So, in honor of Jeff, I am trying something new this week. I'm going to 1-keep it short and 2-type directly into this text box, say what I think, and not obsess about it all too much. Be proud, this is a big step for me.
So, first off, did anyone else feel as though these first few chapters were written for their parents? I'm not trying to criticize, and I even appreciated the simplicity of some of the ideas and concepts presented, but when Berg went into depth explaining Wikipedia, I actually looked at the copyright date to see how old this text is. Are there really people out there (who are over 17 years old and college educated) who don't know to be wary of Wikipedia?
The other thing that seemed to be a bit archaic to me was the idea of using “The Two-Card Method” for data compilation. I remember the days of note cards, hundreds of them piled on my kitchen table as I wrote my very first research paper on “Man’s Inhumanity to Man” in 9th grade. (I think my dad helped me with the title.) But that was before everyone had a laptop on hand at all times. Are cards, even electronic ones, really still the way to go? I’m not sure.
On a more positive note, I teach research methods in my classes; it still seems to fall very heavily in the English department’s lap to make sure that students know how to do research. As I read this week’s reading, I was very happy to see that much of the methodology and advice given here is pretty much what I teach my students, in much a more simple manner of course. It’s nice to know I haven’t been teaching “false doctrine.” In addition, I think that for any kid/student/person who was initially taught how to research correctly, much of Berg’s instruction here will be much more intuitive.
In addition, I had an interesting experience this week. My little brother submitted his master’s thesis yesterday, and, as I am the English person in the family, he asked me to edit it for him before he sent it to be printed. Well, he’s in England, so I go the copy in the middle of the night Sunday/Monday and had to rush through the reading of it so that he could make his deadline. Oh how I wish I would have read Berg before Landon’s thesis. His “Literature Review” and “Methodology” sections would have made much more sense, and while I assumed that his use of “snowballing” did not, in fact, refer to the fluffy stuff that he’s often aimed at my head, I actually get it now. Too bad he submitted the thing today…though I’m not lamenting the fact that I don’t have to reread it.
Word Count: 474 :-)
3 comments:
Not to get overly defensive of Wikipedia because I don't let students use it as a source either, but aren't there studies that show that the more people contribute to a Wikipedia article the more likely it is to be accurate? And that published encyclopedias are full of mistakes, if only because of the time lag between publication and real life? Harkening all the way back to our first reading, I liked Jenkins idea of a collective intelligence and I think wikipedia and other wiki's are a really cool way for information to become more egalitarian.
I'll partially jump on Amberly's bandwagon about Wikis: I believe that a Wikipedia article should only be used to give some jumping off points. I was always taught that encyclopedias were for similar research and never to be used for anything serious as an actual reference. Oh, and the two-card method is extremely archaic, especially for a book that has been updated as many times as this one has AND has sections about the use of Internet sources.
In defense of Berg, I believe that his book serves as a good reminder of things we should already know (intuitively) and gets us thinking "research design" in preparation for all the stuff we have to do in the next two years.
Timbre,
My first research paper was entitled "Sexism and the American Beauty Pageant"
Post a Comment