This was an article submitted to academia-research.com as a test for being 'research' writer. The evaluation that came within hours was that the writing was rejected for one reason (among two) that it is plagiarism. It is quite a curious contention, for just to write down what is in my own head I am not getting time, let alone time to copy others. 

1.     Introduction

The statement There is no hope of doing perfect research comes from Professor Morwenna Griffiths book: Educational Research for Social Justice: Getting off the Fence. This statement has a context. For, the book is connected to research in the field of education, as it faces the issues of social justice, fairness and equality. However, the general discussion on this quote can go into a wider framework of reference.

The most common discussions on this topic is connected the domain of whether human beings can go in for research and come out with definite findings. The history of how human beings went on developing from one finding to another, spurred on by the fact that the previous findings were inadequate, is elaborated.

However the issue in this type of discussions is that there is confusion between the words research and findings or discoveries. Both are not synonyms and cannot be used as such.  

2.     A human failing

a.     Islam* as an example

Now we need to discuss the quote in the context of what Professor Morwenna Griffiths meant. She was discussing about the innate human failing in everyman of coming up or gathering up of data that suits his or her ideological positions. For example, when an Islamist does research on human diseases, there is an innate tug to find examples of diseases that have been pointed out in the Hadiz, such as the possible infection by tapeworm when one eats pork; chance of contracting rabies when interacting dogs etc. 

b.     Extremes of jingoism 

Another area where this can happen is when doing search on national histories. Take for instance the example of Indian history. India was formed in 1947. Before that there was no India as such, other than British-India, which was also not completely in correspondence with modern India. For example, the princely states of Travancore and Cochin were not part of India, but really independent kingdoms. However, the people of this part also celebrate Independence Day as liberation day from British rule. The academicians also write on matching lines. 

c.      The word India

There are a lot of themes that can be brought out from this single example. For instance, look at these lines on Wikipedia: When a rumour broke out that Nader had been assassinated, some of the Indians attacked and killed Persian troops. Nader reacted by ordering his soldiers to plunder the city. This is an incident that happened in the period circa 1700 AD. The word Indian has been used. However, it is apparently clear that there was no Indian around there. 

d.     Another instance from Indian history

Now, look at this statement from the history connected to Rani Padmini (Wikipedia): On hearing of this decision, Padmini decided that with their men-folk going into the unequal struggle with the Sultan's army in which they were sure to perish, the women of Chittor had either to commit the divine suicide called as Jauhar or face dishonour at the hands of the victorious enemy. Now if in the first instance the word Indian can be used, then in the second instance the statement could very well be redrafted as: On hearing of this decision, Padmini decided that with their men-folk going into the unequal struggle with the Indian army in which they were sure to perish, the women of Chittor had either to commit the divine suicide called as Jauhar or face dishonour at the hands of the victorious Indian army. 

Actually, the fact is that the word Indian in inappropriate in both statements. However, it would need a very ferocious bit of argument to make an Indian history researcher to do that in the first instance, for he or she is indoctrinated by Indian education to view certain ideas as sacred postulates which are true and cannot be questioned.

3.     Human positioning in languages

That much is only one side of understanding Professor Griffiths word. There are other facets. This issue is about the problem of languages. Generally the global academic discussions are in English. Academic ideas in other languages are translated into English. How do we know if anything is lost in this translation? 

For example, take the simple sentence: Why dont you sit down? 

In English there is only one word for You. However, in many other languages, mainly Asian and African there are many levels of words for You, He, She, His, Her, Hers, and even for verbs, and also for descriptions. Even though this may initially be taken as a hierarchical manner of communication as one would find in military set up, the truth is different. Actually, the different words are used to connect to persons, institutions and events differently as one would use different gears in a motor vehicle. Each one of the different words used defines a person differently, and change the complete speed of his or her social movement, status and prominence in society. In fact, simple words do contain huge codes of provocation and of ennobling. Only persons who know the language can understand the power in it. 

a.     When a native-English speaker went berserk 

In this context, one may mention the Jallianwala incident in British-India, wherein the Indian soldiery shot down a number of civilians when they violated military prohibitions in force. The commander was a British officer. Now, how can the provocation be understood unless one can understand the provocations in an Indian language set up. 

b.     What a colonial English man understood and what a stay-at-home English man couldnt understand

In this context one can go through the speech of Robert Clive*(1772): The inhabitants, especially of Bengal, in inferior stations, are servile, mean, submissive, and humble. In superior stations, they are luxurious, effeminate, tyrannical, treacherous, venal, cruel.----------------------

From time immemorial it has been the custom of that country, for an inferior never to come into the presence of a superior without a present. It begins at the nabob, and ends at the lowest man that has an inferior. 

However, such persons as Edmund Burke, who were scholars and researchers in history and social sciences themselves, had no means of understanding India, and power of the feudal languages there. But could still propound to understand the globe from a base in English. Burke couldnt visualize a social system entirely different from England and a language that cannot fully be transliterated into English without loosing a lot of sense. Now, the truth is that the social system and communication are definitely not the same in England and in India. This cannot be explained unless the Indian languages are known. It is like saying that what is true in MS Word is true in Adobe PageMaker, for both are text writing tools, without knowing both. 

c.      Where Islam differs from Muslims

This issue is there in understanding many things. For example, when studying Islam, there is an essential contradiction that is very evident. The life and personality of Prophet Muhammad is in sharp contrast with the vibrant attitude of Muslims. The prophet is seen as an extremely forgiving and tolerant person, who more or less exists as an outsider to Asian social customs. However, Muslims are seen to be quite provocative and very violent. Now, how can one understand Muslims unless one understands their languages which contain highly provocative codes, which do not have any link with Islamic tenets? Languages such as Hindi, Urdu, Malayalam, Tamil, Cantonese and many others do have this. 

4.     Social justice and language codes

Now, we need to go into another aspect of Professor Morwenna Griffiths words.  The feudal languages do have a very significant effect on such things as Self-identity, Self-esteem, Gender equality, Social dignity and Social Justice. The professors research turf is connected to this. However, how can she herself come to any intelligent understandings by her wide range of educational research including classroom-based action research, large-scale surveys, philosophical analysis, and qualitative evaluations without knowing about the codes in the native languages of the speakers who are being researched upon? Whatever inputs she gets would be only a trimmed-out English translation of reality. It is essentially like trying to understand a monkey tribes social and family hierarchy without knowing the codes within their communication set up. 

a.     Sly cunning that goes with social development

However there is need to speak of Professor Griffiths own interest in such things as social justice. In this context, I need to mention a discussion I had with a formal social worker {PG in Master of Social Work (MSW)} in India, who was working with a powerful NGO in the field of social development of the underdogs. I specifically asked her about how she would deal with the issue of allowing equal dignity to the persons who she was ostensibly working to develop. She simply answered with no qualms, that it was the instruction given to her that under no circumstances should she allow them to come into equality or equal dignity. For, if given such freedom, they would simply use equal stature words for You, She, Her, Hers etc. which when done by the lower people can be despoiling and forceful degrading. She has to consistently keep them suppressed by means of lower grade words, used powerfully. Now, here again the issue of social justice that Professor Griffiths was trying to connect with is absent. However, how can these things be explained or understood in English. 

b.     Power of perspective*

From this premises I need to deal with another issue connected with social studies. It is that of perspective. There is a very specific problem connected to perspective in Indian and similar feudal languages. The same scene, persons, issues etc. will be seen differently by different levels of persons. By levels I mean the specific level in verbal codes they are assigned by others in society, and which they themselves accept. A person on top of the codes may see the issue, person or scene with a downward glance. At the same time, the person who is on the lower position of the verbal codes may look up at the scene with an upper glance. The mental processing and also, the understanding of the scene differ. Beyond this there is another more belligerent stance. That of a lower positioned person glancing at the other higher person, institution or issue with a downward glance. He is trying to upset the positioning. The conceptualization complete changes. 

This is one of the limitations to perfection in social research in nations in Asia, Africa, and some European nations like Italy.  Not quite understandable in English. 

5.     Jealousy and other attacks of the green-eyed monster

Now, let me take up another facet of the quote. That of, who does appreciate the research and the findings? When Isaac Newton* came out with his laws of motion and gravitation, he was terribly ridiculed. The accusation was that he was trying to insert his pet ideas on occultism into science. The standard question was: Where is the rope that pulls? 

He was so upset by the ridicule that he did not dare to come out with his discoveries in the field of Calculus for a long time. For it was a weirder proposition. Later Leibniz came out with similar ideas. Here the quote from Professor Griffiths enters into a different meaning. That of perfect research being seen as a social and personal threat by persons who claim to be authorities in their subjects. 

6.     What ultimately limits research quality

Now coming back to the quoted words of Professor Morwenna Griffiths, it is possible that the professor might be alluding to the environment that allows perfect research. Research is an ongoing process. The state of perfection is the settings and mentality. That may not be possible due to the innate rascality of human beings and social competitions.  Or perhaps limited thus.