On Being an Independent Researcher Since July 2013
Just to clear up any possible confusion: I have been an Independent Researcher since July 2013, having completed my BA Philosophy degree in May (all exams done☑️; coursework (two Level 6 extended essays) and dissertation submitted 20/05/13 and handed-in☑️ together with the anti-plagiarism statement* see below) and no longer a student as of June 2013 because it was the end of my course. My college ID card and my Senate House Library card also expired in June. Therefore, I waited until July 31st (date of transcript) before becoming an Independent Researcher/Scholar. This is because you cannot be a student and an Independent Researcher and Scholar simultaneously.
The word 'independent' means not studying in an institution or even being affiliated to one. It also means not using their resources which, in my case, meant BBK's library and Senate House Library. And certainly not being funded by them. In June 2013 BBK offered to pay the fees for my final year that the government grant had not covered. I did not apply to receive this money from my college so it took me by surprise, nevertheless, I declined. This was because, that way, all the work I did, including my dissertation research, during that year 2012-13 would firmly remain mine (my property and copyright) and they would have no potential claim to it. BBK didn't offer me any money for any other year of my course so all my philosophy work belongs to me.The government doesn't have a claim to any student work through their financial support system.
Furthermore, I removed my BBK alumni status 7th January 2015 - I had never even asked to be or used the form to apply to be an alumni yet discovered that I was nevertheless receiving alumni circular emails because I had been put on their alumni list anyway. Nevertheless, I never made any use of BBK's library or resources through this accidental impression that I might be willingly down as their alumni. The alumni team also had my old home address recorded beyond the time that I was living there. I received an email 22/12/14 inviting me to the inaugural philosophy David Hamlyn Lecture 'What Is Love' given by Simon May (BBK Senior Research Fellow) on the 6th February 2015 at BBK I realised that I needed to correct the alumni team because that email contained the small print that I received that email because I am a registered student at BBK, which was a false statement. So I wrote an email to BBK alumni (07/01/15):
"Hi Libuse,
Thanks for getting in touch with us.
I am sorry for the error in the email you received on 22nd December concerning the David Hamlyn lecture. The text that you refer to, about being a registered student at Birkbeck, is a part of the template that we use for our communications. I have referred this error to our Communications Team who will be looking to rectify this. I can confirm that our records show that you have graduated from Birkbeck and are no longer a current student.
I am sorry to hear that you feel that it is inappropriate for us to send you any alumni correspondence. Once you graduate from Birkbeck, you automatically become part of Birkbeck Alumni, which includes occasionally receiving emails relating to news and events from across the College. I can confirm that I have removed any contact details we have for you and that you will no longer receive any communication from us.
Kind Regards,
Andy
So I don't understand why "London University" was put down next to my name as though this was my affiliation at the time when I presented my first paper 'On the Role of True Worship for True Religion and Political Stability' at the A Day with Spinoza: Bodies, Cognition and Society' workshop 20th April 2016 at Groningen University. This gives the erroneous impression that I was perhaps still a student there in 2016, or funded by them, or used their resources in some way or that I'm a research assistant for someone there or whatever else someone could be led to believe by seeing it. Furthermore, I had explicitly written in my email when submitting my Spinoza abstract that I am an Independent Researcher and that I merely graduated from London University with a 2:1 BA Philosophy degree! Simply being a graduate of a university does not automatically make someone in any way affiliated with them afterwards! I had submitted my Lady Mary Shepherd abstract to Emily Thomas for the Early Modern Women Conference at Groningen University because I had come across her briefly earlier that year at a conference at York University. The response I received quoted some very poorly thought out and written excuse for not accepting my abstract, apparently quoting some anon reviewers, and the suggestion that I submit to the Dutch Seminar Conference in Early Modern Philosophy. So I did, deciding to submit a new abstract on Spinoza this time, which I submitted by email, 30th November 2015 23:42pm:
'Abstract for Dutch Seminar Conference in Early Modern Philosophy (March 2016)'
"Dear Dr. Andrea Sangiacomo,
Dr Emily Thomas suggested I may like to submit an abstract for your conference so I am attaching an abstract for your Dutch Seminar Conference in Early Modern Philosophy (March 2016).
Name: Liba Kaucky, BA Philosophy, 2:1, London University
Independent Researcher in Philosophy"
(Contact details provided: email; home address; mobile number)
"Kind regards,
Liba"
Email attachment: my abstract, anonymized for peer review:
On the Role of True Worship for True Religion and Political Stability
In this paper, I wish to explore Spinoza’s arguments about true worship in his Theologico-Political Treatise (TTP). The topic of how to engender true worship is important because it has ramifications for Spinoza’s overall concept of true religion as well as showing the role religion has in relation to a state, particularly a Republic. Spinoza emphasises the value of underpinning religious practices with reason and understanding by illustrating how critical analysis of scripture supports piety, public peace and freedom which, in turn, strengthens religion and state alike. This is because, by strengthening reason over emotion and superstition, Spinoza is attempting to reduce potential causes of conflicts between religions and the authority of the state.
Thus, I would like to examine Spinoza’s view in his TTP that gaining a rational understanding of how and why people worship in the way they do creates a more secure basis for religion which, in turn, impacts on how people behave as citizens. In other words, rational worshippers are more likely to be rational citizens because they are more emotionally stable so more likely to be law abiding and behave in a beneficial way rather than being volatile and prone to causing civil disturbances. In this way, the state benefits from true worship because the latter helps to promote a stable, rationally based political society, especially because worship is by and large a collective activity. Therefore, I would like to focus on Spinoza’s arguments about worship and scripture and his view that how scripture is analysed and understood affects how people approach the ritual of worship (TTP 12). I would also like to show that Spinoza’s views are still relevant today. For instance, irrational religious fanaticism can, in some cases, still lead to political turmoil and war both within and between states. Therefore, in this paper, I wish to put forward the suggestion that scripture and true worship are pivotal aspects of Spinoza’s argument for true religion and the political stability of a state.
Email replies:
Re: Abstract for Dutch Seminar Conference in Early Modern Philosophy (March 2016)
1st December 2015 8:06am
Dear Liba,
many thanks for your submission. We'll stay in touch in due course once the evaluation process will be completed.
All the best
Andrea
Re: Abstract for Dutch Seminar Conference in Early Modern Philosophy (March 2016)
2 Feb 2016 at 22:33
1 attachment
Dear Liba,
Many thanks again for your abstract and your interest in the DSEMP. We received 44 abstracts, each of which was reviewed and ranked anonymously by two referees. I am sorry to report that we could not select your paper for this year’s workshop.
Given the enormous quality of many abstracts and the very few slots we can offer, it was a very difficult and often tight decision. In order to provide at least some feedback we attach the ranking and comments of the reviewers. Please bear in mind that these comments have been made solely on the basis of blind reviews and do not necessarily reflect our own judgment or indeed a thorough assessment of your work.
It goes without saying that you are most welcome to attend our workshop as a discussant.
Nonetheless, I’d like to take this opportunity to discuss with you a further idea. I’m planning to organize a Spinoza day in Groningen, arguably on April 20, or alternatively on April 13. I’d like to ask you whether you would be willing to present your paper in this occasion. The workshop will include between 6 and 8 research papers on different facets of Spinoza's thought from both established and junior scholars.
Although the Spinoza day would have a more narrow focus than the Dutch Seminar, it will offer good occasions for discussing your paper and fostering exchanges. I hope you may consider this opportunity and let me know as soon as possible if can consider to attend and which date would work better for you (either April 20, as our best option, or alternatively April 13).
Best wishes,
Andrea
3rd February 2016 22:20pm
Dear Andrea Sangiacomo,
Thank you very much for your email and for inviting me to present my Spinoza paper at your Spinoza day in Groningen. Yes, I'd be very honoured to present my paper on that day. I too would prefer April 20th.
Best wishes,
Liba
So I'm baffled why I was (and still am, see link below) written down as though I've presented a paper in 2016 while affiliated in some way with London University, so I thought I'd clear up any potential confusion about this.
This error has also perpetuated itself on other sites repeating the details Groningen University released, such as:
https://spinozaresearchnetwork.wordpress.com/2016/02/25/workshop-a-day-with-spinoza-groningen/
I have uploaded, onto my academia page, both the abstract and handout for this paper which I have discussed in this post. The handout is very long because I didnt expect to have to do one. Subsequent ones are better. On the day, Sangiacomo suggested I might like to do one so I spent my lunch time writing it in my hotel room (my mother dashed out to buy me an easy, quick, tasty lunch so I was able to focus on writing it), I emailed it to him to do copies for everyone and then I went straight back to the conference to attend the paper just before mine. My paper went well, helped no doubt, by working on the handout all lunch break. I knew it off by heart by then!
Here's the abstract above on my academia:
And here's my handout:
Footnote:
*I signed the college's anti-plagiarism statement available for students to use which I sent by email 20/05/13 to the relevant admin person in charge of exams, with all my final year coursework attached: 2 extended essays and dissertation, and I quote:
"I confirm that I have read the section on plagiarism in the Birkbeck BA Philosophy handbook 2012/13.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief the work submitted herewith is my own work and that I have acknowledged the work of others fully."
In addition to this email, I delivered hard copies of my 2 extended essays and dissertation together with my anti-plagiarism statement to the philosophy department office. This way, I ensured that my coursework didn't go missing due to a technical hitch, a problem which many final year students were experiencing throughout that year.
Comments
Post a Comment