Well, I have to say I was totally excited to log on and see that Erika had already posted, because I thought, "Yea! An opportunity to 'critically discuss' the reading in relationship to her post!" Then I read it and said, "I totally agree." I know, lame, but if you note the time dated on this post, it's 12:24 pm. I'm home from work, sick-and there have been cold medications involved, so please cut me some slack for some of the randomness that may follow...
I actually quite enjoyed the reading on ethnography, and, like Erika, I was amazed to find that in reading Ben's paper, I am actually interested in ham radio. Who knew? I think that this is the incredibly appealing thing about ethnographic field research as presented by Berg...it's vastly interesting. As he discussed in last week's reading, we really can find research opportunities in everything, so why not choose something that we're into? In addition, as Erika mentioned as well, it is through the ethnographic style of researching that you are able to observe interactions and relationships, the things that make humans, well, humans.
I thought that Berg's discussion of methodology was a bit hard to follow in places, but much of what was said made a lot of sense, and I'm sure it will be helpful as we move into our own research processes. One particular section that I really appreciated was when he addressed the fact that many times, the researcher's mere presence can alter the research field. While discussing the various forms of invisibility within the research setting, I liked that positives and negatives of the different options are mentioned, and while Berg does say that these things need to be taken into account while planning the research process, he does not go so far as to point and say "this is the best way."
Another point that is discussed that I appreciated is this idea that researchers don't live in a vacuum, and so while we may try to "maintain a value-neutral position" it very rarely happens (200). He makes a good point in saying that even in the choice of research topic we are demonstrating a special interest/affinity for a specific topic/subject. I am of the opinion that because we, as human beings with human experiences, are the sum total of all of our experiences in life, we can never truly look at things through a "clear lens." (Is it EVER possible to be truly objective? This is a question I have wondered about for a while...)
I think that this is why I really the idea of subjective disclosure within the research publication. It allows you, as the researcher, to be human. While I read Ben's paper, I felt that he did a really good job of being a human researcher. He is up front regarding his place within the research, about his knowledge and interest going in to the project as well as his findings and the strengths and weaknesses of the research process itself. And regardless of the weaknesses, he was still able to come up with some really cool findings.
I like the idea of ethnography, and if someone were to ask me why, I think this is how I'd respond: I'm interested in people and their relationships and interactions. This is why I teach literature...it's not something that can be broken down into quantitative data. I think that ethnography provides a means for researching the non-quantifiable humanness that I love so much.
3 comments:
I believe it is Paul in the New Testament that says that "we see through a glass, darkly". I don't think it's ever possible (or even desirable!) to be 100% objective. Today in my class we were talking about media and history, and one point that we made is that ALL texts have biases, but we often say that as if it's a bad thing. I come from where I come from, you come from where you come from, and together we dialogue and create meaning. I think that as long as we acknowledge our various personal biases, there's nothing wrong with them!
Not only am I interested in ethnography, but like you, more generally, I am interested in people and their relationship and interactions. I am specifically interested in this relationship and interaction with media (which is why I have gone back to school). What interests me out of your post is this idea of researching what you are interested in, but that makes me wonder about the gatekeepers and guides and just how you get into those areas that you are interested in. Unfortunately, getting into the group your interested in isn't always easy, though you may be intensely interested in it (nor safe, as in the ideas of following criminals or gangs).
Next year, I think I will enroll in your class.
I like this idea of studying literature as studying people. Reading was someone writes teaches us more about them than what someone else wrote about them. Did that make sense? I think we know more about Alfred Hitchcock by watching his movies than reading his biography.
Post a Comment