Discussion questions for 10/23

1) In “Researching Hybrid Literacies,” Beatrice Smith discusses some challenges to being a participant-observer in virtual work spaces, arguing that researchers are unable to “lurk anonymously” as they might be able to if they were researching gaming areas on the Internet. To some extent, she’s speaking to the ethical obligations of the researcher to identify oneself as a researcher within this virtual workplace environment, especially when certain aspects of the work environment are “off limits” to outsiders.  However,  this made me wonder to what extent those of us who wish to do ethnography in virtual spaces are ethically obligated to identify ourselves as researchers?  Does studying a “play” space as opposed to a “workplace” carry different ethical standards?

(on a related note: some cool ethnographic work being done by a class at Kansas State – and in their introductory video, the instructor makes a point of discussing participant-observer research and introducing the researchers to the YouTube community: http://youtube.com/watch?v=tYcS_VpoWJk).

2) Lauer and Ascher point out some pitfalls of case study and ethnography, one being the danger of first impressions – the order in which the information is received – influencing the researcher’s analysis.  This struck me as an interesting point, especially for those of us interested in studying virtual environments.  Many Internet technologies operate in a non-hierarchical fashion and offer a variety of entry points – and while the non-linearity is appealing to many, there nonetheless seem to be lots of efforts to impose hierarchical constructions to these non-hierarchical spaces.  How can we try to curb some of the impulse to organize data in a linear fashion when researching these spaces?

3) As I read Lauer and Ascher’s discussion of triangulation, I was struck once again by the importance of note taking as a skill, and the importance of being able to shift between different note taking strategies in order to gather multiple sources of data.  While I’ve taken notes during my entire educational career, I can’t think of any moments prior to this research methods class when note taking was approached as an important skill to be practiced and refined by researchers.  It also seems like this would be a beneficial skill for most people to develop in an effort to be better observers and critical thinkers.  Why don’t we give students more opportunities to experiment with different note-taking strategies? Why are these things discussed in graduate-level research methods classes and nowhere else?  How can we incorporate the kinds of strategies we’re talking about into undergraduate classrooms?  Should we?

10/16 discussion questions

Sorry, folks.  Better late than never, I hope.

1) Charney mentions how false perceptions of scientific research may be perpetuated by more mainstream, popular genres that reduce complex scientific research findings to simple, determinate answers and clear, immediate applications (578).  This also seems to be a common problem for scholars who wish to share their scholarship with a much broader audience in order to share useful knowledge with everyone, instead of just those inside of the academy.  Since the average person is not interested in wading through volumes of academic discourse and citations, the research discussion may be revised to fit the needs of a more mainstream audience – which has led to some scholars being criticized for “watering down” their research or abandoning legitimate scholarship for the sake of increased revenue from popular presses.  If we want to engage in  meaningful work as public intellectuals, how do we avoid this criticism – more specifically, how can we preserve the complexity and rhetorocity of our research while also making it accessible to those who may benefit most from our research?

2)  Kirsch and Sullivan claim that “a high reliability rating [...] suppresses the subjective, interpretive nature of coding and endows the systems with the appearance of impartiality” (283, emphasis mine). Is it possible to achieve high reliability ratings while also acknowledging the fact that research is never completely impartial and objective?  Is “reliability” synonymous with “impartiality”?  Is the perceived binary between “reliability” and “subjectivity” a false one?

3) According to Charney, while it may be true that “scientists are not as self-conscious of their methods as they should be,” it is also true that scientific research practices “engage them more deeply in collective knowledge construction than ours do” (591).  Really?  It seems that Charney takes issue with the subjectivity of individual case studies and ethnographies and does not see these as being as “deep” as our research could be.  Why not?  Is reliability and validity the issue here?  And if so, how might Kirsch and Sullivan respond, in light of their challenge to the concept of “reliability”?

discussion questions for 10/9

 

1)     At one point in the “Integrating Multimodality” article, the authors defend their decision to avoid defining terms on their survey.  They argue this lack of clear definition was an effort to gain insight as to how respondents themselves defined those terms. They go on to argue: “Although the authors recognize that a lack of definitions may have caused respondents to be confused about the question (or purpose of the survey), we believe that because our sample was targeted to respondents who were probably familiar with current multimodal/new media theory, we decided to abstain from defining the terms” (5-6).  As researchers, what do we make of this decision to sacrifice some clarity for (possibly) some useful data?

2)     Response rate seems to be a pretty big problem for researchers who rely on surveys and questionnaires – especially when a target population is pretty narrow to begin with. In light of the readings, would you take projected response rate into consideration as you select your target research population?

3)     Surveys are “the only research tool available to obtain certain kinds of information, namely opinions, preferences, beliefs, feelings, and other personal information” (CRED 148).  Unfortunately, a lot of people feel overwhelmed by the sheer number of surveys and questionnaires being delivered by various organizations, through a variety of media (telephone, e-mail, snail mail, etc).  As people continue to get fed up, will we see a steady decline in response rates?  And, how can we, as responsible researchers, continue to gather this valuable information without annoying potential participants?

Discussion Questions for 10/2

1)      Neff argues that “we as compositionists have not studied our research methods as social practices in themselves.  Our methodologies too often remain traditional, patriarchal, and exclusionary” (133).  How does grounded theory help to foster a more “democratic” spirit in the research process?

2)      One thing that seems to be of great importance to grounded theory is showing how a bunch of variables can interact in complex ways.  For this reason, grounded theory seems to be a highly appropriate method for researching human interactions.  What other research situations might it be particularly well-suited for?  For example, would grounded theory be appropriate for textual analyses or other research situations where human interaction is not at the core of the situation, or when the human interaction has perhaps already taken place?

3)      What’s the difference, if any, between grounded theory and ethnography?  Is grounded theory a type of ethnographic research?

Note: this website offers a blissfully easy-to-understand sketch of the grounded theory process: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/grounded.html. 

Observation Activity – Reflection

1) How did you approach the observation activity? I had considered several possible places for this activity, but finally decided on the restaurant because it’s a place that is still somewhat new to me. My thinking was that, as researchers, we often find ourselves in a position to observe situations that we may not be entirely familiar with. I wonder, though, how my observation might change if I were to observe this same space a year from now, after making an effort to frequent the establishment on a regular basis. Would I look at it in a different way? Would certain things become invisible to me, as I became “closer” to the space? Would certain things become apparent to me as an “insider” that might now be as visible to an outside researcher?

2) What did you learn about the site you observed by studying it? I think I felt like I understood what the restaurant was trying to accomplish through its decor and overall aesthetic. But I think the most interesting part of this activity was the way I found myself digging into the “why.” I was seeing, observing, absorbing…but my mind was actively trying to speculate about what kinds of factors contributed to the presence of the material items I was observing. I also found myself asking a lot of questions about the people occupying that space – what they were feeling, why they acted a particular way, etc. While this kind of critical questioning is almost second nature for academics, it occurs to me that I don’t always apply such critical questioning to the everyday places and interactions that shape my life.

3) What did you see as the challenges of observing and representing the site? It was challenging to observe and participate at the same time, as I found it was easy to get distracted – by my food, by conversation, and by other factors that would perhaps not have been an issue if I would have chosen to observe the space from a detached angle, not as a customer, and not with another person present.

4) What did you learn about yourself as the observer/researcher? I’m pretty good at observing, but I get distracted pretty easily and sometimes get sidetracked into speculating about things that may not be particularly relevant. I think I would need to plan more ahead of time as to what kinds of things I would be looking for…and also anticipate that my mind might drift a bit, so maybe I should have carefully structured logbooks or something. At any rate, advanced planning would probably be a good idea.

5) How would you assess your observation skills? And your notetaking skills?I think I’m adequate in both areas, but could probably be better. I suppose that, like anything, these are skills that can only be developed through practice and experimentation. I’d like to be more focused in my observation, and more organized in my note-taking. I hate my handwriting, so I would prefer to type – but I think that laptops can sometimes be distracting depending on the space being observed, so I’ll need to find a good compromise.