Twists, turns and tangents By Cynthia Dempster

Last fall, the term seemed like an eternity. I was like Paul, I kept changing my research question. I liked doing this. Each change was exciting, like going on an intellectual picnic. When I finally decided on a topic, I kept changing methods(please don’t tell Prof. Galey or Glenn). I have danced the methodological tangent dance and enjoyed it immensely. I did finally determine a method. However, I found the tangents assisted me. The topical tangent helped me because I saw my chosen topic in the context of my multiple interests. I also found ways that my concerns overlapped. Luker describes salsa dancing research as a “conundrum:-“you don’t really know what it’s about until the very end”(2008, p. 130). The methodological tangent helped me. I came to see that the different methods can overlap and contain aspects of each other. The method that I chose was the in person interview method. There is an aspect of ethnography to conducting an in person interview.

My research is qualitative. However, it is impossible to avoid quantitative concerns. Quantitative questions, surmises and interests do influence qualitative studies even if they aren’t directly expressed. I think numbers are always present as an inference, even when they aren’t applied. For example, here are some questions that lurk behind my interview questions. Does this question get to the core of the matter? Does it potentially expose something that could be counted or compared? Is the response typical? How many archivists would respond in a similar way?

Part way through my work, I discovered I was trying to do something impossible. I am studying blind spots in archives. I am studying ways that archives are unconscious. I became aware that it is impossible to be conscious of the unconscious. It is impossible to see a blind spot. I then asked myself: is it possible to conduct a study of something that is impossible? Can an attempt to do something impossible yield results that are valuable and knowable? I decided ‘yes’. If I’m right, I’ll be happy. If I’m wrong there will still be an ancillary benefit to my attempt. Prof. Galey and Glenn will have a good laugh.

Luker, K.(2008). Salsa dancing into the social sciences. Harvard University Press.