Rethink what counts as scholarship

What would you like to do in Buddhist Studies that you feel you cannot or should not do now?

  • It’d be nice if translations of Buddhist texts were as well-respected as analytical works. I want to translate texts into English, but because it’s not recognized as “research,” I am not doing such projects right now. 

What directions in the field are most exciting to you, and why?

  • The collaborative model of conferences (e.g. Gayley/Townsend’s Lotsawa Translation conference in Boulder 2018, Chien et al.’s Buddhist Pedagogy Workshop at AAR 2019-, Garrett/Richardson/Moss’ Buddhist Pedagogy conference in Toronto in 2020). These formats resulted in much better scholarly production than the standard paper reading format of the AAR and traditional conferences. They allow for real conversations, collaboration, and exchange between diverse scholars.
  • Rise in conversations on race, gender, sexuality, privilege, etc. 

How does the status quo in Buddhist studies limit or enable your ability to think critically and creatively about the future?

  • The concept of “rigorous” scholarship is narrow and prevents projects that reach a wide audience in an engaging manner. We need to rethink what counts as scholarship. 
  • The one author one book model — outdated and doesn’t make for the best scholarship
  • Pre-formed panel format — this just reinforces current networks of people (often the most privileged) and old conversations. Open CFPs tend to give voice to new and more diverse voices.

Submitted by Anonymous, Associate Professor at Anonymous College, U.S.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.