This blog is part of the Ph.D. Coursework Task which was to watch videos Prepared by Dr. Dilip Barad sir, based on the Book 'The Art of Literary Research' by Richard D. Altick.
Video 1 Critic, Researcher and Scholar
Academic writing has two ways of looking, the first one is the technical aspects of writing and data collection and the second is the Mind set, that can be called the ‘software’ part, which involves understanding the roles of the critic, researcher, and scholar. While these terms are often used interchangeably, particularly ‘researcher’ and ‘scholar’, it is possible to differentiate them. One individual can embody all three roles depending on their approach to a text or topic.
Critic vs. Scholar
Some students of literature prefer to see themselves primarily as critics, while others identify as scholars. However, the distinction between the two is described as far more apparent than real, and every good student of literature constantly combines these roles, often without realising it. The difference between a critic and a scholar is primarily one of emphasis.
The activities of the critic ultimately benefit criticism, while the activities of the scholar ultimately benefit literary history.
New Criticism or Practical Criticism being more aligned with the critic's role, focusing on particular criticism or developing theories. Northrop Frye, who sought a common skeleton in world literature and a larger context, is offered as an example aligning with the scholar's approach.
George Whalley, in his work ‘Scholarship and Criticism’ (1959), observes that '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. For knowing is qualitative and is profoundly affected by the reason for wanting to know. Again, it is clear that no critic can afford not to be a scholar – even a scholar in a pretty impressive degree – if his work is to go much beyond delicate impressionism, penumbral rhetoric, or marginal schematism. 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 (Whalley).'
At the end we can say that a scholar's work requires a theoretical framework and the ability to locate work in the larger context of theories, discourses, genesis, or history. Starting research from the genesis or historical perspective is presented as more important than merely starting from a text based on personal liking.
What is essential to be a Researcher
The researcher must have a vivid sense of history. This is the ability to cast themselves back into another age, which includes time, but also discipline or subject
Researchers must adjust their intellectual insights and imaginative response to the system of thought and social/cultural atmosphere of the past. This involves being able to think and fantasise as people did in those times to comprehend current attitudes or artistic assumptions that guided an author. Intellectual insights are needed to support interpretations with evidence, avoiding mere fantasia.
While the researcher travels back into the past, the scholar must retain their footing in the 21st century for the sake of indispensable perspective. The essence of the past needs to be understood and used in the present. This implies the researcher, who also has scholar’s qualities, must have a double vision: the vastness of the past and its use in the present.
The researcher is one who is rooted in today but can time travel into the past, understand the "pastness of the past," and quickly see this pastness in the present time. They need both complete attachment with the past and detachment to quickly move between the past and the present.
Qualities that a Literary Scholar/Researcher Must have
The literary scholar/researcher needs to be as rigorous as scientists in their method and that requires certain qualities, which are also valuable for literary research and that are,
Intellectual curiosity,
Shrewdness,
Precision,
Imagination
and lively inventiveness.
These qualities help in suggesting new hypotheses, strategies, and sources of information, and enable the accurate interpretation and evaluation of data.
Video 2 Mind and Temperament of Research Scholar
Someone who is engaging in Research , they must have ‘making of the mind’ of the research scholar, dealing with the mental capacities and soft skills needed for research. A rewarding research work is one you are eager and keen to talk about, where you know you have done something significant, added to knowledge systems, or contributed in a newer way. It involves someone being interested in inviting you to speak and listen about your work.
For a rewarding research project the researcher must have-
A fair degree of imagination. Imagination is more crucial even in scientific and technological advancements.
Then there is Originality of approach- (thinking of approaches not yet applied or seen in a particular context)
Solidity of learning. (extensive reading)
A wish and will to see works of literary art and their creators from new perspectives. (Retellings and adaptations, it brings new perspectives)
You have to think deeply and be imaginative in your approaches, like those that are not already applied in the text. This must come from the solidity of your learning and a strong base in the discipline. Reading for research and writing for research are completely different from the pleasure we find in normal or casual reading.
Academic pleasure is very different from the aesthetic pleasure that comes from reading a literary work. In research, our only true likeness must be the desire to know more. Only then will we begin to enjoy the real work of research. When we want to know the area or the theory, our will and wish to look at the writer and the work from a new perspective becomes very rewarding.
Divergent thinking is very important to make research projects rewarding. The new perspective or the novel idea must be one’s own and original. There is openness and scope to display the new perspective and divergent thinking but the Researcher must have to find it on their own.
‘Publish or Perish’
The concept of ‘Publish or Perish’ is described in the video and it is a pernicious and very harmful idea that researchers have to continuously publish works in their field. Scholarship produced under duress or pressure is less likely to be qualitative. This idea, linking promotion and job security to publication output, originated in American universities in the 1960s. It also means that making research or publication compulsory can lead to a lack of qualitative work. It poses a hurdle for aspiring teachers, especially if their research area doesn't directly align with their teaching subject.
Forcing publication for promotion can create Problems like,
scholars simply rush to publish without genuine eagerness to know more, hindering the growth of knowledge.
Presenting incomplete work at seminars is a way to get feedback and questions, prompting further research and contributing to knowledge growth.
"Publish or perish" is ideally problematic, especially for young scholars building their careers.
This pressure Publishing research works can lead to an ‘unhappy scholar’, while it is important to build the academic career and gain promotions but if it is not done properly, to think with different perspectives, to reinvent the wheel, to gain new knowledge it will eventually be of no use.
Chief qualities of mind and temperament for a successful and happy scholar can be learned from two occupations, law and journalism. If the literary researcher can apprentice with them they can learn which is important for the making of mind.
From law:
Understanding the principles of evidence is critical.
Every statement in research must be supported by evidence or proof, not just assumptions or sudden ideas.
From investigative journalism:
Resourcefulness is important.
This includes knowing where to go for information and how to obtain it
The ability to recognize and follow up leads, and tenacity in the pursuit of facts.
Investigative reporters must rely on facts, as misinformation has serious consequences.
From both what can be learned is organisation skills and the ability to put facts together are vital for structuring research and writing effectively. So, following the legal stories, and Journalism works can also result in the development of insight.
In the past researchers, skills like communication were important for accessing resources like physical libraries and traveling to faraway places to access resources was important. Still in the digital age, knowing how to interact and ask questions of people remains useful when digital resources are insufficient. The journey of research, including discovering the "how" and creating a new path, is the responsibility of the research scholar. Supervisors and Guides will be their but to add new dimensions to your research will be of your doing only.
Human scholarship
Humane scholarship moves and must move within two worlds at once – the world of scientific method and the world, in whatever degree, of creative art (Lowes) .
The world of scientific method and the world of creative art are both different; they are a combination that is needed for the Human Scholarship. Research serves as a scientific tool, but researchers may sometimes become too absorbed in methodology, losing sight of the ultimate purpose. In literary research, this purpose is interpretation. Interpretation functions as the equivalent of a laboratory for scholars in the humanities, where diverse approaches are tested and explored. However, for interpretations to be meaningful and credible, they must be grounded in evidence and supported by factual analysis.
Altick, Richard Daniel. The Art of Literary Research. Norton, 1975.
Lowes, John Livingston. “1933: The Modern Language Association and Humane Scholarship.” PMLA, vol. 115, no. 7, 2000, pp. 1806–17. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/463576. Accessed 7 June 2025.
Whalley, George. "Scholarship and Criticism." University of Toronto Quarterly 29.1 (1959): 33-45.
