do things. Yesterday's non-work involved two loads of washing, ironing, meals, bread making, answering 83 e-mails for people who do work and the leisurely proof-reading of a thesis that nearly put me to sleep.
The latter was very relaxing. I will not trouble you with the topic. Suffice to say it was intensely dull and badly written. It is worthy of a fail but standards are low enough for it to be passed - just.
I have read more than my fair share of doctoral theses. One or two have actually been interesting, some have had interesting moments, most have been dull and some intensely dull. Most of them have been badly written. Ability to do research and the ability to write do not necessarily go together. There is almost an unwritten rule that research must be written in the most turgid prose possible - along with the use of unnecessarily long words.
But, I must remember that reading these things is not work. (I am not sure what it is.)
What bothers me more is the subject matter of some of these things. Are they really adding to our knowledge of the world? Are they really about something important? Have people run out of sensible, useful things to research?
There also seems to be a notion that you must be able to find research about your research. You need to be able to show evidence of reading. You must be able to quote from the research which has gone before. Nothing else is acceptable until you reach post-doctoral level.
This is not exploration. It is treading paths which have already been trodden. It is nothing more than a quick step off to the side before darting back to the safety of the known. I was once told "Don't quote outside the set texts. I don't have time to read anything else."
I can understand why this is happening but it worries me.
I am glad I "do not work". It gives me the freedom to explore.