Friday, 6 December 2013
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.
Reflections on Research Development
I've found that I haven't made a lot of changes to my research question over the course of the semester. I think a lot of that is because this is a topic I've been thinking about researching for a couple of years. As I discussed in a previous post, I spent a lot of time at the beginning of the course thinking about how to make the topic more practical and adapting my research question to suit what I've learned at the iSchool.
However, my topic is a relatively exploratory one, and my research question is a little broad. My methodology, unstructured interviews, allows for some adaption during the course of the study to suit whatever I encounter at the time. So, perhaps, in the end I've left myself room to make last minute changes. As a fairly indecisive person I do have a tendency to try to keep my options open as long as possible, and I think it's interesting to consider how that aspect of my personality might have influenced the design of my research plan. Now that you've reflected back on the way your research developed, have any of you noticed a similar trend?
However, my topic is a relatively exploratory one, and my research question is a little broad. My methodology, unstructured interviews, allows for some adaption during the course of the study to suit whatever I encounter at the time. So, perhaps, in the end I've left myself room to make last minute changes. As a fairly indecisive person I do have a tendency to try to keep my options open as long as possible, and I think it's interesting to consider how that aspect of my personality might have influenced the design of my research plan. Now that you've reflected back on the way your research developed, have any of you noticed a similar trend?
Thursday, 5 December 2013
A Case to Consider
This is somewhat of an oddball post, as I am making up for a missed one over the reading week. I'm actually not sure why I didn't catch onto the fact that we would be posting over the reading week, as looking back, Professor Galey put up plenty of notices on both Blackboard and the course blog!
Anyway, these are some musings about research methods. For my research proposal, my chosen methodology is the case study, and reading about case studies has been a surprisingly inspiring experience! Before beginning the course, I knew very little about case studies (as a research method), but had heard the term often before, as it is used in a number of contexts, including education. Cases are useful teaching methods (especially in law, psychology, medicine, business, and more), in order to provide more contextual examples for students, setting theories and ideas into action.
Perhaps because the term "case study" is used as an umbrella concept to describe a number of different research and teaching approaches, that it is difficult to pin down the word in an easily definable definition. However, this is somewhat appropriate, as case studies are often detailed and complex narratives about microcosms of the world, and can be fascinating to read about.
Back to the inspirational moment! When thinking of research methods, the "aha!" moment often comes to mind, in which the intrepid researcher reveals an amazing fact about human existence, or whichever field their research focuses on. Not that I believed research was always about facts, but that it was about finding some sort specific result, which could be packaged into a sentence and shared with the world. So, essentially I always though more about the end, rather than the process. However, reading more and more about case studies and other forms of qualititative research, I have learned about the value in research in which the aim is not necessarily generalizability, and that this fact does not detract from its worth and relevance. Within the context of case studies, the case study itself is often the most important part, and not necessarily a clearly defined conclusion. Flyvbjerg's article regarding myths about case-study research (2006) is a really engaging read, revealing the intricacies of a misunderstood research method, and developing a detailed insight into what he believes (with the support of other scholars) research can be all about.
Anyway, these are some musings about research methods. For my research proposal, my chosen methodology is the case study, and reading about case studies has been a surprisingly inspiring experience! Before beginning the course, I knew very little about case studies (as a research method), but had heard the term often before, as it is used in a number of contexts, including education. Cases are useful teaching methods (especially in law, psychology, medicine, business, and more), in order to provide more contextual examples for students, setting theories and ideas into action.
Perhaps because the term "case study" is used as an umbrella concept to describe a number of different research and teaching approaches, that it is difficult to pin down the word in an easily definable definition. However, this is somewhat appropriate, as case studies are often detailed and complex narratives about microcosms of the world, and can be fascinating to read about.
Back to the inspirational moment! When thinking of research methods, the "aha!" moment often comes to mind, in which the intrepid researcher reveals an amazing fact about human existence, or whichever field their research focuses on. Not that I believed research was always about facts, but that it was about finding some sort specific result, which could be packaged into a sentence and shared with the world. So, essentially I always though more about the end, rather than the process. However, reading more and more about case studies and other forms of qualititative research, I have learned about the value in research in which the aim is not necessarily generalizability, and that this fact does not detract from its worth and relevance. Within the context of case studies, the case study itself is often the most important part, and not necessarily a clearly defined conclusion. Flyvbjerg's article regarding myths about case-study research (2006) is a really engaging read, revealing the intricacies of a misunderstood research method, and developing a detailed insight into what he believes (with the support of other scholars) research can be all about.
Reference
Flyvbjerg,
B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative
Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245. doi: 10.1177/1077800405284363
Tuesday, 3 December 2013
Questioning Research…
My research question has definitely changed over the course of the semester. I have changed and re-changed subjects so often that it has been difficult to keep track. I have had to be a little more introspective about my interests in order to decide on a research topic. Taking a deep look at your interests and thinking how to undertake a detailed exploration of them is actually a more difficult task than you would expect.
I have definitely learned how to take a new approach to research, as I have had to think of new approaches and methods to tackle different subject areas. Not having any research background, I had a fairly stereotypical view of research (labcoats and scientists), so it took some time for me to adjust to the different types of research that can be done with different methods.
I am still wrestling with my research question in that I am not sure where to place my focus on my topic. I can think of broad questions like "how does this work?" or "where did this come from?", but it is difficult to focus a research question to a specific issue or interest in my topic area. And though I might come up with some sub-questions for my topic, but I am never confident that each question is as interesting as the topic as a whole. You want to really explore the entirety of a subject and a feasible research question can sometimes feel limiting.
I have definitely learned how to take a new approach to research, as I have had to think of new approaches and methods to tackle different subject areas. Not having any research background, I had a fairly stereotypical view of research (labcoats and scientists), so it took some time for me to adjust to the different types of research that can be done with different methods.
I am still wrestling with my research question in that I am not sure where to place my focus on my topic. I can think of broad questions like "how does this work?" or "where did this come from?", but it is difficult to focus a research question to a specific issue or interest in my topic area. And though I might come up with some sub-questions for my topic, but I am never confident that each question is as interesting as the topic as a whole. You want to really explore the entirety of a subject and a feasible research question can sometimes feel limiting.
Monday, 2 December 2013
Gettin' the ol' discussion ball rolling
As part of this week’s blog question asks us to incite some
inter-blogger commentary, I was struck with the realization that I haven’t
really been commenting on other people’s blog posts. I then began to wonder whether anyone had
been commenting on mine. As a newcomer
to blogging, I figured that I would be somehow notified if someone commented on
one of my postings, but I just went back and looked over all of my entries,
only to realize that I had received some comments that I’d been unaware
of! To correct this lack of response, I
will put in some time this week to respond to some of the comments on my posts,
but for now I’ll speak to the portion of the question that asks how our
research has evolved.
I have struggled throughout this course, as my research
project methodology (oral history) wasn’t covered in class. I found it difficult to articulate a research
question, as oral history isn’t generally used as a method through which
hypotheses are tested, or through which quantitative research is
performed. Rather, it seeks to identify,
record and preserve people’s personal accounts for their own value. I believe that this still qualifies as a kind
of research, however I found it difficult to position this particular research
methodology within the context of the class and the proposal paper.
Nevertheless, I’ve been able to get through a first draft of
my research proposal, and I thought I would use this opportunity to ask the
members of the group a couple of questions about parts of my proposal that I’m
still unsure about. So here goes:
What are your general thoughts about the length of an
introduction? The examples of proposals
from last year that Prof. Galey provided all tended to have brief and very
concise introductions, but mine has turned out to be two pages long. I figured that it was important to frame my
research project within the context of current discussions in geography
(because my project involves recording stories about locations in Toronto), so
that the reader would be able to understand that there exists a gap in
knowledge that my project would fill. It
didn’t feel right to launch into a sort of thesis statement before introducing the
discourse within which I want to contextualize my project. But I worry that it’s wound up too long.
I’m also interested in asking the other group members how
much detail they’ve gone into in their methodology sections. Again, as oral history methodology isn’t
particularly rigorous, I mostly just described the general principles of oral
history, how I would locate the interview subjects, what equipment I will use
in the recording and editing of the interviews, the kinds of questions I will
ask, how I will present the interviews on a website, and the precautions I will
take to ensure the preservation of the recordings. If anyone else has a project whose
methodology lies outside of the general methods we’ve discussed in class, I
would love to hear a bit about how you tackled your methodology section.
Any feedback at all would be greatly appreciated J
Saturday, 30 November 2013
Peer Reviewing my Peers…
Well, I am quite late for this post. To make up for my tardiness, I decided that I would take this as an opportunity to respond to all of my group members previous posts on this topic. Think of it as a sort of peer review (and like peer review, it comes long after the original submissions!)
Akash has found some other interesting incidents involving controversy in peer review. It is interesting to note that some incidents of peer review failure were cases where the research was perfectly valid, but it was completely plagiarized. I think this serves as a good example of where peer review might not be able to hold up a standard. I think that most peer reviewers would only being doing a review of an article to see if the ideas that it is espousing contain any merit. I would not be surprised if many peer reviewers would be caught off guard by an idea that is perfectly sound, but completely unoriginal. I think that this is especially true if you consider the fact that most research does not occur in isolation; it would be very difficult to be certain if a good idea in one paper hasn't already been thought of in another.
I like Lauren's discussion of Wikipedia as a source of peer review. And I agree with her assessment that, despite Fitzpatrick's assertion that Wikipedia is a platform of ongoing peer review, the reality does not hold up that standard. It is good to point out that most Wikipedians are not experts, as I think that this very much does make a difference in the quality of the review. I have seen and heard of some of the infamous "edit wars" that can occur in Wikipedia over the simple placement of a single word. A controversy caused by the placement of a word is less the exception, and more a rule. I believe that this is for the precise reason that Lauren indicates: Wikipedians are mostly non-experts; but you do not need to be an expert to have an opinion on word placement.
I also think that this is why "Wikigroaning" exists. "Wikigroaning" is a term coined for the practice of comparing the word count of a regular, serious encyclopedia article with a pop-culture one. The resulting groan you will experience is how this term achieved its name. Or, do a Wikigroan with my favourite method: compare an article on serious subject on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War (word count: ~14000)
With an article on the Star Wars Wookiepedia: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wicket_Wystri_Warrick (word count: ~25000)
I don't know if I completely agree with Jess' point on the Sokal affair (sorry!): That if satire slips past peer review it is a sign of sickness in the discipline itself. I think that I will go back to my first point, about a peer reviewer being caught off guard by a plagiarized concept, and say that the same is true here. If you are not expecting to look for satire, it can be extremely hard to spot. Especially if you are the one who the satire is being direct towards. We can have a very large blind spot when it comes to our own ideas and beliefs, and satire can very easily slip right past us. And oftentimes, the point of the satire is completely lost on those it is directed against. As in the Sokal affair, where the publishers of the journal said that they did in fact read Sokal's article, but saw nothing wrong with it, it just needed to be better written. When something like this happens, you can start to lose track of who is "trolling" whom…
Vanessa's post about the peer review process was quite interesting. Hearing about her friend's experience with peer review makes me wonder more about the process as well. How is it that her friend could find a paper fundamentally flawed, yet others see it as being fit for publishing? The questions that Vanessa raises at the end of her post are all good points, and I think that there are no easy answers to any of them. Hearing her friend's experience with peer review does make me start to see the more troubling implications of peer review (I am just speculating here): What if her friend really wasn't qualified to read the paper, and completely misinterpreted it? Or, even worse, what if she was the only one who actually read the paper, and found it flawed? Not something that you would want to think about too much…
I like Cythia's point about the personal impact of peer review. When you are choosing to publish a paper, it is really up to you on where you want to publish it and what kind of feedback you are looking for. While I am sure that many academics would like to see their work in the most prestigious journal, it is really more about seeking the feedback and recognition that will help your ideas to grow. It is up to the individuals who publish papers to decide on how they want to have their work recognized, and which peer review process works or doesn't work is really a choice that is made by them.
I found myself laughing when reading Eva's post. I liked her assessment of the Sokal affair, and I found that it was in line with my own thinking: it only created a controversy, and did not really advance a new topic or enlightened change in the system. What made me laugh was that Eva's post made me think of Sokal's hoax being assessed as if it were his paper being submitted (as a sort of meta-analyis). Eva's summation of it not being a very original idea is what gave me a chuckle. Eva also has a good point about peer review being flexible in regards to open vs closed review. I agree that a combination of both would allow for more constructive reviews. And I think this relates to Eva's point about author's being flexible in their choice of peer review.
Courtney's post about peer review and the full stomach reminded me of my legal work. And that I think I had heard about her professor's research in my studies as well. It is a well accepted fact of legal work that judges are humans too, and are subject to the same weaknesses as everyone else (so it is never wise to do anything to annoy them; including presenting your case at lunch hour) Though Courtney relates this to reviewers having an empty stomach, and thus giving a negative review of a paper, I think that the observation that others have made about the possible bias of reviewers is a more probable concern. An empty stomach is the least of your worries when you are dealing with humans with all the same biases and weaknesses that you have. (I still think that attaching a cookie to your paper is an excellent idea).
Ghaddar makes a good point about nonsensical writings not being related to single papers, but entire disciplines. Whenever I encounter the subject of pseudoscience, I always think about phrenology, and because I am a Simpsons fan, I think about Mr. Burns' response when Smithers says that "phrenology has been dismissed as quackery 160 years ago" Mr. Burns says, "Of course you'd say that...you have the brainpan of a stagecoach tilter!" (Simpsons, 3F06). I think that this quote actually teaches us something about peer review: that it is useless when an entire discipline is caught in its own nonsense. Ghaddar makes a good point in the usefulness of allowing public review of academic papers. This might help to shed some light in the darker corners academia, where peer review would make less difference.
Well, this has been the longest post ever. I hope that I was able to hit on some good points in response to each person, and that my peer review of their work helps them out. Also, I have no idea what the correct format for citing Simpsons episodes is, so I hope that my attempt works. And now, I hereby deem all of the previous posts to have passed my peer review and be suitable for publishing!
Akash has found some other interesting incidents involving controversy in peer review. It is interesting to note that some incidents of peer review failure were cases where the research was perfectly valid, but it was completely plagiarized. I think this serves as a good example of where peer review might not be able to hold up a standard. I think that most peer reviewers would only being doing a review of an article to see if the ideas that it is espousing contain any merit. I would not be surprised if many peer reviewers would be caught off guard by an idea that is perfectly sound, but completely unoriginal. I think that this is especially true if you consider the fact that most research does not occur in isolation; it would be very difficult to be certain if a good idea in one paper hasn't already been thought of in another.
I like Lauren's discussion of Wikipedia as a source of peer review. And I agree with her assessment that, despite Fitzpatrick's assertion that Wikipedia is a platform of ongoing peer review, the reality does not hold up that standard. It is good to point out that most Wikipedians are not experts, as I think that this very much does make a difference in the quality of the review. I have seen and heard of some of the infamous "edit wars" that can occur in Wikipedia over the simple placement of a single word. A controversy caused by the placement of a word is less the exception, and more a rule. I believe that this is for the precise reason that Lauren indicates: Wikipedians are mostly non-experts; but you do not need to be an expert to have an opinion on word placement.
I also think that this is why "Wikigroaning" exists. "Wikigroaning" is a term coined for the practice of comparing the word count of a regular, serious encyclopedia article with a pop-culture one. The resulting groan you will experience is how this term achieved its name. Or, do a Wikigroan with my favourite method: compare an article on serious subject on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War (word count: ~14000)
With an article on the Star Wars Wookiepedia: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wicket_Wystri_Warrick (word count: ~25000)
I don't know if I completely agree with Jess' point on the Sokal affair (sorry!): That if satire slips past peer review it is a sign of sickness in the discipline itself. I think that I will go back to my first point, about a peer reviewer being caught off guard by a plagiarized concept, and say that the same is true here. If you are not expecting to look for satire, it can be extremely hard to spot. Especially if you are the one who the satire is being direct towards. We can have a very large blind spot when it comes to our own ideas and beliefs, and satire can very easily slip right past us. And oftentimes, the point of the satire is completely lost on those it is directed against. As in the Sokal affair, where the publishers of the journal said that they did in fact read Sokal's article, but saw nothing wrong with it, it just needed to be better written. When something like this happens, you can start to lose track of who is "trolling" whom…
Vanessa's post about the peer review process was quite interesting. Hearing about her friend's experience with peer review makes me wonder more about the process as well. How is it that her friend could find a paper fundamentally flawed, yet others see it as being fit for publishing? The questions that Vanessa raises at the end of her post are all good points, and I think that there are no easy answers to any of them. Hearing her friend's experience with peer review does make me start to see the more troubling implications of peer review (I am just speculating here): What if her friend really wasn't qualified to read the paper, and completely misinterpreted it? Or, even worse, what if she was the only one who actually read the paper, and found it flawed? Not something that you would want to think about too much…
I like Cythia's point about the personal impact of peer review. When you are choosing to publish a paper, it is really up to you on where you want to publish it and what kind of feedback you are looking for. While I am sure that many academics would like to see their work in the most prestigious journal, it is really more about seeking the feedback and recognition that will help your ideas to grow. It is up to the individuals who publish papers to decide on how they want to have their work recognized, and which peer review process works or doesn't work is really a choice that is made by them.
I found myself laughing when reading Eva's post. I liked her assessment of the Sokal affair, and I found that it was in line with my own thinking: it only created a controversy, and did not really advance a new topic or enlightened change in the system. What made me laugh was that Eva's post made me think of Sokal's hoax being assessed as if it were his paper being submitted (as a sort of meta-analyis). Eva's summation of it not being a very original idea is what gave me a chuckle. Eva also has a good point about peer review being flexible in regards to open vs closed review. I agree that a combination of both would allow for more constructive reviews. And I think this relates to Eva's point about author's being flexible in their choice of peer review.
Courtney's post about peer review and the full stomach reminded me of my legal work. And that I think I had heard about her professor's research in my studies as well. It is a well accepted fact of legal work that judges are humans too, and are subject to the same weaknesses as everyone else (so it is never wise to do anything to annoy them; including presenting your case at lunch hour) Though Courtney relates this to reviewers having an empty stomach, and thus giving a negative review of a paper, I think that the observation that others have made about the possible bias of reviewers is a more probable concern. An empty stomach is the least of your worries when you are dealing with humans with all the same biases and weaknesses that you have. (I still think that attaching a cookie to your paper is an excellent idea).
Ghaddar makes a good point about nonsensical writings not being related to single papers, but entire disciplines. Whenever I encounter the subject of pseudoscience, I always think about phrenology, and because I am a Simpsons fan, I think about Mr. Burns' response when Smithers says that "phrenology has been dismissed as quackery 160 years ago" Mr. Burns says, "Of course you'd say that...you have the brainpan of a stagecoach tilter!" (Simpsons, 3F06). I think that this quote actually teaches us something about peer review: that it is useless when an entire discipline is caught in its own nonsense. Ghaddar makes a good point in the usefulness of allowing public review of academic papers. This might help to shed some light in the darker corners academia, where peer review would make less difference.
Well, this has been the longest post ever. I hope that I was able to hit on some good points in response to each person, and that my peer review of their work helps them out. Also, I have no idea what the correct format for citing Simpsons episodes is, so I hope that my attempt works. And now, I hereby deem all of the previous posts to have passed my peer review and be suitable for publishing!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)