In the past couple of weeks, we’ve all been introduced to new research topics and new research methodology or philosophies. These discussions with my cohort, and with the entire group, already have made me think more critically about my own research methodology and my goals for the outcome. My research translating is very focused on the annotations that I’m translating, but as I move forward with learning the history behind them and turning it into a digital resource, I’m looking forward to applying new ideas and attitudes that I learn from my cohort’s experiences. In my research, I often do the same thing for long amounts of time, which can make me feel stuck. I think hearing from others about their processes might help me with that.

I think my cohort has a good mix of humanities and scientific topics, which I really appreciate because I think my project is an interesting combination of the two. It’s been interesting to hear about the quantitative lab work that some of my cohort are doing: I get a behind the scenes look at how scientific research like that really operates to get useful results. It’s also extremely useful for me to hear about the analytical work that goes into the humanities projects. As I learn more about how someone else approaches analyzing great works of literature and the philosophies behind them, it gives me a lot of ideas about how I can approach analyzing my translated annotations.

I think the difference in methodology is both the biggest benefit and the biggest obstacle when it comes to working with people across disciplines. On one hand, a change in methodology or even just a change in attitude in how you approach something can be really helpful if you’re getting stuck in your research. On the other hand, huge differences in methodology can make it hard to relate to other researchers and see how the differences in your projects can help you form a new idea.