Thursday, August 27, 2009

A rigid conception of the truth - two random conversations

Last week, I met this guy at a rooftop bar in New York, and we started talking about my research. Interest soon changed into distrust, however, when he heard about the topic of my dissertation. He briefly interrupted me. 'Let’s make this clear,' he said, 'I am on the side of the cops'. It made me laugh. 'Is it OK if I am on no one's side?' I asked him. Still a bit distrustful, he said: 'That's not possible, you have to be on someone’s side!' To prove my point, I turned to the case study I am working on right now – the Sean Bell shooting. Now that is definitely a story with two sides, I said. He again repeated how much he supported the 'cops', and added 'yes, it is so obvious the detectives were innocent. Sean Bell and the other guys - they were carrying guns and shooting at the police!' I am always surprised when someone has such a rigid conception of the truth, without knowing the facts. So I had to inform him that Sean Bell and his friends were actually completely unarmed. You know what? He did not believe me.

The reverse also occurs, and to be honest, more frequently. Take for example the following reaction from another person I met this week: 'You are researching the cops? That is great! They have so many problems. They are engaged in racial profiling. There is so much police misconduct. The police don't understand the black community.' I usually reply to such remarks by giving another perspective: 'Well, the police are facing a lot of undeserved criticism too, you know. What do you think that does to the morale of the rank-and-file?' But she didn't want to listen. 'I hope your research can really makes a difference and improve police conduct,' she concluded.

Yes, I hope my research in the end can make a difference. But not regarding the improvement of police conduct. And I don’t want to prove that 'the cops are right' either. So, I am sorry to disappoint these random New Yorkers I spoke to this week. In fact, I am not researching 'the cops' at all, although these people would love to believe so. I am actually researching the communication that occurs between polarized groups – and if my findings can help these people to better understand each other's reality and background – that would be the difference I am looking for.

1 comment:

  1. Ha Michelle,
    Als ik dit lees, is mijn eerste ingeving: het is in ieder geval een onderwerp dat leeft in New York. Ook in hun vrije tijd kun je willekeurige mensen hierop aanspreken. En ik vind het wel opmerkelijk om te lezen hoe rigide polarizerende groepen in de discussie staan. Dat zij niet open staan om de communicatie te verbeteren. Zeker als dat kan bijdragen aan het terugdringen van het geweld, of in ieder geval meer begrip teweeg kan brengen. Dus is de vraag: wie heeft meer inzichten en inspiratie opgedaan? Jij voor de conclusies in je proefschrift of jouw gesprekspartners om een meer open houding in het debat te verkrijgen. En het lijkt mij - gezien jouw probleemstelling - een goede stelregel dat je als onderzoeker onpartijdig blijft totdat je jouw conclusies hebt gepresenteerd? Groetjes Joost

    ReplyDelete