Some time ago I pondered on the pros and cons of blogging from a researchers, even academics, perspective and on the reluctance of some colleagues to engage in the blogging world. Today I have been reminded of something key to this argument that is your blog is public. Now I try to be reasonably careful with what I write (grammar and punctuation I know are problematic) and I am aware of anyone (or please someone) being my audience. So far so good.
However this morning I was reminded of how what one writes can be construed or misconstrued by the reader reading. Apparently according to one such reader I'd previously referred to it as an 'impromptu PhD'. I couldn't recall writing this or for one moment considering it even vaguely impromptu on the basis that it took a good couple of years to settle on a subject which I felt sufficiently interested in to spend (fingers-crossed) 3 years working on.
Anyway looking back over my previous postings I noticed this:
'An example of this impromptu PhD chat came yesterday'
Women and Men again, Wednesday, August 23, 2006
So I did say it. However for clarification I was referring to the 'impromptu' conversations I was having all over the place at any given tome with anyone who happened to look even vaguely interested about my PhD. So there we have it - vindicated. I do see my PhD as 2nd only to parenthood or there abouts after all.
Now what about this blog? I need to figure out if I am going to continue with it and what role it plays in my PhD.