Project 2 Reflection

Project 2 gave me an excellent insight to how fields of work and study operate in a very general sense. I learned that most disciplines cannot simply be defined about what is learned in the classroom. A physicist must know calculus, geometry, problem solving as well as physics concepts. However the dynamic between these fields of knowledge and information creates the discipline. Were someone to only know math they would be in just the mathematics discipline. This information becomes privileged when it is released by authorized or accredited sources. This information loses its privilege when it is released independently by a unaccredited source then it loses privilege because there is no proof that the author actually has the qualification to be releasing academic information for others to use. The accreditation changes depending on what one’s personal view of qualification is and in which field of study. In creative writing, a valid source might just be someone who is a great writer whereas a valid source in medicine would typically be someone with an MD or PhD. This changes across the world as well. Someone in the UK may not find someone’s PhD from an American university to be a valid accreditation, while at the same time someone in America could not view a publication from a university in the UK to be a valid and reputable source. It all depends on your own worldview. This is further complicated by the fact that many fields of study have associations that do the accrediting. These associations regulate  information from the sources as to not release inaccurate or poorly supported information. These associations also may have ties to other associations worldwide, so simply because something is not accredited by your specific association, your association may see another international association as a valid source of accurate information. However there is much to learn from inaccurate information. Researchers may look into information they see as subpar, research it using their own knowledge and present new, improved information. This information does not always have to be strictly academic however. Some fields such as communications study how people interact socially over the internet. This is done by simply watching what people do online, what people like and how this affects their lives. The community in which information is shared also affects the field greatly. When people in this field associate with each other socially, it can promote either good information or bad information. If a medical doctor is well connected socially his research can be spread quickly given the appearance of legitimacy. However, this does not always mean the information is credible. To those close to the MD, the information may be credible due to personal bias, or it may apply to their particular practices. It is also easy to forget the nature of sharing information. Most of the time, inaccurate and poorly researched information is not always released because of malicious intent. However, the person who released it may believe it would be a good contribution that would contribute to their field. All of this is relative to your view, your field of work, and the communities in which you work.