Chapter 2 of On The
Case introduced the first steps for a researcher seeking to “case the joint”
or rather, “slowly but deliberately amass information about the configuration
of time and space, of people, and of activity in their physical sites”(19). In order to gain valuable information about a
site, a researcher must situate themselves within the location. The first visits to a site allow the
researcher to amass a lot of information that will lead them to asking
questions which may be worth designing a study around. The design is not something that comes first
but rather comes as a result of initial observations and data collecting. Researchers configure space and time through
maps, schedules (both official and unofficial), and participant actions. This initial observation helps attune the
researcher to the physical locations, to make it easier to pick out and analyze
distinct going-ons happening on location that otherwise may be lost in the
chaos. A project notebook becomes the
researcher’s best friend and textbook, as all the data becomes organized within
it from important numbers, to dates, to specific information about the site.
Chapter 3 delves further into the Case Study design but
reminding us that as researchers we seek to know something as well as we can,
and that to do that, we should choose something small. It is often difficult to narrow our interests
and do that however. “Each case becomes an object of study—foreground—against a
particular background or problem that animates the researcher to see the boundaries
of the case” (43). While it is important
have research questions to design the study, researchers must be open to
changes or information that changes the research questions—that they may have
to adjust their study. The researcher
also needs to recognize their role within the research site as well as reflect
on the lenses we use to view the site and our background that may lead us to
use these lenses.
I’ve really enjoyed this book so far. I love the use of examples to illustrate the
points the writers are making within the book.
I think it also illustrates the difficulty of placing myself as a
researcher within a site and developing research questions. It still leaves me wondering how exactly to
put myself out there, where to look for these research sites, as well as the
best way to hone in on particular areas that might be a good place to consider
a case. I think this is part of the
process though. It really is a process
of discovery that is probably very different for every researcher because every
place and the people within that place are so different and have many perspectives. I am really interested in particular in “key
events” that Dyson and Genishi mention on page 48. They recognize that they cannot, feasibly,
document and transcribe every single piece of video footage or audio tape that
they have. Instead they must narrow
their look at “key events” that they pick out.
I start questioning how you pick out these “key events”. I know they will be shaped by the research
questions, but how do we distinguish which are key events that we should be
looking at, whereas other events are able to be left to the side. Are we privileging certain information? How can we do this without silencing voices
of those that are actually important to our study and the information we seek? Since we are looking with a lens, I imagine
this means recognizing our own limitations, but does this not also skew our
information that we’re presenting to the audience? Perhaps without them even knowing the extent
of the skew?
No comments:
Post a Comment