Wednesday, November 30, 2011

AhHA!

First I want to point out how much I appreciate this week. Up until now I felt that I was being given a handful of puzzle pieces but I had never really been told what the picture looked like. This weeks readings felt like the: "so we threw all this at you, let us simplify and hold your hand for a second". I know that I should be able to sludge through it on my own and I really want the independent ability to think through the problems of my research proposal, but sometimes I just want my mom to hold my hand when I cross the street (outside of this horrid metaphor, my mom is actually a superhero ninja disguised as a cute little greying accountant so I like her help all the time).

I'm a little lost on what to comment on because I threw "Harvarding" out the window and read over this week with a fine tooth comb. I think I'll be SMART about it (and ask you to forgive me for over-tired brains excuses at humor this week). Knight laid out SMART as: Specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely. Looking at my research this was it truly forces me to build my fences and define what is in my study to access the 'achievable, realistic and timely' aspects of SMART - ie. ART. Luker also seemed to have walked me through a similar set of requirements in chapter 7. Reflecting on my proposal I believe that I need to reconsider by I picked my specific cases and if I made the research harder on myself than necessary and potentially unattainable. For instance I chose to study a exhibit at a museum in Ottawa but I never considered the ROM as an alternative. I am likely not going to be able to go to Ottawa due to work reasons, so would this choice make my research unachievable and if so, would the ROM serve a similar purpose or does it not fit my study?

7 comments:

  1. The readings this week by Luker and Knight drive home the importance of critical thinking, reflexivity, intentionality, and researcher subjectivity when designing and applying research methods. Memories of INF1002 are running through my head as I was thinking “when am I ever going to be making categories of social phenomena?” and now I see that this is exactly what data analysis entails! Imposing schemas on the data and naming patterns to come up with believable and reasonable claims about the research findings is the whole point! The burden of responsibility is very heavy when we consider the ethical requirements we discussed last week. Will the study reveal ‘truths’ that put the study participants in a bad light or incur negative consequences? How can my research improve or benefit the participants in a meaningful way – not just to secure their commitment to participate, but to be a good steward of their trust and faith in my good intentions?
    The tip about locating a “map” of theoretical literature that relates to my question is very helpful. I wouldn’t know where to begin to think about the data once gathered unless there were some academic frameworks available from which to begin to interpret and understand the possible significance. I am definitely going to spend more time in my literature review seeking out theory that help to inform my hypothesis in the final research paper.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Luker's emphasis on reflexivity made me realize that in past research I have been inclined to take the linear (canonical) approach: find a topic, gather all the data, print out notes, read them over, analyze then, then write. By constantly making the little effort to analyze each set of data collected rather than taking a day to do it at the end will drastically change not only how your final product will turn out (likely more detailed since important points weren't lost in the jumble on the last day) but also how you research. Like Luker says, "exploring those bets with yourself about what is an what is not a reliable pattern" (200), which will inform your research strategies and approaches. Although I tend to put little stars beside important points in research to tell myself "look up later," doing a thorough analysis at the end of each document (for me personally as I intended to do content analysis) will inevitably produce a list of things to "look up."
    Something else which I was shocked came to mind was that this reflexive approach is a lot like the Agile method we learned about in INF 1003, no ? It's likely because Elfi and I (along with our other group partner) were just yesterday working on our final assignment for INF 1003 where we are using Agile... but it was kind of like the above 'AHA ! moment' where I was able to draw parallels. It struck me when I was reading Luker's Chapter 10 at the very beginning when she says, "we do all these things too, of course, but we do them over and over and over" (199). It reminded me of the Agile methodology in design since there was the constant revision happening whereby you test prototypes (or in Luker's terms "private bets" of where your research can go) and then go back and try to revise it again similar to the constant analysis happening in salsa dancing social sciences. This may be a strained connection however I had to share because like my group member was discussing before about INF 1002, its always helpful to pull in ideas from other courses to strengthen your understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oddly I am a very different writer/researcher and I think it is because I have rarely ventured past the 30 page paper size. I tend to think of a topic and read and read and read. Then I write and write and write and sometimes reference for quotes and primary source information. Then I print it off and highlight all the areas that need a source :S. From there I look at my pile of things I have read and panic and try to picture the place/feel of the paper/book that I read that small piece for information from to be able to properly source it. When I was a MLA girl this was a bit harder as I needed all the page numbers and now that I have (attempted) to switch over to APA I find myself wanting to wander back to that method. I have been trying to catch myself mid-writing so that I don't have to circle back and seek out where I learned to think that thought and add the source later.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Among this week’s assigned readings, I took away comparatively more from Knight, chapter 5, than the others; perhaps the “rubber meets the road” tone, and in particular, such observations in the context of small-scale research. The highlights…

    Mixed methods as a means to the following:
    • Acknowledgement of the complexity inherent in the subject being studied
    • Credible claims that the research design is consistent with a thoughtful attempt to advance understanding concerning a clearly stated subject of study, whether such claims are of a positivist (broadly generalizable) or inferential nature
    • Credible claims of validity and reliability
    • Credible claims of a pervasive mindfulness for ethical considerations

    When using mixed methods, the need to rationalize their use by clearly articulating the role each plays in supporting the overriding strategy (p. 127, 128)

    Considerations concerning robust validity:
    • Being mindful of the potential to benefit from the use of multiple methods, and varied theories
    • Piloting research instruments so as to common perceptions of interpretation between researcher and participant

    Concerning robust reliability, that while pursuing a reliable instrument for data capture, there exists the potential to “de-contextualize” the subject of interest

    ReplyDelete
  5. In my undergrad we had to read a lot of research papers, and I always found it fascinating how authors would discuss - what seemed to be at the time - randomly linked theories and ideas to create their lit review. Like one of those movies where you know its all going to come together and make sense at the end (i.e. in the discussion section), I waited with bated breath. Then, sure enough, there it was! A coherent conclusion drawn from a set of mish-mashed ideas. Now with a larger toolkit, I see why these lit reviews appear this way. No longer am I thinking these authors were creating something from a mangled mess, they were simply generating new and interesting concepts borne out of a varied set of literatures.

    Now all I can think of is how to bring it all together and make it sound coherent with my own lit review!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I could not agree more with the above posts from this week! I definitely found myself not “Harvarding” and highlighting a lot during this week’s readings. I will definitely be referring to the chapter in Luker quite often during the next few weeks as I work on my research proposal.

    One of the main points I took away from the chapter was the need to really specify your case and set clear boundaries, or else the goal of your research can be lost. This reminded me of English classes back in high school when we first learned the whole “point, proof, and explain” approach to essay writing to help us keep our writing and arguments focused. For our final assignment, we must ensure that everything we propose to do in our research is going to help us answer our research question, and not something else relating to our broader research interest.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It’s so intriguing reading all of our posts, as we struggle toward enlightenment. I hope others are having the experience that I am (possibly self-delusion, but I hope not…) that my research is actually do-able! Like “mgwatchorn”, I madly highlighted the section in Knight about mixed research methods as a way of cross-verifying patterns. I knew that my research consisted of a process that is beginning to look as if it will incorporate: one short focus group; twenty or so ‘researcher as participant’ sessions where I closely observe newcomers searching for specific information on library websites; possible eye movement tracking (I must check the cost of this); exit interviews; and a brief exit survey. While this was beginning to look like ‘research gluttony’, I can feel a little more confident that my multiple approaches will lead to a clearer picture – and one that is more verifiable.

    Oh, and Tamara – I loved your reference to the seemingly tangled mess of unrelated articles you used to see in Lit. Reviews. I have discovered that there is a huge hole in the middle of my research area. I can find no articles specifically on web design for ease of use by newcomers, so my Lit. Review will be a ‘tangled mess’ of seemingly unrelated articles on home-page design, library service to newcomers, the multi-cultural digital divide, and such. I notice that your Lit Reviews always resulted in research conclusions that miraculously pulled all this disparate data together – I can only hope that mine does the same!

    ReplyDelete