Lessons Learned

There was a lot to think about with this week’s readings and I found them a nice introduction to the discussion of data collection. I’m always amazed by the plethora of tools available and the unique manner in which others have applied these resources. So some thoughts:

1. Horan’s (2011) reliance of his iPhone to include recording, transcription services, geotagging etc was fascinating, but I kept hoping he would address possible concerns about how all of this technology might remove him from his observations and the data his conversation dealt mostly with the affordances and none of the constraints. (I understand this was in the form of a less formal blog post so the discussion of constraints isn’t necessarily required I’m just curious about his own reflexivity on this process – nosy me!)

2. Paulus et al. (2013) reiterate “methodological approach and research questions will shape the type of data collection techniques” utilized for a research study (p. 70). In addition to this my selected environment will have serious effect on the digital tools utilized. I’m not only interested in how students make sense of visits to history museums, but also how the visits affect their overall development of historic understanding. Two fold research focus – so that’s fun…With this I would love to try a museum walk along and have participants record their observations and thoughts while moving through an exhibit. The idea of linking this data to a GPS record might seem like a bit of overkill particularly in a small gallery, but it would be incredibly useful in matching up participant observations with artifacts of interest. Based on previous research debacles* I think this would prove useful in not only analyzing the experience, but in guiding follow-up interviews and connecting the data gathered from both techniques.

 

So I’m excited to read more about what others have done in synchronizing information across contexts but I’m also nervous about how to best analyze this information and of course how to best justify the use of these methods in my proposal and in resulting write-ups of research!

*During one of my initial inquiry courses I learned exactly how hard it can be to map out a museum visit and attempt to take accurate field notes--let alone attempt to make any sense of these notes and then connect them to audio recordings! In my overzealous innocence, I attempted to not only record the movements of three children and their parents through WonderLab, but in my analysis I attempted to match these field notes to the recording I gathered by having the children wear audio recorders. Needless to say my field notes were a hot mess. See below.

 Lesson Learned: Two sets of transcriptions + one set of messy field notes  = my own personal nightmare!

Getting Stuff Done - eh sort of...

I’ve spent the past week or so trying to identify my past aversion to utilizing online resources as a means to organize my research. Much like Dr. Lubke (prior to her transition) I’ve been living with an unwieldy organizational system that includes ever rotating stacks of papers, books, and manila file folders - I love a good manila folder – all marked and tagged with various sticky notes. My office and my apartment are cluttered and I don’t do well with clutter. I’m forced to keep transporting my research from place to place to place. However, I’ve resisted. There have been small steps towards using digital tools for reading and annotating. I have a Kindle, but so far its main purpose has been to kill zombies and keep me entertained when I travel. There is just something about interacting with the page that I find comforting. The ability to have three articles open and a book in my lap while I write seems authentic and true to the research process. However, change is an essential component in remaining relevant so I will admit my recent experiments with EverNote have been enlightening. I’ve uploaded my notes and PDFs for my current project into this management program and am finding the tagging options and search tool a life saver. It helps that I have two monitors where I keep EverNote up on one and write on the other.  While I don’t see myself going completely paperless I do foresee a greater integration of technology into my process.

Now onto the discussion of citation management tools which I’m really not sold on yet. When I was teaching I attempted to make academic writing a key component of my curriculum – the good old history term paper! My school preferred MLA so I taught MLA. (But, who uses MLA?) My insistence on proper citations drove many a student crazy (undergrads included) and I remember several discussions with them about the need to always review what a citation manager produced. Besides having a stupid name KnightCite was notorious for getting it wrong. My students’ reliance on this tool and belief in its accuracy was frustrating. This might explain my own aversion. When both Dr. Lubke and Dr. Vagara mentioned that their preferred citation managers didn’t always get it right I felt a bit validated in this aversion. Besides I find the process of creating references and a reference list somewhat soothing – strange I know. But then again I also find ironing soothing so go figure.  

Annoyingly Meta Post

I’m procrastinating finishing a lit review by reading and writing about writing lit reviews. My head hurts from the meta nature this sentence and my soul hurts because this is how my weekend was spent. (In fact this is how most of my weekends are spent.) Stupid grad school.

All self-loathing and snark aside, I do find it useful to think about the process while engaged in the process (ugh) and I particularly appreciated the discussion of technology related to the lit review/research process. If I look back on past readings and notes I’ve taken during other inquiry courses I tend to have comments in the margins addressing the antiquated research suggestions about checking microfilm and going into the stacks. (Much of this was supplemented by strong suggestions to use Endnote – which I find interesting in light of Hensley’s (2011) analysis and concerns related to Endnote.)

It was refreshing to read Anderson and Kanuka’s (2003) discussion of e-research even if it is over a decade old and (understandably) did not include a discussion of Web 2.0 applications – which as we have discussed possess their own affordances and constraints. The reminders about validity checks when using online sources were helpful. They mention of difficulties in shifting through the sheer volume of information available, particularly what Paulus et. al. (2013) defined as gray literature which “includes conference proceedings and reports produced by government agencies, research institutes of other organizations” (p. 54). Anderson and Kunka’s focus was on sorting out what was good quality research verses what might entail bias or not be of the caliber of research expected for a literature review. For me, the problem hasn’t been so much determining the validity of research, but the ease of access in locating research. I read one article, and find a particular quote or reference interesting. Like Anderson and Kanuka suggest I know that I can’t rely on the primary authors interpretation, I need to look at the original source. So I look at the references and find at least three more articles I need to read. With each of these articles, I then feel the need to read even more thus spiraling down a research rabbit hole. 

It is important for me to keep in mind that a literature review doesn’t, and in fact can’t, encompasses everything that has ever been written on the subject. I tend to “get stuck in the reading phase” (Paulus et. al., 2013, p. 65) particularly since there isn’t much directly written about my research topic. I’ve had to  broaden my search into other fields (Boote & Beile, 2005) which means joining several academic conversations. This has been overwhelming to say the least as I’ve become relatively paralyzed with fear of misunderstanding any one of these fields! Along with the ease of access I’m just convinced that there is a whole body of research that looks at exactly what I hope to better understand and I’ve just not hit on the right search terms to unearth it yet! I know this isn’t true, I’ve been told this isn’t true by several of the authors I'm reading! I just can’t shake the feeling I’m missing something huge!  I’m sure it has to do with my own academic insecurities and need to overcome a case of imposter syndrome. So with that confession of my own neurosis and insecurities, I will close this relative incoherent discussion of concerns regarding e-research and attempt to get back to work on this lit review.

Let's Be Honest Here...

If I’m being completely honest, I’m terrible at reflecting throughout the writing process – heck I’m terrible with the whole writing process. I think this might actually be a significant reason I’ve struggled so much in finalizing my current research project. I read, and read, and read, but have very little written work to show for it. I can see things in my mind, but getting them on paper just seems so overwhelming. If I had written from the beginning I think this might have helped me sort out my ideas. Booth, Colomb and Williams (2008) state there are three main reasons researchers should write throughout the entire process; to remember, to understand and to test thinking. They conclude that “you can’t know how good your ideas are until you separate them from the swift and muddy flow of thought and fix them in an organized form that you—and your readers—can study” (p. 13). While this direct quote speaks more to the organization/presentation of the research project I believe it also applies to being reflexive – to understanding where you are as a researcher and being able to acknowledge your perspective and adjust aspects of your project accordingly. It’s all part of a process I need to work on incorporating into my own practice.

I don’t know why I’ve resisted so much. The emphasis of writing throughout the process has been present throughout my program, a key component of every class inquiry and otherwise. I’ve typically had to learn things the hard way and I’m sure this is just another example. Oh well, all I can do is move forward. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Today’s class and the Watt (2007) reading have me thinking about my position as a researcher. If I am fortunate to gain access to my ideal research site for my dissertation I anticipate an extensive internal debate about my position as someone who is not quite an outsider, but definitely in no way an insider to the community. How do I see myself? How will I project myself to my participants who are 8^th graders at a rural charter school?  To their parents and the community? My father and his family are from this community and I grew up in a similar rural southern Indiana town. However, I hated it and got out at 16 swearing I’d never come back. I spent the majority of my adult life in Philadelphia and look forward to returning to a metropolitan center when I graduate.  If I’m honest, I stereotype people from this type of community as closed minded which is hypocritical and I know that there are a variety of people an beliefs in every community. I know this can’t be good for my positioning as a researcher. (I have seen some changes in acceptance among young adults so that is promising.) But how will I incorporate all of this into my dissertation especially since it will probably take the form of a case study reported in the traditional five chapter format?

On a different note – someone I truly admire for her ability to be reflexive and address this in her research is Simone Schweber. She eloquently weaves her positionality throughout her studies in such a manner that it’s easy to understand her bias and look beyond it to the findings. Her presence is felt throughout the paper, but unobtrusively so. If you have time I highly recommend checking out her own discussion involving reflexivity and positioning in a study she conducted at religious schools. “Donning wigs, divining feelings and other dilemmas of doing research” (Schweber, 2006). When I read this as a first year much of the internal struggle was lost on me. I’m interested to go back and see how my own understanding has matured.

Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2008). The craft of research (3^rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Schweber, S. (2006). Donning wigs, divining feelings and other dilemmas of doing research in religious school contexts. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(6).

Watt, D. (2007). On becoming a qualitative researcher: The value of reflexivity. The Qualitative Report, 12(1), 82-101. 

Questions, Comments and Concerns

As I attempt to draw connections across the readings I’m struck by two themes: the use of technology for data collection and the use of technology for reflexivity. Since I haven’t had a chance to read the Watt (2007) article and I want to spend some time with it I’m going to focus on the first theme for this post. I might describe the selected readings as a bridge between the historical background of technology in qualitative research and the practical application of current technology to research methodologies, in particular the research aspects of data collection. 

These readings brought up several questions about the process and application of being an observer/participant in online data collection some practical some ethical. So here goes a series of interrelated musings and questions.

In thinking about the application of technology in data collection Eynon, Fry and Schroeder (2008) address the need for ethics in online social science methods in particular how researchers should position themselves within the study as an observer or participant. Of particular interest to me was the opportunity for anonymity, which is greater in on-line research, but presents itself with significant ethical concerns. Hardy (2011) comes to the conclusion that “lurking” is inappropriate and that the best form of practice is for a researcher to “establish a ‘true’ user profile” (p. 119). I agree with this need, but was surprised she didn’t mention the option of creating a researcher profile. I maintain personal profiles on several social networking sites and would feel very uncomfortable linking this profile to a research study, particularly since my research concerns minors. (Not that I post anything inappropriate, but I have friends and am dreading the throw back Thursday that exposes some sort of stupidity from undergrad.)

Wakeford and Cohen (2008) stated that anthropologists and sociologists have been hesitant to engage in online data collection and reflection. I find this interesting, especially since technology and the creation of an online persona has become so prevalent in many parts of today’s society. It is hard to find someone from the past two generations who does not have at least a simple online presence. With these personas becoming such an integral component of our lives it seems that this area would be a critical component to understanding the larger picture of human behavior and interaction. I wonder if the reason for hesitation has to do with concerns over the position of the researcher in the study and of course protecting participants’ identities? 

Wakeford and Cohen (2008) detail some of the constraints surrounding online blogging as part of the research process including using blogs as a type of field notes that can be shared with co-researchers, mentors and in some cases the participants themselves. The authors discuss the concerns over protecting sensitive data including participant identities. One of the constraints I feel they may have overlooked is the effect of the blog on the participants, if they are reading the researcher’s thoughts. My research has been mostly with secondary school students and there is a trend for them to want to please the researcher – if participants had access to a blog about the research process I’m afraid it might alter the behaviors of certain participants.  

Enyon, et. al. (2008) list the potential harms that can occur through online research. I was particularly interested in the discussion of “harm to the researchers” (p. 28). In an anonymous environment, there is the chance that a research might come across illegal or possibly harmful activity. I wonder if this might be more likely since there is the promise of anonymity on the part of the participant and participants might be more daring in releasing details? I’m also wondering about the reporting procedures. I’m guessing it is written into the IRB. It makes me think of the scene from the movie Kinsey where he overlooks the obvious child abuse being discussed by a participant for the sake of his data. I could see unethical researcher doing something similar and claiming that due to the anonymous nature of the data collection there was no way to report the data - this might be particularly true when analyzing blogs or chat groups when consent is not deemed necessary.

References: 

Eynon, R., Fry, J. & Schroeder, R. (2008). The ethics of Internet research. In N. Fielding, R.M. Lee, & G. Blank (eds.) The Sage Make blog posts (Sunday/Wednesday) 10 Handbook of Online Research Methods (pp. 23- 41). London: Sage Publications.

Hardey, M. (2011). Ubiquitous connectivity: User-generated data and the role of the researcher. In Hesse-Biber, S. (Ed.) The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research (pp. 111-130). Oxford University Press.

Wakeford, N. & Cohen, K. (2008). Fieldnotes in Public: Using blogs for research. In Fielding, N.,  Lee, R.M.& Blank, G. (Eds.) The SAGE handbook of online research methods (pp. 307-326.           London: Sage Publications.