For me, chapter 2 in On the Case was about immersing yourself in the environment in which your research will take place. It advocates a sort of "fly-on-the-wall" approach, such as the one taken by the researcher studying intergenerational learning. She spends an hour sitting in a shop and simply takes notes on the shop owner's interactions with the customers. While reading this part, I was thinking about how much you can learn about a location by performing such a seemingly simple observation. An hour of note-taking could potentially yield findings about the regional dialect, local economy, perhaps general attitudes held by residents. I'm reminded of a local barbeque joint in Ashland, Ohio, that I used to visit with my fiance (so very long ago when I was eating meat). It was a tiny venue run by a older couple that shared building space with a flower shop. Bible passages hung on wooden placards on the walls. Fox News played on a TV mounted in the corner of the room. The food was cheap; the bill for the two of us would always fall under $10. Most of the customers who stopped in were locals and regulars. All of this information already depicts a pretty accurate portrait not only of the restaurant, but the area in which it's located. In contrast, I worked a couple of jobs farther north in Westlake, Ohio, a fairly wealthy community with a gigantic new outdoor shopping mall. I'm sure the experience sitting in a Starbucks or at the Cheesecake Factory at this shopping mall would reveal as much about Westlake as the barbeque place did about Ashland, and the comparison of two observation sessions spent sitting in each location would reveal the major differences about each area. Back to Dyson & Genishi-- I'm reminded of the contrast between the researcher and the college student observers studying the inner city classroom, and how the college student observers' views were limited because they only visited once a week at the same time. The researcher was able to be much more immersed in the environment than they were and therefore had a much richer research experience.
Chapter 3, particularly the "Complicating Our Roles & Identities" section, reminded me of a conversation I just had about my thesis. Dyson & Genishi talk about how "particular aspects of ourselves . . . influence the lenses we look through" (57). As a vegetarian transitioning to vegan, I'm writing my thesis from an interesting perspective. My thesis deals with the anti-rhetoric surrounding veganism; one idea in particular that I'd like to explore deals with the term "cruelty-free," which is listed on the label of many vegan products. As I was explaining this idea to someone, I mentioned how it conveys a sense of moral superiority. This is an interesting argument to make because, as a budding vegan, I share in this belief that animal-free products are morally superior, or more morally sound to those that aren't--however, my thesis requires me to explore these things that "give veganism a bad name," and it is my responsibility to explore these topics from a netural, objective standpoint. So in a way, I'm sort of holding myself and my beliefs up to a level of scrutiny in a way that complicates my research-- but in a good way, I think.
Lauren, I think you make a good point about observing in a restaurant. When I was reading, I mostly pictured classroom scenarios and what those locations and participants reveal, probably to the extent that I did not consider other places. Of course, all/most locations contain indications of their locations and the values of their customers.
ReplyDeleteI think what was happening with my picturing only schools was my own bias coming in - my research ideas were about schools. But of course, you are researching something else. Even our responses have implicit biases! Reading your post after writing mine has made that point even clearer to me.