Though I am not sure in what field I am studying, I can give a loose definition of what I consider fieldwork in information science based on my own habits and preferences for my research. For me, fieldwork has to contain some element of human interaction. Reading materials are a good way to have convenient access to information on a wide variety of subjects, but there is only so much you can learn from reading. I think this is at the heart of Park's point about fieldwork. That merely examining the subject through the observations of others in print is only one way to approach fieldwork. And that going to the source of the information will help you examine the research in a new way.
The other reason I single out human interaction as being fieldwork is because it fits best with my own habits and preferences. Information, and books in particular, are all created by people, and I think that sometimes rather than reading a book on a particular subject, it is better to go and talk to an expert in the area that you are interested in. I try to do this as often as I can when I want to know about a subject, or I have a particular question. I find that getting an answer, or a lecture, from a person who is knowledgeable about something is the most enlightening type of information. I have been known to call, or to travel somewhere, to speak to someone in order to have one question answered. It is not always the most efficient method (especially in my example of needing one question answered), but the advantage I get from it is that I can ask further questions to clarify, and that I can hold greater confidence in the information that I get. We live in an age that has an abundance of information that is easily accessible, but without any guarantees to the quality of the information. Asking a person directly is a good method to practice because it allows you to put a name and a face to the information that you collect; rather than dealing with the uncertainty of online sources.
No comments:
Post a Comment