I'm interested in the problem of structure Knight touches on in this week’s chapter. Different research questions may call for more or less structured research methods, but what I find interesting are the structures inherent even in ‘less structured’ methods. Knight says:
"It is sometimes thought that it is possible to have unstructured observations. A response is that they are simply ones where the investigators have not appreciated the ways in which common sense and the scripts and schemata that they routinely use to interpret perceptions are acting as a filter on perception itself." (54)
Loosely structured, open-ended interviews may therefore be just as heavily structured as highly structured interviews because the dependence of the former on the interviewer’s subjectivity (their ability to adapt to the ‘flow’ of the interview while making observations on the fly) bring his or her bias into play, automatically organizing incoming data along the lines of his or her social-political-economical-racial-sexual location.
How does this affect the truth discussion we were having a few weeks back? For me it suggests that we have to be alright with the idea of truth being subjective, with stronger truths being those that hold up across subjectivities.
In closing, I’d like to say ‘malestream’ is my new (ironically) favourite word.
Lol..I like "malestream"! I completely agree with you, Greg, about the interviewer's subjectivity and the ways in which our own position will inform and influence the research design and possible theories.
I particularly enjoyed the discussion this week about face to face methods because of my love of ethnography and ‘thick description’ (Geertz). The point was plainly made, however, when Lunt identifies the difficulty with qualitative methods is that it is hard to prove theories using just participant observation. I shied away from graduate work in Anthropology because of the statistical analysis, questionnaire design, and other quantitiative methods of primary research. Structured methods deliver neat, tidy, digestible data, but unstructured data is so unwieldy and complex to make sense of.
Similarly, what fascinates me is the study of the way “the researcher is the instrument” (Knight, p. 54). The social construction of meaning and notions of identity are two themes which I would like to explore, and I relate to Knight’s point about “insiders” vs people who are”other” because I want to position my research as a woman studying women. Critical theory addresses power relations and challenges the positivist view of ‘objective’ research.
My research question deals with female librarians and the profession of librarianship. I want to know if the goals that are important to women are reflected in the career paths of female information professionals. There are so many women in the field, does the job really meet women’s desires for actualization, advancement, family, remuneration, and healthy balance? Is the profession of librarianship more or less conducive to women’s goals than other similar professions with fewer female representation? What can librarianship learn from, or teach, others about empowering female professionals?
I enjoyed Knight’s breakdown of the different methods in chapter 3 but it left me feeling quite nervous, not only about what would be appropriate/ a fit for my research interest/ question, but also realising that each have their areas which are quite regulated (which can provide a common ground for each interviewee/informant/ respondent but also means that the researcher must be highly conscious of decisions being made around which method to use in tandem with respecting the nature of their research overall)– from suggestions of checklists (observation method –pg 56) and establishing an agenda (interview method– pg. 66) to the multi-layered memory work method (wow, I’d like to hear more on that one!), it certainly opened my eyes to the possibilities – and challenges.
I too was interested in the concept of the “researcher as the instrument” but am seeing that the boundaries of being ‘’an instrument’ require definition and that as an instrument the power of influencing findings could be at a detriment to the overall data/ research being pursued. I’m conflicted! In theory I am comfortable with the thought of being ‘’an instrument’’ but in practice I would not want to completely be a major factor in shaping results...
All these thoughts are certainly making me reflect on readings in previous courses and the methods that authors/ academics have chosen to gather data, draw conclusions, etc. Greg, your question around ‘truth’ is a good point and in the context of previous course readings/ ‘the literature review’ I think it is not only important to read carefully the results of other authors/ academics but also read into the way(the tools aka research method) that have brought them to their truths. All may not be what it seems! (Wow, am I ever cynical!!)
oooohhh - this is such a great discussion. love the back and forth between espousing a critical approach, yet needing to be cognizant of how researcher as instrument (of power) can have (unintended) consequences on the results. Lots of connections being made here between the various weeks of readings, & in-class discussions too.
Knight's mention of the sympathy that researchers will sometimes have for their subjects (I think Luker covers the same ground as well, or gets close to it) and the implications this has for objectivity is something that troubles me no matter how much I try to rationalize and accept it. I'm distinctly uncomfortable with the idea of research that isn't neutral and bias-free and when qualitative research slips off the fence, or even risks doing so, I become automatically wary of any claims it might make regardless of the research topic or side taken. If the researcher is a filter of multiple realities and in his/her attempts to describe or define social phenomena actively constructs a particular reality that throws up social problems or theories, then the question of bias must be taken seriously. Decisions made when assembling field data (e.g. how to focus observations? what data points to retain/exclude to keep the amount of data manageable?) are bound to affect what conclusions drawn from any analysis. So, how true a description of society do we get? The results of research projects feed into debates over social issues and if the information to come out of studies is to be used to devise social policies its 'truthfulness' needs to be carefully mediated to be accurate and objective.
I'm interested in the problem of structure Knight touches on in this week’s chapter. Different research questions may call for more or less structured research methods, but what I find interesting are the structures inherent even in ‘less structured’ methods. Knight says:
ReplyDelete"It is sometimes thought that it is possible to have unstructured observations. A response is that they are simply ones where the investigators have not appreciated the ways in which common sense and the scripts and schemata that they routinely use to interpret perceptions are acting as a filter on perception itself." (54)
Loosely structured, open-ended interviews may therefore be just as heavily structured as highly structured interviews because the dependence of the former on the interviewer’s subjectivity (their ability to adapt to the ‘flow’ of the interview while making observations on the fly) bring his or her bias into play, automatically organizing incoming data along the lines of his or her social-political-economical-racial-sexual location.
How does this affect the truth discussion we were having a few weeks back? For me it suggests that we have to be alright with the idea of truth being subjective, with stronger truths being those that hold up across subjectivities.
In closing, I’d like to say ‘malestream’ is my new (ironically) favourite word.
Lol..I like "malestream"! I completely agree with you, Greg, about the interviewer's subjectivity and the ways in which our own position will inform and influence the research design and possible theories.
ReplyDeleteI particularly enjoyed the discussion this week about face to face methods because of my love of ethnography and ‘thick description’ (Geertz). The point was plainly made, however, when Lunt identifies the difficulty with qualitative methods is that it is hard to prove theories using just participant observation. I shied away from graduate work in Anthropology because of the statistical analysis, questionnaire design, and other quantitiative methods of primary research. Structured methods deliver neat, tidy, digestible data, but unstructured data is so unwieldy and complex to make sense of.
Similarly, what fascinates me is the study of the way “the researcher is the instrument” (Knight, p. 54). The social construction of meaning and notions of identity are two themes which I would like to explore, and I relate to Knight’s point about “insiders” vs people who are”other” because I want to position my research as a woman studying women. Critical theory addresses power relations and challenges the positivist view of ‘objective’ research.
My research question deals with female librarians and the profession of librarianship. I want to know if the goals that are important to women are reflected in the career paths of female information professionals. There are so many women in the field, does the job really meet women’s desires for actualization, advancement, family, remuneration, and healthy balance? Is the profession of librarianship more or less conducive to women’s goals than other similar professions with fewer female representation? What can librarianship learn from, or teach, others about empowering female professionals?
I enjoyed Knight’s breakdown of the different methods in chapter 3 but it left me feeling quite nervous, not only about what would be appropriate/ a fit for my research interest/ question, but also realising that each have their areas which are quite regulated (which can provide a common ground for each interviewee/informant/ respondent but also means that the researcher must be highly conscious of decisions being made around which method to use in tandem with respecting the nature of their research overall)– from suggestions of checklists (observation method –pg 56) and establishing an agenda (interview method– pg. 66) to the multi-layered memory work method (wow, I’d like to hear more on that one!), it certainly opened my eyes to the possibilities – and challenges.
ReplyDeleteI too was interested in the concept of the “researcher as the instrument” but am seeing that the boundaries of being ‘’an instrument’ require definition and that as an instrument the power of influencing findings could be at a detriment to the overall data/ research being pursued. I’m conflicted! In theory I am comfortable with the thought of being ‘’an instrument’’ but in practice I would not want to completely be a major factor in shaping results...
All these thoughts are certainly making me reflect on readings in previous courses and the methods that authors/ academics have chosen to gather data, draw conclusions, etc. Greg, your question around ‘truth’ is a good point and in the context of previous course readings/ ‘the literature review’ I think it is not only important to read carefully the results of other authors/ academics but also read into the way(the tools aka research method) that have brought them to their truths. All may not be what it seems! (Wow, am I ever cynical!!)
testing testing 1,2,3
ReplyDeleteoooohhh - this is such a great discussion. love the back and forth between espousing a critical approach, yet needing to be cognizant of how researcher as instrument (of power) can have (unintended) consequences on the results. Lots of connections being made here between the various weeks of readings, & in-class discussions too.
ReplyDeleteKnight's mention of the sympathy that researchers will sometimes have for their subjects (I think Luker covers the same ground as well, or gets close to it) and the implications this has for objectivity is something that troubles me no matter how much I try to rationalize and accept it. I'm distinctly uncomfortable with the idea of research that isn't neutral and bias-free and when qualitative research slips off the fence, or even risks doing so, I become automatically wary of any claims it might make regardless of the research topic or side taken. If the researcher is a filter of multiple realities and in his/her attempts to describe or define social phenomena actively constructs a particular reality that throws up social problems or theories, then the question of bias must be taken seriously. Decisions made when assembling field data (e.g. how to focus observations? what data points to retain/exclude to keep the amount of data manageable?) are bound to affect what conclusions drawn from any analysis. So, how true a description of society do we get? The results of research projects feed into debates over social issues and if the information to come out of studies is to be used to devise social policies its 'truthfulness' needs to be carefully mediated to be accurate and objective.
ReplyDelete