The Pathfinder

The Pathfinder

Dr.Priyantha Tilakasiri
Department of Languages, Cultural Studies and Performing Arts
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
University of Sri Jayewrdenepura    

        In the context of Humanities, it is debatable whether it is possible to put ethnographies into text. The idea is reasonable because words simply cannot exceed feelings or emotions. With respect to this, in reading and interpreting humanities, a text has a secondary value. However, humans negotiate with words, read the world through words, and use to document them according to their comprehension. 

         Is this comprehension ultimate? 

        Thousands of viewpoints could arise related to a particular phenomenon; due to this uncertainty of views encompass one phenomenon, discussions become critical and, however, relatively possible to be refined, focal and more reliable by sharing in a sophisticated milieu. The review process in an academic conference or a journal is a charming interaction between an expert and a novice or, sometimes between two experts. Some scholarly reviews of IRCHSS-2016, which were highly potent to call one’s insight, as I believe, stimulated me to have a glance at the role of the exact reviewer.

 

       A vast body of arguments, definitions, analyses and conclusions cumulate in the academic domain. Moreover, frequently formulated theories make the academic domain so complex and consequently, studies become broader. Immersing in this knowledge, the scholar contemplates what he knew. In this sense, every scholar is a certain reviewer.  

        However, is every scholar an ideal reviewer?

       A reviewer plays an exceptional role being a responsible stranger.  A great reviewer is generally an expert in the field what he reviews. His role is not meant for criticism; in contrast, it is meant for avoiding both criticism and being biased. He guides, delineates, elucidates, construes and admires scholarly merits. On one hand, he always imparts the reviewing dimensions, enhancing author’s knowledge; a reviewer is a pathfinder, who directs an author towards different novel areas letting him re-think about his familiar work. On the other hand, a reviewer is a great learner.  Whenever he reviews, a vast body of knowledge encompasses him. Hence, the reviewing process is exactly potent to improve the   expertise.

       In general, a reviewer may experience perfect research documents, honest, but poor attempts, average reports, or ostensibly rich yet fraudulent documents. Under this circumstance, a rich reviewed document that comes to the author’s hand brings the lesson of “sincerity”. This very sincerity could be identified in a number of ways. The predominant example is the moderate views of the reviewer, which pervade the overall text he reviewed. Moreover, he is vigilant with the author’s clear comprehension, proper interpretations, novelty, and authenticity. Rather, he may subtly advise the author, to be honest and patient in achieving academic goals, avoiding petty plagiarisms that could be seen in some cases unfortunately. A sublime review manifests the scholarly charisma blessing the reader. 

      Knowledge is not the destination. Wisdom directs the utility of knowledge. Wisdom manages over-travels of knowledge. One must be mindful and ever-ready to abandon gained knowledge, which is irrelevant to the scope. This point is beyond education. The great reviewer reveals this reality by his reviewed document.   A reviewer is not indifferent; the exact reviewer is always an unknown supporter, who encourages the author by accepting him, suggesting him, or of course, rejecting him for his future enhancement.