ÖйúAƬ

In response to Emma Rees¡¯ article on ¡°mesearch¡± (¡°My work is my life¡±, Features, 19 March), I¡¯ve been thinking about my personal biases as I¡¯m writing up my PhD on the theology of music. When I started, I was seeking an objective perspective on theology and music. I was easily persuaded and found it difficult to construct my own arguments. This filtered through to my writing, where I used the passive voice to disclaim any claims I made. Academic tomes had the final word. I realise now that my perspective may be different from those of established academics, but it is equally valid.

Researchers have to be selective, and choices are always guided by a variety of personal and academic factors. I am likely to write about music that I like and am familiar with, but still I have left out far more research than I have put into the final thesis. My research interests reflect my leisure interests, but if I wasn¡¯t interested in it I wouldn¡¯t research it.

My musical experiences have also been significant: concerts have helped me to clarify my ideas on the work performed, and I have been introduced to new music. I am not the same person at the end of the PhD process as I was at the beginning; the ¡°me¡± in my ¡°mesearch¡± is now a more knowledgeable and confident ¡°me¡±. I appreciate that no piece of research can be comprehensive or final, and as I continue to develop, I can imagine my research perspective changing.

Danielle Lynch
PhD researcher, University of Leeds
Twitter: