Chapters 2 and 3 of On the Case

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?  

On the Case - Chapters 2 and 3

Chapters 2 and 3

First of all, I am really enjoying this book; I am discovering new ideas that relate to concepts of research and culture that I currently hold.  For instance, my cultural research with Veterans is complicating sometimes not only because I have a strong sense what being in the military means (for me), but also because I am dealing with other branches and different military occupational specialities (MOS) that all have a different cultural structure.

In the second chapter, Dyson and Genishi discuss the importance of observing an environment before you "discover" the meanings of the actions; Dyson and Genishi refer to this as "casing the joint".  While I certainly understand the importance of this process (casing the joint assists researchers with understanding their biases), I have a hard time casing or observing a culture that, even though I have been out of the Marine Corps for 6 years, my mind and cultural ideals are parallel with the Marine Corps Culture.  Although this type of understanding is an advantage in a research setting, my biases for "my" branch and "my" MOS will certainly create some obstacles for me to overcome. 

Dyson and Genishi provided me with assistance by providing an explanation of their challenges, "In order to learn about this site on its own terms, and to figure out what this place might teach me, I had to work to carefully attune myself to its rhythms.  In the beginning, this meant sketching maps, asking for official schedules (or copying those that were posted), jotting down organizational specifics of a breadth of language and literacy activities, and noting how children were arranged in the room..." (30).  In other words, the authors believe that facing your biases head on by remaining objective and understanding the value of learning something different from a particular setting. 

Ok, so I understand now that the rhythms of the environment I am researching are far more important than mine; my realization of this fact is what allows me to move on; however, I also need to know how I should approach my research in way that allows me to understand my subjective ideas before I observe my environment.In chapter 3, Dyson and Genishi discuss the design of "casing an environment".  They state the importance of understanding the context of the actions of a community: "Understanding that Madlenka's block is potentially a case of intergenerational learning or that Mrs. Kay's room is a case of children's 'having their say' depends on knowing both background and foreground" (43).  Here, the authors are explaining that the history and the implications of history are very important in each separate area that one is researching.

As a principle, because of this chapter, I will strive to set aside my understanding of a certain culture before I begin "casing the joint".  According to Dyson and Genishi, I must take on the role of the researcher, and I must continuously strive to understand why environment is important to me and why an environment is important to the culture I am researching: "We recognize that who we are outside our identities as university researchers influences the kinds of questions we ask and the kinds of collaborators and participants we select for our studies" (57-58).  

Blog #4 "Casing the Joint"

The different approaches used by Dyson and Genishi include maps, schedules, people, and the social dynamics of language use. This book is much easier to read and is quite informative of qualitative research design. This chapter focuses on “casing the joint” which offers researchers the ability to focus on elements pertaining to the situation at hand. I like how the environment is considered as a whole element from the buildings to the classroom setting inside. This provides a complete description of the situation, which offers researchers the most information and objectivity. This enabled me to think of a type of macro (large) to micro (small) environment that I studied in psychology. It also mimics the open-ended nature of data collection procedures which begins as a huge topic and eventually finds its subject in the details that researchers use.

        The social dynamics of language use are of particular interest to me. Dyson and Genishi state that “sociolinguistic tools can help researchers gain some sense of how social activity organizes time, space, and human action.” The interactions between the researcher and subjects are highly organized to the researcher and not overtly obvious to the subjects. For example, my research will involve asking adolescents about their identity development that appears open-ended but follows a specific format that is not readily apparent to my subjects.

The next aspect of social dynamics of language use involved immersion. I took several vacations to Mexico to visit my friends and had a desire to understand other cultures in my travels in the world. Mexico offered an interesting blend of culture and I was able to understand what the people were doing around me based on my situational observations. I like to watch people and see how they behave in certain circumstances. I was immersed in Mexico in the city of Fresnillo, close to Zacatecas. The people were very excited to meet an American, and it was a small town environment filled with good people. I was immersed in the culture before the violence escalated. I was able to understand some Spanish after a few months.

        Casing the joint enables researchers to learn and absorb the material around them using a qualitative based study. This situation is where true knowledge is and people can be categorized (based on the research conducted) into different groups. I almost always focus on the situation for the greatest amount of information.  Thanks for reading!

On the Case Chs 2 & 3

I have been going back and forth in my mind about how I am going to approach my research. I wanted to do surveys and then I didn't. The first chapter helped me to understand who I should be researching and why, and these two chapter defined the what and how.

In chapter two, I learned that observations are very important; they can tell a lot about a single person, a group of people, or an entire community. Observations can also tell what types of behaviors or actions one might make in a certain situation. I would have to watch and observe many people to understand why they make the choices the do and try to understand (maybe through surveys) why they make certain choices.

While reading the section on language use, I thought about what matters to the people involved and why do people use certain types of languages. For example, in the classroom setting many children seem to have their own language (this might be considered a classroom norm set by the student's themselves or the teacher at the beginning of the semester).

As I was reading through this, I wondered how I could use today's online language and incorporate it into my research. I know I have to sift through a lot of stuff and observe how people use this type of language and why, but I think it will be worth while to look into.

In chapter three, I learned about boundaries and setting them accordingly so I don't go off topic and I don't go outside of the topic I want to discuss/ research. This chapter suggested many good ideas on how to conduct research and to stay within one's boundaries.

In all, I have to ask myself "who am I and how do I impact this research?" Are my choices, questions, observations, and approaches going to add or take away from the research. I may need to think more about these things while I am observing and definitely take them into consideration while I put together my research.

On the Case Ch 2-3

In chapters two and three of On the Case, Dyson and Genishi detail two important aspects of their method for case study research.  Chapter two is about "Casing the Joint" or familiarizing yourself with the area where the case study will take place.  It is important for researchers to learn about the place where they will be doing research so that they can better understand the people they are observing.  Dyson and Genishi recommend creating a map of the area both to better understand the area and to decide where to position oneself while observing.  This observational period also gives researchers an opportunity to make preliminary observations and view their own ideas and biases on the group being observed.  The excerpted example from a "Project Notebook" on page 40 is especially helpful for showing how an experienced researcher documents their initial observations and contacts when beginning to study the case.

Chapter three is all about "Getting on the Case: Case Study Design" and Dyson and Genishi explain the steps for beginning a case study.  Researchers need to have a good understanding of the foreground and the background of the case since "each case becomes an object of study--the foreground--against a particular background or problem that animates the researcher to see the boundaries of the case." (p 43)  This is a crucial step to identifying the case and creating a method for research since it basically outlines the parameters of the study.  Once the foreground and background have been identified, the researcher should begin drafting the questions that will develop the study.  The information in the "Research Design" book was more thorough and less interesting.  This book is filled with examples so it is easier to understand the concepts, at least for me anyway. 

When the researcher understands the foreground and background and has developed questions for the case study, he or she can begin "Designing the Study", a process that seems to be vague compared to research designs for quantitative or mixed methods study.  Example 3.1 on page 47 contains a simple outline for a case study that seems both easier to understand and less thorough than any example from "Research Design" and perhaps that is why I like it better.  Qualitative research, case studies, and Dyson and Genishi's writing style, seem to be much better suited to my personality and study habits.

I really enjoy how they include so many examples throughout the book, it makes the material much more palatable, but I do wish they would have included examples of case study research on topics other than elementary school classrooms.  While I understand that education is their area of research and expertise and that is why the examples are on this topic, observing a classroom full of small children sounds like my own personal hell and I would have enjoyed some other examples.  Nit-picky, I know, but it would have been helpful.  

Week 7

The reading this week was about how a researchers situate themselves in the environment they plan to research. This involves a very complex awareness of surroundings before the research even begins. The researcher must situate the location, specifically the school as this is educational research, in terms of the state, district, neighborhood, and even the location of the one classroom in relation to the rest of the school. Even the location of the restrooms matter as the author pointed out, in terms of gendered and management language. That is something I probably would not have thought of on my own, even though that as I look back at my previous job at a childcare facility, it makes so much sense. Restrooms were a very big part of management, and child management was certainly a gendered issue. When the kids sat down to have a snack, I had to manage the seating to make sure the gender ratio was appropriate (one girl would cry if she had to only sit with boys). It was even a policy that as a punishment, a boy would only have to sit with girls if he couldn’t behave (keep his voice down) with his male friends. When I had the job, it was just policy, but now that I look back, I wonder if that management of gendered and language management could lead to a research question. It seems that as I think about it, this kind of observing and noticing issues is what the authors meant by seeing what kinds of questions a site can bring up and what types of situations might be available to observe.

The second chapter in the reading material focused on the researcher getting more specific about developing a research question and beginning to do more research. The authors brought up a point about the researchers knowing themselves as humans who come to the site with preconceived notions and biases. That balances a previous point about how the participants in the study are also individuals who have their own motivations and reactions to situations that cannot necessarily be compared to others’ reactions in future sites. This is the complicated part about qualitative research in the humanities. It was recognized in the book that a lot of education management at the state or district level wants more quantifiable data or “scientific” research. In some ways, this discounts the uniqueness and humanness of the researcher, participants, and even the readers of the research who will probably make their own judgments based on their own biases no matter whether the data is “scientific” or not. By wanting quantifiable data, are they not simply asserting their own biases on what qualifies good research? 

Dyson & Genishi, Chapters 2 & 3

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.