If I'm being quite honest, I found this week's reading helpful but fairly dull and occasionally "duh". It wasn't the organization, it was the content. It's just dull to have every form of actuarial record detailed for me. I know that it was useful--there are a number of creative options mentioned, like using gravestones to research community values, but it just wasn't that exciting. Here are some things I thought of while reading, organized into mostly unrelated but hopefully thoughtful paragraphs:
Thought 1
I appreciate that on page 301 Berg again iterates that when beginning any research, it may be organized as "a research problem, a question, a series of questions, or a hypothesis of series of hypotheses." I think that one reason that Tuesday's exercise was at times frustrating (did anyone else feel like we were occasionally dancing in circles?) was that we kept trying to hammer out THE research question. True research doesn't have to start out this concrete--you start with a general idea, research, refine the idea, research, etc. I'm not saying that we shouldn't put significant effort into refining our research questions as much as possible, but in practice I think that we need to recognize that it's okay to move past step 1 even without completely setting it in stone. The example Berg offers of doing research about women in police forces is quite helpful in this regard.
Thought 2
The unobtrusive research measures that Berg mentions seem more like research tools and less like research methodologies, but I do find them potentially interesting. These are often the sorts of things that I notice but don't really pursue for further research; for example, has anyone else noticed that the north steps in the library going up from the third to the fourth floor have one section that visibly worn down? The fact that the steps are worn in one place shows that people generally walk on the right side of the steps, I assume because it requires covering less ground since it's at the inside of every turn. This is an erosion measure, and it tells us something about human behavior, but I don't really want to do move any further with it than I just have. I typically use erosion or accretion measures as anecdotal conversation starters, not as anything more. Perhaps I just haven't found a purpose for them yet.
Thought 3
It seems to me that the research that we'll do for our film history papers generally falls under the umbrella of archival research, or perhaps even historiography.
Thought 4
On page 299, Berg states that we "must use care and avoid imposition of modern thoughts or understanding when considering information about the past." This sounds good in theory, but is it even possible in practice? Certainly there are degrees of objectivity and subjectivity, and we can try to be more objective than subjective, but clearly we will ALWAYS view historical evidence through (pardon this cliched phrase...) the lens of our own experience. We will always view history with a "Little did he know...." mentality. And, if we are to use historical research to answer questions about the future (as Berg suggests), aren't we required to impose moderns thoughts onto the data? You can argue with me if you'd like...perhaps I've missed the point.
2 comments:
I think we are getting better as a people. In reference to thought 4, I agree that I look at the past through my own fancy lens. So, unfortunately I agree, but I think I am wrong. I got the feeling that when doing this great historiography, using multiple events to compare would alleviate some of the foggy glass.
This week's reading actually reminded me a lot of the chapter that I was assigned in our Film History text. It detailed the different archival and actuary sources that could be used to research local film history. One of the measures that I found most interesting that I hadn't considered using as a source prior to that reading and one that Berg did not mention was the use of fire maps to understand the make up of neighborhoods in cities.
I also think that we can never distance ourselves completely from our modern perspective when looking at historical information. I think it's important to understand the cultural practices of a time in the context in which they were created but I do not see a problem with judging that practice as long as I'm making the effort to understand it within it's proper cultural context. It's like moral relativism in conducting field research. While I can understand the cultural circumstances that create honor/shame cultures and attempt to understand cultural practices within that context, I still judge that to me, many of those practices are wrong and hurtful to women and should be changed. Does that even make sense, I fear I'm kind of ranting.
Post a Comment