Week 8: isms and ologies - summary of discussion

Questions 1: do I believe truth is discovered or made?

Possible viewpoints:

• 'relative' truth (i.e. as it happens to be at a given moment based on a set of evidence/information) is decided or discovered by a process or argument and reasoning e.g. an academic paper / court of law. BUT this doesn't make it universal/absolute truth because it is based on the wisdom of people with a range of interesting and subjective outlooks. 
• is that 'discovering' truth or 'making' truth based on the perspectives of the process and participants?
• does 'truth as a discovery' only happen after we filter the cultural, social, historical etc. bias out?
• Any perception that involves opinions/feelings/ideas or simply convincing people one way over another probably involves viewing truth through some form of 'filter', i.e. cultural, social, historical. Ergo a perception of truth might look highly misguided to someone who does not see life through the same  filters.
• Truth-making is related to knowing, experience, context, association, power, and choice. For example, the connections we choose among findings, our choice of relations with actors (researchers, subjects, policies), contribute to (or construct) a truth, which can be socially accepted (or not) within a community(s).
• The 'truth' can change based on new knowledge, therefore there are no absolute truths - truth is discovered. OR is 'truth' a static value and instead it is that our knowledge, understanding or perception of it that changes?
• e.g. everyone believes the 'truth' that a plant is green. However, new discoveries reveal that in fact the green is a result of the plant reflecting particular colours and that the structure of the molecule causes the pigmentation. These physical factors have always been there (i.e. constant), it's just that we didn't know. Our discoveries have improved our understanding.
• not being able to discover the absolute truth doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
• most of the time truth is made, however a quasi-absolute truth ('real' reality) may be discovered once we filter out the how and why of the “the meaning-making mechanisms of the social, mental and linguistic worlds that individuals inhabit”.
• ‘truth, and any agreement regarding what is valid knowledge – arises from the relationship between members of some stake-holding community’.  This reinforces the impact of communities, cultures and political systems in their subjective construction and understanding of what is ‘real’ and what is ‘valid truth’ and the critical role of language and discourse in shaping and negotiating these views (and beliefs?). Is this temporal view of a subjective and dynamic truth therefore created, reinforced and legitimised by those who construct it?
• At what point does a ‘notion/idea/concept/ belief’ become truth’?  At what point does the ‘communal test of validity through the argumentation of the participants in a discourse’ decide that something is ‘true’ or is ‘truth’ only ‘true’ to those who believe it to be so?

• Accepting that validity does not constitute a single truth, but can only provide a “thoroughly partial understanding” of a topic is likely to be an uncomfortable choice for many.

Question 2: as a researcher am I part of the action or resolutely outside looking in?

Possible viewpoints:

• the very choice to research a subject and the choice of instruments -- not to mention the very design of the instruments themselves -- are embedded with culture, history, and power. This would suggest to me that the researcher is indirectly (involuntarily?) part of the action.
• because history, politics, power, and social references are embedded in a paradigm, researchers are contributing to a wider context (our meaning and knowledge of something) through the action of their research -- which is often a reaffirmation, causation and/or consequence of  what is embedded in the paradigm. 

My thoughts:

• All truth is subjective. Even physical laws are subject to doubt arising from what we don't yet know. 

Week 8: Paradigmatic Controversies

Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (2000)

(n.b. this article is super-dense...)

N.B. the full discussion around this article can be found here https://modules.lancs.ac.uk/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=22907 - the discussion is more enlightening than the article itself!

How values inform the enquiry process:

• choice of the problem
• choice of paradigm to guide the problem
• choice of theoretical framework
• choice of major data-gathering and data-analytic methods
• choice of context
• treatment of values resident within the context, and 
• choice of format(s) for presenting findings   

Values constitute a major point of departure between positivist, conventional modes of inquiry and more interpretive forms of enquiry.

Human phenomena are themselves the subject of controversy. Classical social scientists would like to see "human phenomena" limited to those social experiments from which (scientific) generalisations may be drawn.

New-paradigm inquirers, however, are increasingly concerned with the single experience, the individual crisis, the epiphany or moment of discovery, with that most powerful of all threats to conventional objectivity, feeling and emotion.

Social scientists concerned with the expansion of what count as social data rely increasingly on the experiential, the embodied, the emotive qualities of human experience that contribute the narrative quality to life.

"in the Postmodern moment, and in the wake of poststructuralism, the assumption that there is no single "truth" - that all truths are but partial truths; that the slippage between signifier and signified in linguistic and textual terms creates re-presentations that are only and always shadows of the actual people, events, and places; that identities are fluid rather than fixed - leads us ineluctably toward the insight that there will be no single "conventional" paradigm to which all social scientists might ascribe in some common terms and with mutual understanding.

Rather, we stand at the threshold of a history marked by multivocality, contested meanings, paradigmatic controversies, and new textual forms. At some distance down this conjectural path, when its history is written, we will find that this has been the era of emancipation: emancipation from what Hannah Arendt calls "the coerciveness of Truth", emancipation from hearing only the voices of Western Europe, emancipation from generations of silence, and emancipation from seeing the world in one color."

Week 7: Ethnography on the Move: From Field to Net to Internet

Wittel (2000)

Ethnography is a qualitative research design aimed at exploring cultural phenomena. The resulting field study or a case report reflects the knowledge and the system of meanings in the lives of a cultural group. An ethnography is a means to represent graphically, and in writing, the culture of a people.

According to Clifford Geertz (1973) the concept of cultural anthropology in the late 50s and early 60s has been very straightforward: "they have a culture out there and your job is to come back and tell us what it is". Today the idea of "a culture out there" is problematic due to the reality that societies have modernised and differentiated and so have cultures.

The contacts between societies and between cultures have been intensified through media, telecommunications, economy, migration, travelling etc. The dominant position within ethnography is now that the apparent boundedness of a culture is something constructed rather than found, and there is broad agreement that even the tiniest geographical places have cultures rather than one single culture.

• "What would once have appeared as a logical impossibility - ethnography without the ethnos - has come to appear, to many, perfectly sensible, even necessary" (Gupta & Ferguson, 1997a: 2)

Two strategies to modernise ethnography beyond the tradition of fieldwork in a geographically defined locality with clear borders and boundaries:

1. Reposition ethnography as "research self-consciously embedded in a world system" that "moves out from single sites and local situations...to examine the circulation of cultural meanings, objects and identities in diffuse time-space (Marcus, 1998: 79)

Related to this are suggestions to redefine and de-centre the notion of 'the field'. Instead of referring to locality - "the here" and "the elsewhere" - the field should instead be conceptualised as a "political location". This might bring about a move from the field in an 'among the so-and-so' sense towards a mode of study that cares about, and pays attention to, the interlocking of multiple socio-political sites and locations (Appadurai in Gupta & Ferguson, 1997b: 37). Such a reconstruction of fieldwork would reposition the role of participant observation: it would continue to be a major part of anthropological methodologies, but cease to be fetishised.

Ethnography could also move away from studying 'fields' and towards and ethnography of networks, 
in line with the idea of a "Network Society" (Castells, 1996):

• like a field, networks are still strongly related to geographical space
• unlike a field a network is an open structure, able to expand without limits and highly dynamic
• a network does not merely consist of a set of nodes, but also a set of connections between the nodes

An ethnography of networks would contain the examination of the nodes of a net and the examination of the connections and flows (money, objects, people, ideas etc) between these nodes.

2. Shift from material spaces to so-called cyberspace

The growth of the internet is one of the greatest cultural phenomena of our time, impacting almost all areas of life. So it is not surprising there is a rapidly increasing body of ethnographic work that studies online communication and interaction, but also related spaces that are highly mediated and interactive - e.g. virtual cities / universities / marketplaces etc.

Both strategies...suggest that ethnography is on the move.

1. Ethnographic practice is attendance, is a co-presence of ethnographer and the observes social situation. Whether this co-presence requires one single shared space is a problem worth discussing, particularly in the context of online ethnographies.
2. Ethnography is about revealing context and thus complexity 

A century ago, ethnographers like Haddon, Boas and Malinowski revolutionised anthropology by not merely studying decontextualised objects...but rather by studying people in the natural environment. To them the key to gaining an understanding of communities/tribes and their cultures, rituals and patterns of interaction was a long-term immersion in another way of life (understood as an increase in complexity). What made perfect sense at the turn of the last century now becomes the centre of debate: long-term participant observation in a locally limited area privileges face-to-face relationships and tends to overlook movement. It priviliges boundaries and thus difference and tends to overlook connections and connectivity.

From the field to the 'net'...

• Ethnographic research in and on a network requires careful consideration about which areas of the network to include
• As networks are infinite, by drawing boundaries the ethnographer actively and consciously participates in the construction of spaces and in the spatialisation of difference. Therefore, the framing of the network pre-structures the findings and conclusions of any ethnographic enquiry and also becomes a political practice
• Raises implications for 'fieldwork', e.g. how to allocate available time. The more multi-sited an ethnography is, the less time is available for the individual nodes or the individual connections between the nodes
• Culture is created in the area of the 'in-between', it is a dynamic process, it is about becoming and fading away
• Mitigates the role of the 'gate-keeper' common to traditional ethnographic studies. The researcher may need as many gate-keepers as there are relevant nodes
• Will change the relationship between the ethnographer and the observed in such a way that the boundaries between home and the remote 'field' become less clear
• Will reduce the time that can be spent with one single site, which will negatively affect the search for hidden and deep layers of meaning and the pursuit of a "thick description"

...to the Internet

An ethnography of purely virtual spaces stretches ethnographic practice into an unknown area, moving is so far beyond tradition that it has to deal with a set of serious difficulties:

1. The validity of data on the internet users e.g. accuracy of age, gender, nationality etc cannot be checked. This uncertainty is particularly problematic in a space that has become famous for its 'playful' possibilities - i.e. a person's online identity can differ greatly from their offline identity.
2. The relationship between participant observation and ethnographic practice. The ethnographer cannot observe 'real people' - i.e. it is possible to see the growth of a discussion list or words in a chat area, but not observe the actual person creating them. Gupta and Ferguson (1997b: 37) admit that "participant observation continues to be a major part of positioned anthropological methodologies". 
3. A "thick description" of networks requires a thick description of connections and connectivity. The connectivity in virtual spaces is represented by hyperlinks. Hyperlinks are an impoverished and one-dimensional way to represent and express social ties. N.B. This article was written pre-blogging, let alone pre social networking.
4. The displacement between ethnographer and the 'field' results in a lack of a common and mutual perception of the physical context, preventing the ethnographer from observing factors such as dress codes. Interaction patterns are also affected, for example a f-2-f dialogue includes gestures, the sound of a voice, the smell of someone etc. An online communication is limited to the written word and a handful of so called emoticons.

If one of the core objectives of ethnographic work is to reveal complexity, then virtual spaces encounter a similar problem to physical spaces because they DON'T INTEGRATE CONTEXT. The lack of context, which is in this case the context of the offline or physical environment, does not reveal complexity, but rather creates a reduction of complexity. If the research conducted is single-sited, that is to say from the researcher's office computer, it might be more appropriate to dispense with the term ethnography and talk about conversation analysis, text analysis or discourse analysis.

Rather than arguing for a 'real reality' and a 'virtual reality', rather than emphasising the difference between material and digital spaces, we should introduce a more relational perspective and concentrate on the similarities, connections and overlappings.

So ethnography faces a dilemma: on the one hand the attempts to overcome the notion of 'field as geographically limited area are overdue. On the other hand these attempts clearly show that it is hard to escape from the notions of 'field' and 'fieldwork.

Week 7: e-Research

Anderson & Kanuka (2003): Designing e-Research

 

Anderson & Kanuka: Designing e-Research

"It is the theory that decides what can be observed" - Albert Einstein

When the purpose of the research is to generate theory, qualitative research is an appropriate strategy.

When the purpose is to test theory, quantitative research is more appropriate.

Task of the e-researcher: "to design research that asks meaningful and answerable questions and that coherently answers those questions in ways that match the personal worldview of the researcher, the sponsor of the research, and the subjects of investigation"

 

Advantages of using the Internet as a research tool

• ability to access research 'subjects' that would otherwise be inaccessible due to distance, nationality, language barriers etc.

  Provides anonymity to research subjects who may be unwilling to provide data using other methods 

Disadvantages of using the internet as a research tool

• because the internet is a relatively new research tool we 'don't know what we don't yet know' about its limitations

 

Research designs with usually include the following:

• A research methodology paradigm
• The use of related and relevant literature
• The purpose and/or objectives of the study
• A problem statement, research questions, or hypotheses
• An acknowledgement of limitations and setting of delimitations
• A statement of the significance of the study
• A plan for data collection and analysis
• A statement about how the study advances methods and procedures for data collection and analysis

e-researchers must try to share the findings of their study and explore how the net influence the search process and the procedure for data cllection and analysis.

How do you do e-research?

• decide on a problem in need of investigation - typically research focuses on understanding a phenomenon, testing a theory in a real-world context, explaining an observed event, or developing a solution to an existing problem
• ask the question in a 'researchable' manner:
• Avoid value judgements involving 'should ' or 'should not'
• Avoid questions that invite an absolute response e.g. 'yes or no'
• make sure the research question avoids the so what factor
• when structuring your question use language that is compatible with the study, method or paradigm  

Are technologies 'neutral' in their effect on educational outcomes?

"[M]edia are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in nutrition...only the content of the vehicle can influence achievement" (Richard Clark, 1983: 445)

The influence of media is a complex phenomenon (Chandler, 1996) and shape our experience through their selectivity. Chandler identified the key features of technological impact that reshape many of our social structures:

• Selectivity: Selectivity is the way a technology is formalised within its own system. The outcome of selectivity occurre when some aspects of our experiences are amplified through the use of communication technologies causing others, in turn, to be reduced.
• Transparency: Transparency occurs when we become so familiar with a technology that we do not recognise its influence and hence, the consequences of its use. This results in an inability to exercise our choices.
• Transformation: Transformation occurs when the use of technology becomes an end in itself. Specifically, when using a technology, we function within its structure.
• Resonance: Resonance refers to the significance or enduring effect attached to the use of one technology over another. How significant the resonance is depends on the media transformations, which, in turn, derive from the nature and use of a particular technology.

e-researchers need to be aware of all of the above concerns when designing a research study.

Quantitative vs qualitative research paradigms

The method e-researchers choose often reveals what they value as knowledge and, perhaps more importantly, what their perspective of the nature of reality is. For example, quantitative methods are based on an assumption that the world is comprised of observable and measurable facts. In the context of e-research, this involves using the internet as a data-gathering tool to find cause and effect through an objective, formal, an deductive design, which aims to be context and value free. Quantitative researchers strive for transparency and objectivity, thus allowing their results to generalise to other places and people.

Common quantitative methods: experimental studies, questionnaires

In contrast, qualitative methods assume multiple realities, which are subjective, value-laden, complex, and context-bound.  Accuracy is achieved through credibility, transferability, confirmability, and dependability (Guba, 1981)... The qualitative e-researcher interacts with the research using an in-depth inductive process and an emerging design that is identified during the research process. With respect to the Net, the qualitative e-researcher generally views it as more than simply a tool for data gathering... Thus the Net and the research results are indivisible, in that the e-researcher's biases and beliefs about the Net will influence the research process, and hence, should be reflected on and addressed through the study.

Common qualitative methods: ethnographies, grounded theory investigations, case studies, interviews and phenomenological studies

The different assumptions of each research approach will not only influence the methodological approach selected, but also the purpose of the research and the role of the e-researcher... Thus is it important for e-researchers to be self-aware to the extent that they can articulate their own personal worldview.

Tips for writing good research questions

• When developing your research question, make sure it does not require a value judgement
• Avoid asking questions that can be answered in any absolute way (i.e. "yes" or "no") or seem to imply universality over large domains or fields of study
• Match the language to the method of the study (quantitative vs qualitative)
• Pay attention to the wording of published research studies to identify the perspective, methodology, or reserach paradigm from the problem statement
• Consider how the Net may influence responses to your research question
• Be sure that the research question guides your use of the Net rather than letting the Net guide the research question

Week 4: The issue of quality in qualitative reserach

Hammersley (2007) The issue of quality in qualitative research. 

Available at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17437270701614782

Focus: Examines whether criteria are necessary and considers whether a single set of criteria is achievable.


Problems with qualitative research:

• Criticised for not servin evidence-based practice well
• Argument that there is no clearly defined set of quality criteria available for judging it, ' so that it is of uncertain quality'

This assumes that:

• There are already clearly defined criteria of quality for quantitative research
• That explicit assessment criteria are needed

Problem faced by lay users e.g. policymakers and practitioners):

• how to assess research findings in the terms in which they present themselves
• how to relate these findings to what they already know and how they normally judge validity

Importance of trust - researchers largely have to trust that other researchers have carried out their work efficiently, presented their findings honestly, that normal processes of criticism with in the research community have reduced the danger of error etc. There is no mechanism that can check independently that the knowledge they produce is sound, or even that they have pursued this knowledge in the most effective way possible. Dilemma: the whole point of research is that it may produce un-commonsensical conclusions, therefore findings must not be dismissed because they are counter-intuitive. It is not possible for researchers to make their judgements transparent, in the sense of fully intelligible to anyone, irrespective of background knowledge and experience. Indeed, there are limits to the extent to which these judgements can be made intelligible even to fellow researchers, because of the situated nature of judgement.

Paradigms

Different 'paradigms' of qualitative research (Thomas Kuhn) - i.e. qualitative research is divided by divergent theoretical, methodological and value assumptions about the nature of the phenomena being investigated and about how they can and should be researched. The differences between qualitative researchers stem from the reality that each comes from their own unique situated practice and each employs a different approach to examining the process of research. Hammersley therefore believes that 'paradigm conflict' arises from a difference in practices rather than just a 'clash of ideas'.

Max Weber (& Neo-Kantianism) believed that social scientists strive to understand 'social phenomena in their socio-historical contexts' rather than attempting to establish 'universal laws' as is the case with natural science. This is an important difference as it means that social scientists will always draw on different sets of values and assumptions about the factual nature of the social phenomena, which will inevitably bring about divisions within educational research.

Scientific method and rigour

Historical clash of opinion between researchers who believed that physics / Botany etc. provided the exemplar for scientific method and those who believed that the study of social phenomena required a very different approach. Some researchers believed that understanding social phenomena could only be achieved 'from within' in order for the researcher to fully understand the meanings and cultural references of those people being studied. This led not to a wholesale rejection of scientific method but rather to a conception of science that was better suited to studying social phenomena.

Discourse analysts vs ethnographers

It is often the belief of Discourse Analysts that readers must be presented with the data to enable them to form their own opinions as to the validity of the data. Some also state that what is inferred must not go beyond what can be 'observed' in the collected data. This differs from the argument made by many ethnographers that it is not possible to make all the data available to readers, and that the accuracy and relevance of their observations is wholly dependent upon their successful observation and interpretation of the culture of the people being studied.

Realism vs constructionism

Constructionists believe that social phenomena

• 'do not exist independently of people's understandings of them, that those understandings play a crucial generative role'
• 'are culturally constituted and can only be understood by describing the processes by which they are culturally constituted as the things they are'

This means that the social phenomena, their causes and effects are no longer the focus of investigation. Rather it is the processes by which they are identified and in effect created through identification by culture members' that becomes the goal of enquiry.

Conclusions

• There is a need to try and reduce the significant differences in perspective of approaches to social science research in order to try and establish guidelines for what is and is not good quality work.
• The plurality of methodological approaches and respective criteria for what constitutes 'quality' should not simply be accepted unquestioningly.