to existing knowledge.
What Makes a Happy and Successful Scholar?
Altick identifies the happy scholar as one who is motivated not by institutional demands but by intrinsic curiosity and the desire to explore literature as an art form. A successful scholar is driven by the joy of discovery, seeks to pose questions that provoke thought in others, and Values deep learning over mere output. The ideal literary scholar must love research for its own sake. A passion for reading, preferably developed early in life, forms the core of scholarly motivation.
Law and Journalism
Altick suggests that the best-prepared literary scholars often have backgrounds in law or journalism, as both fields cultivate essential research skills:
-
Law trains individuals in evidence-based reasoning, careful documentation, and attention to detail.
-
Journalism, especially investigative reporting, hones skills in gathering information, identifying leads, and organizing facts persuasively.
Both disciplines require precision, analytical thinking, and the ability to structure complex information clearly—attributes vital to literary scholarship.
A literary researcher must develop a strong historical sensibility—what Altick describes as “a vivid sense of history.” This includes the ability to imaginatively project oneself into another age, while maintaining critical detachment. Unlike historical novelists or popular biographers who focus on surface details, a scholar seeks an intimate yet analytical understanding of the past.
Thus, intellectual curiosity, precision, imagination, and the ability to synthesize and evaluate data are all hallmarks of sound literary scholarship.
Literary research demands patience, dedication, and the ability to persist without immediate results. As Altick notes, a true scholar must relish this demanding process.
John Livingston Lowes (1933) emphasized that literary scholarship operates between two worlds: scientific method and creative interpretation. While method is essential, it must not distract from the ultimate goal—interpretation. He warns that scholars often become so focused on method that they lose sight of meaning.
Homi K. Bhabha echoes this, stating that interpretation in the humanities is what the lab is to science. The end goal of literary research is not just to gather data, but to interpret texts in deeper, more insightful ways.
In a nutshell, the successful and happy scholar is one whose passion for literature is matched by a disciplined mind, rigorous method, and a commitment to enriching the broader field of human knowledge.
Works Cited
Altick, Richard Daniel, and John J. Fenstermaker. The art of literary research. Norton, 1993.
Altick, Richard Daniel, and John J. Fenstermaker. The art of literary research. Norton, 1993.
DoE-MKBU, and Dilip Barad. Critic, Researcher and Scholar | PhD Coursework | Batch 2020 | 2021 01 30. 2021. YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6j0mE8lCd4.
DoE-MKBU, and Dilip Barad. Mind and Temperament of Research Scholar | PhD Coursework Sessions | Batch 2020 | 2021 01 31. 2021. YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cebk1nzzrJw.
Eliot, T. S. “Tradition and the Individual Talent.” The Sacred Wood: Essays On Poetry And Criticism(1920), Kessinger Publishing, 2010.
Ghosh, Amitav. The Hungry Tide. HarperCollins Publishers India, 2005.
Whalley, George. “Scholarship and Criticism.” University of Toronto Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 1, 1959, https://doi.org/10.3138/utq.29.1.33.
No comments:
Post a Comment