I feel that social scientists should forgo these claims and justifications, for if we as social scientists don't deem our own field as legitimate, how is anyone else to?
I understand that there is 'bad' social science research out there, and additionally know that we are all in a way 'social scientists'. Is this perhaps the reason we need to justify our claims and research?
Tamara
I found that comparison also interesting Tamara. I don't know if it is a matter of justifying presence or more a matter of ensuring that social scientists, like any professionals, are constantly seeking ways to improve and better their work. It's important to think critically and by examining the bad (and/or making comparisons to other industries/ sectors) and seeking new ways to make good research it helps strengthen the arena of research.
ReplyDeleteAlso as an aside, I really liked the use of the Venn diagram in the readings which subsequently turned into the bedraggled daisy!! I tried it out and was fascinated at how my case study encompasses so many over-arching research areas (something that subconsciously I had been aware of but to see it laid out was definitely an "a-ha" moment)
I've been thinking about the journalism/social research comparison as well, particularly what it tells us about the self-imposed filters of scholarly research as a medium. When Luker suggests that we "frame" our research questions (near the end of ch.4) according to what is already being published, in order to insinuate ourselves seamlessly into existing conversations in our chosen subject area, she is asking us to filter our research questions according to what has already been deemed necessary and acceptable by the academic community. There is, therefore, an economy of social research, which limits what kinds of questions can even be asked.
ReplyDeleteReturning to our discussion last week about “truth,” I think some of the most knowable truths are social ones since humans created them. But this economic approach to social research limits the kind of truths we may discover to those which are the most marketable.
I whole-heartedly agree! I think the act of seating ones research in an existing discourse truly limits the types of questions that may be asked. If social scientists aren't willing to branch out and seek questions to answers yet asked, who will?
ReplyDeleteI understand the value of this framing process -- it allows others to know whether research is nicely aligned with others, increasing the probability that it's accurate, or whether it needs work (i.e. it goes against the bulk of what others are saying). But how will social scientists move forward if they are constantly looking back?
Just a thought!
Tamara
Right ... and I don't think the "framing" approach is restricted to social science, either. Doing my undergrad in the humanities citing secondary sources was often required when making an argument, effectively restricting the conversation to saying again, albeit in your own way, what had been said before. Maybe this approach is necessary to build a "body of knowledge." Imagine if a thousand different researchers or academics were each talking about something different. You'd have a cacophony, a thousand one-way conversations, none of which would be very much use to anyone. I can appreciate the functional expedience of joining existing conversations, but it does feel disempowering for the novice researcher (if we were old pros I'm sure we could talk about whatever we wanted to and others would be trying to worm their way into our conversations). Something to keep in mind as we're coming up with research questions.
ReplyDeleteI still feel uncomfortable with the 'truth-making' and 'claimsmaking' that Knight is referring to. Isn't our theory about "why" or our explanation just a guess, a hypothesis? I can appreciate that Luker wants us to explain rather than simply describe (the difference between journalism and social science research), but I believe that critical theory involves multiple voices, multiple truths, and my version would not be a universal, positivistically provable fact.
ReplyDeleteI did some journal surfing to see if any of my interests came out in the literature in any particular way, and was not surprised to see that it's not covered anywhere. Does that mean that my topic is ill-defined, or that it really has no relevance to anyone but me, and is purely personal with no public value? I need to think about audience, and why anyone else would care about the outcome of my research.
Ann-Marie, I do identify with your discomfort with the high-stakes game of “truth“ and “claims-making”. As I plunge deeper into the readings I’m confronted with the distinct feeling that I know much less than I thought I did – about research and my own nascent area of inquiry. Reading Luker, I discover that where I thought I had developed a ‘research question’, I have only identified a ‘research interest’. I now think my ‘interest area’ is somewhat half-baked, and feel loathe to reveal it even to you, my blogmates, for fear of 1) sounding stupid, or 2) having my idea ‘stolen” (does engaging in research dispose one to paranoia?). I want to do something on children/boys attention span in the classroom and the effect of brain lateralization exercises like Brain Gym, and I now realize that ‘inserting myself into the professional conversation’ (as one of you so aptly put it), means doing a Lit. Review that is far more serious than I originally imagined. I do know I want to do qualitative research – does that fit with my “interest”? Aargh!
ReplyDeleteP.S. Do you think we should come up with a snappy new name for our blog? (not that I have one....) All I can think of is that there is (Research) Method in our Madness. Surely one of you can do better...
ReplyDeleteGreat discussion you guys - I'm especially enjoying the deconstruction of "framing" and how putting parameters will necessarily have a limiting effect. At the same time, I think of all the papers (journal articles, press articles) I read that make wild statements and assumptions about research topics that have in fact been well documented, discussed & debated in various ways...that would have been so much better if the authors had only done their homework (i.e. lit review). As with all things, it seems to be about finding a balance - being able to position your work within what's been said, while concurrently striking your own, original path (diverging, being critical of what's been done or said, identifying oversights, etc.). Anyway - lots to think about here :)
ReplyDeleteI posted earlier today and now its missing ): I am still having problems. I guess I will have to start saving my posts as word docs in case they don't upload form now on... I will try again from scratch.
ReplyDeleteI did get a lot out of this weeks readings. Especially the chapter on reviewing the literature. Particularly the her points on befriending the librarian and her reference to the annual review series as a way to check out emerging fields. I think it's important also to see how other people are pitching their ideas in ways so that we can learn to frame our questions in ways that matter in the larger scheme of things.
I do like Knight, but find it a little dry. Still useful to understand the bare bones of things, cut and dry. The 'so what, who cares, what does it mean' stuck out to me the most. I think that I need to look at my research question in that way.
Finally I have my question and have been keeping it in the forefront of my mind as I do the readings. I would like to ask:
Are the Toronto Public Library materials and services accessible to the elderly? (with a focus on physical and psychological barriers)
See everyone in class tomorrow!
Santiago sent me my original post in case anyone is interested (Thanks Santiago!!):
ReplyDeleteHello everyone:
I am happy to say I have my topic and have been hashing it out along with
the readings for class. I have narrowed it down from: How affective are the
Toronto Public Library Services in satisfying the needs of the elderly
population to: How accessible are the Toronto Public Library services for
the elderly? I will need to narrow it down even more (ie/physically
accessible or psychological barriers) but it's a start.
As for this weeks readings, I found Knight (chapt.2) a little more dry than
the Luker readings but still useful. I can appreciate Knights more direct
approach when exploring the different types of research thinking and
practice. It helped me to put myself on the map. I am definitely situated
somewhere between critical realism & pragmatism and anti-realism and
post-structuralism. More specifically I have been thinking about what kinds
of data inquiry I would like to engage in including semi structured
questionnaires. I am also interested in Action research (real problem
situations where the aim is to affect practice). Since I already work at
the TPL thinking about this research will have practical applications for
me in my work as a librarian. I also the "so what, who cares? what does it
mean?" (Knight, Chapt.2) to be very helpful. I altered my topic to take
this into consideration. The 'so what' of my problem is that the TPL prides
itself on being accessible to the public. It would be important to
determine what this accessibility means and are there any groups that might
be overlooked or neglected.
I found Luker's chapter on 'reviewing the literature' very useful
ie/befriending a librarian, her mention of the annual review series and
most importantly 'Harvard'... I couldn't help but think that I was one of
those poor unsuspecting students when starting this degree: I read
EVERYTHING! Needless to say I was the nervous breakdown kid... so learning
how to work smarter and not harder is key!
That's all for this week (:
Posted by Desiree Jaeger to INF 1240 Research Blog at September 28, 2011
10:52 AM
Hmmm, I’ve just re-read all our musings on info-glut, the net, and framing questions (as we stumble towards enlightenment) and it seems Knight gives an answer of sorts on p. 19 when he says ‘valuable claims’ have been made analyzing other’s data and suggesting new ways of understanding it. As I read I become more convinced that we privilege data at the expense of our ability to synthesize and make sense of it, which is the much higher cognitive function and contribution. The comparison of research (lofty) and journalism (muck-raking) seems to have everyone fired up. It seems to me the better comparison is research and ‘investigative’ journalism with its history of digging for hidden or ignored information, spotting internal contradictions, exposing events in a new light, and making connections across areas of inquiry. I think there’s a message there for us in the idea of ‘going against the grain’. We don’t just want to insert ourselves in the ongoing scholarly dialogue, we want to have something new to say. Ann-Marie is so right in saying it’s our interpretations that make our research valuable.
ReplyDeletewell said, Leslie.
ReplyDelete'What to do if you don't have a case' was a fairly useful read for assignment 1, as the SSHRC stipulations meant a square peg – round hole situation for my initial research idea, which ultimately forced me to abandon my original area of interest for a topic more pliable to their requirements.
ReplyDeleteI started off not really liking the Luker readings, and a few weeks later I still don't enjoy them. I'm still finding the salsa dancing trope tiresome, but I've come to appreciate why we've been assigned the text. Research methods comes across as one of those subjects that can be taught out of a book but is best suited to experiential learning or something close to it. Knight gives us an excellent introduction to the framework of methods available to the researcher, but he largely leaves us to ourselves when it comes to offering up the wisdom needed to guide our decision making. That's not to say I don't enjoy the Knight readings either -- I prefer them to Luker by some margin. Not having a strong research background I find what he provides essential to understanding the whole business of research, but Luker's view is equally indispensable. Fundamentally, Knight introduces us to the tools of the trade while Luker gives us an old hand's view of how to use them.