Sunday, February 16, 2014

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!

1 comment:

  1. :) The "hot mess" field notes! Have you considered Sarah Pink's work around sensory ethnography? Her work may inform the direction you head. Also, both NVivo and ATLAS have developed some pretty streamlined approaches to integrating and synchronizing geospatial information with interviews. Check out the geo-referencing discussion here: https://www.surrey.ac.uk/sociology/research/researchcentres/caqdas/support/integrating/georeferencing_and_caqdas_linking_to_google_earth_with_atlasti_6.htm

    ReplyDelete