I think I had the wrong mindset while reading the “Unobtrusive Measures in Research” chapter. Instead of thinking of obtrusive as noticeable, I was thinking of interfering or being intrusive. I even went as far as to write a rather mean spirited review of the chapter, but then a phrase from the chapter suddenly made a lot of sense to me.
“…unreachable through any other means.”
Then the chapter became much more clear to me, in the sense that I was able to see how my research can benefit from exploring all methods, especially those that are not typically used.
Although it may be obvious, I’m not positive that I would have (before reading this chapter) included my more observational recording in my research. That sounds horrible, but I can honestly see myself focusing so much on my research question and the data that I was anticipating that I would look past all the other methods of fact-finding.
****
In the next chapter “Historiography and Oral Traditions” I grabbed onto the theme of the voice for the voiceless. Although I’m sure that that exact Dean Duncan phrase was never uttered, in between the seemingly endless corrections of the confusion, I saw an honest need to find and give voices to those that were limited.
In reference to biographies: “…they give powerless people a voice.”
Something I have learned about myself through this assignment is that no matter how procedural the chapter, I practically require myself to write on some personal aspect of the chapter or at least how I would personalize it. Odd.
This chapter has really made me rethink my 689 paper because I am not really using this method to its fullest. I’m not choosing multiple events or searching for super awesome sources. Hopefully I am alone on this because it isn’t a very good feeling.
2 comments:
First of all, I don't think that responding to the reading in a personal manner is at all inappropriate; after all, what good is anything if we don't internalize it on some level. Secondly, I'm with you. This week's topic is a very specific example of how you have to know about something in order to use it. I, too, never would have thought about many of these research methods if they had not been specifically addressed here. It makes me wonder what other means of collecting information are out there that haven’t been thought of yet. I’m guessing that they’re innumerable.
I would have to say that your own focus on triangulation is a wise one Jeff and that this methodology in relationship to research may not always need to be the primary (especially in regards to action research) but I would say that this gives you the solid foundation for your studies that is necessary. In other words, I think that action research, when done right, requires archival research particularly to be successful; i.e. the theoretical background you are basing your action research on.
On another note: I would say that your personal take on our subject matters is actually one of my favorite things to look for when reading your posts. I concur with Timbre's comment!
Post a Comment