Unit 4 provided a lot of useful and thought provoking information regarding innovative, emerging, special purpose, and less often used methodologies applicable to qualitive research. The discussion that follows will include:
Part 1: Revised summary and evaluation of Harmony Bench’s Arranging (enchaînement), integrating relevant feedback from peers and instructor, as well as insights gained from my own participation. Part 1 will also be oriented around the verb (phrase) I have selected to guide my research: “to act with integrity”.
Part 2: Reflections on the summaries of the methodologies from Unit 4.
Part 3: Reflections on the approaches chosen that are most appropriate and productive for my research question.
Part 1:
“Creating new arrangements of old information
can help scholars re-examine assumptions
and inherited narratives”
(Bench, 2018, p. 43).
In Arranging (enchaînement), author Harmony Bench explores the qualitative method of arranging by relating it to the long-standing concept of enchaînement from classical ballet. Enchaînement refers to the linking together of steps from standardized, pre-existing movements to produce dance compositions. Different arrangements result in a repertoire of original dances. “Arranging as a method is concerned with crafting relationships of contingent interdependency; it draws attention to internal coherence and sense-making through the juxtaposition and co-articulation of units of information and their relations” (Bench, 2018, p. 41). As one moves through the process of arranging and rearranging, linking together various arrangements of data, visiting and revisiting earlier enchaînements can reveal additional insights and understandings.
The verb (phrase) I selected is: “to act with integrity”. Acting with integrity involves such values as respect, honesty, and responsibility.
My research question is: What positive outcomes might be realized through integrating visual arts within the post-secondary curriculum of History, Mathematics and Science?
Bench emphasizes the importance of visualization: “arranging data through visualization is thus a mode of discovery as well as display” (2018, p. 42). Visualization is valuable to my own research, as looking at different arrangements of the same data provides me with new insights into further relationships and connections. Guided by my commitment to acting with integrity, all opinions will be evaluated with respect. Participant information will be handled responsibly, and communications between researcher and participants will be open and honest.
Part 2:
Reflecting on the summaries of the methodologies posted by my peers, I have gained an understanding of each methodology and its applicability to my own research question. Below I will briefly outline each methodology, and describe how it relates to my research question.
New ways of Experimenting are applicable to multidisciplinary qualitative research. The examples of “participating” and “relaying” from the authors own research clarified how these concepts facilitate collaborative relationships between researcher and participant (participating), and how the researcher can serve as a connection between different experimental groups (relaying). The nature of my own research is essentially experimental, as it examines the thoughts and opinions of combinations of disciplines not commonly integrated.
Capturing and Composing: Doing the Epistemic and the Ontic Together describes the distinction between an epistemic approach (seeking knowledge about the world we live in), with an ontic approach (describing being in the world now and as it is constantly changing). This duality is an interesting way of looking at the world as it exists, and as what it may become. "Capturing and composing are epistemic constructs: they organize knowledge in and about the world; they are also ontic constructs and organize aspects of the world" (Uprichard, 2018, p. 87). Capturing data to be analyzed in my research will likely include interviews, which may elicit knowledge and ideas involving past, present, and future constructs. From the transcripts of these interviews, composing comes into play—constructing meaning from the information collected.
Notating is the symbolic representation of ideas and perceptions. Information represented symbolically can be classified, organized, examined, interpreted, and communicated freely to a specific group or individual familiar with the symbols. “These progressive forms of notating, again, will eventually vanish or establish new patterns to capture and to compose the world we live in” (Wedell, 2018, p. 121). As my own research is interdisciplinary, exploring the positive values of integrating differing disciplines, the concept of notating could contribute to developing the symbolic understanding that allows for communication across these academic fields of interest.
Issuecrawling: Building Lists of URLs and Mapping Website Networks outlined a research project conducted to introduce and explain their methodology. The method is “…an online, interdisciplinary approach that combines crawling techniques from web science and close reading of websites from media studies”, which effectively explains the focus on digital technologies (Rogers, 2018, p. 169). Creating URL lists seems similar to traditional literature reviews. Various technologies and software programs that refine this process analyze these URLs—sorting, linking, creating networks, and capturing relevant data lists. Issuecrawling is an efficient and effective research method for researchers knowledgeable and comfortable using digital technologies.
In Engaging and Distributing, both researcher and participants contribute and communicate through the stages of the research process. With all participants being engaged with the research (not just the researcher), ideas and new ways of interacting occur, research directions constantly evolve, and knowledge is coproduced and shared. Distributing this knowledge, and making it widely accessible, is an important aspect of this process. With an emphasis on engagement and the distribution of knowledge, the aims of this methodology align with my thoughts on how I will formulate my research plan. Open communication and engagement between researcher and participants is of great importance to me, as is the distribution of the new knowledge that I am hoping to generate.
Data-Sprinting: A Public Approach to Digital Research describes the origins of data-sprints in digital technology barcamps or hackathons—events where diverse groups of developers and designers meet together to collaborate, identify, and search for solutions to challenging questions. Applying a similar approach to academic research leads to this emerging, interdisciplinary, and technology-assisted methodology. Academic experts and non-academic participants gather in a short but intensive workshop to work jointly on a research question. Discussion groups could meet to contribute opinions and information relevant to the research question. However, such groups would have to be carefully constructed to protect the privacy needs of any potential participants. Scheduling an open exchange of ideas would be cumbersome due to conflicting commitments and priorities. I see value in the team approach of this method.
The research project described in Dirty Methods as Ethical Methods? In the field with ‘The Cultural Politics of Dirt in Africa, 1880-Present’ “…set out to understand practical as well as cultural, political and historical aspects of urban living through people’s perceptions of waste management, public health, migration, public morality, environmental hazards, neighbourliness and town planning in two African cities: Lagos and Nairobi” (Newell et al., 2018, p. 248). The research team: “…wanted to find out about local understandings of ‘dirt’ – a term we chose for the diverse numbers of African language words, phrases and connotations it generated in translation, as well as for its own rich array of connotations – as an entry-point into people’s responses to urbanization and the environment” (Newell et al., 2018, p. 264). The authors convey the ethical challenges faced in this complex and extensive project, including the adaptations and unconventional practices employed, the methodological adjustments made to understand and allow for personal differences, and the difficulty in attempting to adhere to a universal social science research standard. Methods used could be considered “dirty” in their failure to follow the universally accepted ethical research protocols. Researchers may argue that adaptations are necessary to successfully gather data and produce new knowledge. Research needs to be creative and adaptable, but ethical breaches can cause harm to participants, and jeopardize the authenticity of the research. In conducting my own research, attention to research ethics will be a priority. Although I accept some situations may require an innovative approach, the interests of all participants must be respected—acceptability must be met with flexibility and common sense.
Haunting Seedy Connections provides an explanation of “haunting” as it relates to archival collections, and the implications to past, present, and future time frames. The example of the doomsday collection of seeds was interesting. The intent of this collection was to gather a large variety of seeds, store them away in a doomsday vault, and retrieve them should some widespread, destructive catastrophe destroy these plant species. Haunting questions occur, such as: What species have been missed? Would future environmental conditions support growth? Is the method of storage effective? Have new species evolved as dominant plant growth? Researchers involved with forming, storing, and retrieving these collections should remain aware that ghosts of the past may create future unintended consequences. In thinking of my gathering of data as forming a collection, awareness of what may have been missed is an important consideration. The harm caused by missing relevant data may be mitigated by reflecting often on the appropriateness of what is collected.
Valuing and Validating: On the ‘Success’ of Interdisciplinary Research “…has attempted to situate ‘valuing’ and ‘validating’ in relation to the complex practicalities of doing interdisciplinary work” (Michael, 2018, p.276). The authors outline important aspects of conducting interdisciplinary studies, and the challenges of determining what constitutes successful research. Working across diverse disciplines often creates tension between differing values, a focus on different research techniques, and the expression of differing opinions on what constitutes success. Open collaboration may or may not result in agreement. Disagreement may not always be negative, as it may create possibilities for a new and innovative framework for continuing the research. Research is not necessarily valued for how many publications, or how much funding a project receives. This reading explores different means of evaluating success evolving from collaboration, social purpose, and creating new directions and frameworks for future research. With the nature of my own research being collaborative and interdisciplinary, the discussions presented in this reading will be helpful in framing my research plan.
In Explaining, the focus on different ways of explaining or interpreting data to create knowledge increases in complexity when joint, interdisciplinary, and collaborative projects are undertaken. The accepted standards of explanation are very different in the artistic realms, from the more traditional methodologies of social scientists. From my own experience, artists resist overexplaining their work, believing those observing will form their own impressions to frame understandings, and extend personal knowledge. In contrast, social scientists build in explanations when collecting, processing, and evaluating. As they analyze and interpret information, and verify and explicate results, they are explaining and adding new knowledge to their field of study. Differing methods makes working together difficult, but the learning that occurs can add a richness and scope of explaining, as well as a respect for differing points of view. Explaining may not need to be verbal. Together, the artist and sociologist created a respected presentation whilst remaining true to their belief systems. In the concluding remarks of the reading, Gisler aptly points out “indeed, there seems to be a growing expectation that different genres of output are necessary for the successful completion of a research project” (Gisler, 2018, p. 304). As part of my own research, I will be looking for evidence that integrating doing art, in conjunction with viewing it, will awaken such skills as evaluating, interpreting, informing, and explaining, in the creation of knowledge in both disciplines.
Part 3:
Drawing from the methodologies presented in units 3 and 4, I feel the methodology most appropriate and productive for my research is Content and Text Analysis, supplemented by aspects from Arranging (enchaînement), and Explaining. The logical organization of the Content and Text Analysis methodology gives me an opportunity to personally direct the analysis, and to remain constantly aware of my commitment to act with integrity. By analyzing different arrangements of data, Arranging (enchaînement) will likely reveal further insights relevant to my research question. Explaining will help me navigate the complexities that arise from differing expectations with regards to interdisciplinary, and jointly produced research. Ultimately, I will remain open to incorporating ideas and aspects from some or all of the methodologies.
References:
Bench, H. (2018). Arranging (enchaînement). In Lury, C., Fensham, R., Heller-Nicholas, A., Lammes, S., Last, A., Michael, M., & Uprichard, E. (Eds.). Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary Research Methods (pp. 41-16). Taylor & Francis Group.
Gisler, P. (2018). Explaining. In Lury, C., Fensham, R., Heller-Nicholas, A., Lammes, S., Last, A., Michael, M., & Uprichard, E. (Eds.). Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary Research Methods (pp. 301-305). Taylor & Francis Group.
Jellis, T. (2018). Experimenting. In Lury, C., Fensham, R., Heller-Nicholas, A., Lammes, S., Last, A., Michael, M., & Uprichard, E. (Eds.). Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary Research Methods (pp. 53-56). Taylor & Francis Group.
Lammes, S. (2018). Engaging and Distributing. In Lury, C., Fensham, R., Heller-Nicholas, A., Lammes, S., Last, A., Michael, M., & Uprichard, E. (Eds.). Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary Research Methods (pp. 145-151). Taylor & Francis Group.
Michael, M. (2018). Valuing and Validating: On the ‘Success’ of Interdisciplinary Research. In Lury, C., Fensham, R., Heller-Nicholas, A., Lammes, S., Last, A., Michael, M., & Uprichard, E. (Eds.). Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary Research Methods (pp. 269-278). Taylor & Francis Group.
Nadim, T. (2018). Haunting Seedy Connections. In Lury, C., Fensham, R., Heller-Nicholas, A., Lammes, S., Last, A., Michael, M., & Uprichard, E. (Eds.). Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary Research Methods (pp. 239-247). Taylor & Francis Group.
Newell, S., Oloko, P., Uwa, J., Tokun, O., Nebe, J., Mwaura, J., Onwong’a, R., Kirori, A. & Craig, C. (2018). Dirty Methods as Ethical Methods? In the field with ‘The Cultural Politics of Dirt in Africa, 1880-Present’. In Lury, C., Fensham, R., Heller-Nicholas, A., Lammes, S., Last, A., Michael, M., & Uprichard, E. (Eds.). Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary Research Methods (pp. 248-265). Taylor & Francis Group.
Rogers, R. (2018). Issuecrawling: Building Lists of URLs and Mapping Website Networks. In Lury, C., Fensham, R., Heller-Nicholas, A., Lammes, S., Last, A., Michael, M., & Uprichard, E. (Eds.). Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary Research Methods (pp. 169-175). Taylor & Francis Group.
Seale, C. & Tonkiss, F. (2018). Chapter 24: Content and Text Analysis. In C. Seale (Ed.), Researching Society and Culture. (4th ed.; pp. 403-427). SAGE.
Uprichard, E. (2018). Capturing and Composing: Doing the Epistemic and the Ontic Together. In Lury, C., Fensham, R., Heller-Nicholas, A., Lammes, S., Last, A., Michael, M., & Uprichard, E. (Eds.). Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary Research Methods (pp. 83-89). Taylor & Francis Group.
Venturini, T., Munk, A. & Meunier, A. (2018). Data-Sprinting: A Public Approach to Digital Research. In Lury, C., Fensham, R., Heller-Nicholas, A., Lammes, S., Last, A., Michael, M., & Uprichard, E. (Eds.). Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary Research Methods (pp. 158-163). Taylor & Francis Group.
Wedell, M. (2018). Notating. In Lury, C., Fensham, R., Heller-Nicholas, A., Lammes, S., Last, A., Michael, M., & Uprichard, E. (Eds.). Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary Research Methods (pp. 116-121). Taylor & Francis Group.
Comments