Showing posts with label Eleonore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eleonore. Show all posts
Second research daisy
Since one of my first posts for this course was of a research daisy for my intended course of study, I can't resist posting a second daisy, one that is closer to what I will probably submit with my research proposal. This one illustrates the fields involved in my case study - of one aspect of the United States Government's open data system. It was done using OmniGraffle, the equivalent of Visio for Macs.
Yin on case study research
Since I'm looking at doing a case study for my thesis and we've been discussing Robert Yin in class, I borrowed his book entitled Case study research: Design and methods (2003) from the library. This book has been extremely useful in building the justification for a case study design and understanding/addressing the strengths and weaknesses of the approach. When defining the research approach, Yin notes that: “a case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between the phenomenon and context are not clearly evident. (p. 13)"
By pressing the importance of examining the phenomenon within its context, Yin contrasts case studies to, for example, experiments, where phenomena can be tested removed from their environment - in the laboratory context. This makes me thing of Walsham's synthesized framework, which many of us studied in INF1003. In Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations, Walsham suggests different points of entry for IS research, including examining context, content and processes. Walsham also wrote a detailed methodological article called "Doing interpretive research" (2006). Because interpretive IS research fits well with the case study approach defined by Yin, I think that the two authors complement each other well. Chapter 7 of Knight's Small scale research (2002) also gives very practical advice for data collection and interaction with the research subjects.
Interestingly, Yin notes the weakness of case studies, particularly single-case studies, which do not benefit from the comparative element of multi-case studies. He explains that, like single experiments, single-case studies are vulnerable to misinterpretation and access issues. This loops back to last week's post, in which I briefly discussed the importance of, and anxiety related to, obtaining appropriate access to the subjects in the case study. I do think, however, that Yin's six sources of data for case studies can address these problems - documentation, archival records, interviews, direct observation, participant observation. When studying online information systems, some of this data can be collected through interaction with the system itself and by accessing publicly available records.
Going back to the question of studying phenomena within their environments, I am also reminded of Bruno Latour's commentary on the separation between lab and field research in science, in Pandora's Hope. As an outsider, he is struck by the abstraction and subjectivity necessary for lab studies in botany. He explains that a plant sample, for example, has no meaning outside of the context in which it has evolved and that the recall of the field researcher is necessary to fill in that context. When using the case study approach, it may thus be possible to reduce the gap between the case itself and the researcher's abstraction and categorization, as it is never removed from its context.
By pressing the importance of examining the phenomenon within its context, Yin contrasts case studies to, for example, experiments, where phenomena can be tested removed from their environment - in the laboratory context. This makes me thing of Walsham's synthesized framework, which many of us studied in INF1003. In Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations, Walsham suggests different points of entry for IS research, including examining context, content and processes. Walsham also wrote a detailed methodological article called "Doing interpretive research" (2006). Because interpretive IS research fits well with the case study approach defined by Yin, I think that the two authors complement each other well. Chapter 7 of Knight's Small scale research (2002) also gives very practical advice for data collection and interaction with the research subjects.
Interestingly, Yin notes the weakness of case studies, particularly single-case studies, which do not benefit from the comparative element of multi-case studies. He explains that, like single experiments, single-case studies are vulnerable to misinterpretation and access issues. This loops back to last week's post, in which I briefly discussed the importance of, and anxiety related to, obtaining appropriate access to the subjects in the case study. I do think, however, that Yin's six sources of data for case studies can address these problems - documentation, archival records, interviews, direct observation, participant observation. When studying online information systems, some of this data can be collected through interaction with the system itself and by accessing publicly available records.
Going back to the question of studying phenomena within their environments, I am also reminded of Bruno Latour's commentary on the separation between lab and field research in science, in Pandora's Hope. As an outsider, he is struck by the abstraction and subjectivity necessary for lab studies in botany. He explains that a plant sample, for example, has no meaning outside of the context in which it has evolved and that the recall of the field researcher is necessary to fill in that context. When using the case study approach, it may thus be possible to reduce the gap between the case itself and the researcher's abstraction and categorization, as it is never removed from its context.
Cronbach's alpha and research anxiety
As I was going through Luker (2008) today wondering what I might write about for my blog post, I hit upon a completely new concept: Cronbach's alpha, a coefficient of internal consistency. As Luker explains, once you've coded your data and created a coding book (a list of what codes relate to what themes and sub-themes), you ask someone who doesn't know your research to use it to code a sample of your data. Then, you run the test on the resulting analysis, along with your own analysis of the same data, and have a measure of the extent to which you have been consistent in coding.
Because I'm not a mathematician, I imagine this could be done with SPSS. In fact, in an FAQ document, SPSS shows the formula "for conceptual purposes" before giving more familiar (to me) screen shots of what this would look like in the program.
I liked Luker's coding by hand methodology, but wonder how long it would take to input the data for the blind-coded sample into SPSS in order to run the test. It might be easier to sit down with a "for dummies" book and learn how to do it myself.
What attracted me to this method is not so much, as Luker posits, that it would legitimize my research to canonical social scientists, but rather that it would keep me accountable and disciplined during the analysis process. Working towards a logical, clear coding book would keep my thoughts in order and seeing the coefficient (which we hope, would be high) might relieve my own anxieties about the research process.
In fact, I've been having some anxieties about my research, as I've been working on my research proposal. I started the blog post with a remedy for analysis anxiety, but there is also data collection anxiety. I have an exciting case study in mind. How to I ensure that I gain entry to my research participants? Walsham (2006), in a paper about interpretive research methods for the study of information systems, devotes a section to the social skills of researchers and places importance on being liked and respected by the participants. Similarly, Luker discusses the need to make your research relevant to the participants and showing reciprocity. When she gained access to an abortion clinic that she wanted to study, she donated blood in exchange. It sounds like a good idea, but I'm not sure I have enough blood for the number of interviews I would like to do. I imagine that what Walsham and Luker describe are simply normal social relations - why would our relationships and interactions with other human beings be any different because we are doing research? In any case, I can see why Luker discusses researcher anxiety near the end of her book. During my research journey, I will want to test my process many, many times, primarily to reassure myself that my work is sound.
Because I'm not a mathematician, I imagine this could be done with SPSS. In fact, in an FAQ document, SPSS shows the formula "for conceptual purposes" before giving more familiar (to me) screen shots of what this would look like in the program.
I liked Luker's coding by hand methodology, but wonder how long it would take to input the data for the blind-coded sample into SPSS in order to run the test. It might be easier to sit down with a "for dummies" book and learn how to do it myself.
What attracted me to this method is not so much, as Luker posits, that it would legitimize my research to canonical social scientists, but rather that it would keep me accountable and disciplined during the analysis process. Working towards a logical, clear coding book would keep my thoughts in order and seeing the coefficient (which we hope, would be high) might relieve my own anxieties about the research process.
In fact, I've been having some anxieties about my research, as I've been working on my research proposal. I started the blog post with a remedy for analysis anxiety, but there is also data collection anxiety. I have an exciting case study in mind. How to I ensure that I gain entry to my research participants? Walsham (2006), in a paper about interpretive research methods for the study of information systems, devotes a section to the social skills of researchers and places importance on being liked and respected by the participants. Similarly, Luker discusses the need to make your research relevant to the participants and showing reciprocity. When she gained access to an abortion clinic that she wanted to study, she donated blood in exchange. It sounds like a good idea, but I'm not sure I have enough blood for the number of interviews I would like to do. I imagine that what Walsham and Luker describe are simply normal social relations - why would our relationships and interactions with other human beings be any different because we are doing research? In any case, I can see why Luker discusses researcher anxiety near the end of her book. During my research journey, I will want to test my process many, many times, primarily to reassure myself that my work is sound.
Immersed in literature
Hine's (2004) examination of Internet ethnography, just like Wheeler (2010) and Miller and Slater (2000), among many others, conceptualizes the Internet as a 'place', a 'network' or a 'community'. One thus studies a part of the Internet just as one would study a village, a grassroots association or a practice - by examining the people linked to them and the relationships between them.
However, discussing my thesis proposal with Professor Grimes today, it hit me that not all parts of the Internet are conducive to this type of study. In fact, some parts of the Internet would better be qualified as 'technologies' or even 'artifacts' than 'places'. This applies to my chosen area of study, the US Government's geographic information system. While an ethnographic lens, particularly the one described by Star (1999), may be useful in examining the politics and of the GIS, Pinch and Bijker's (1984) social construction of technology framework/method might provide the right bridge between relationships and technology.
In this line of thought, at the DIY Citizenship conference at the University of Toronto this weekend, Ron Deibert of the Citizen Lab talked about the methods that his team used to study cyber attacks on the Office of the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala, India. Deibert discussed what he termed 'fusion methodology' which consists of field methods (participant observation + focused interviews) and technical interrogation (in-depth analysis of the technologies in play). This gives equal value to the social interactions and the technology itself, differing from Star's method which examines technology only as a small part of the ethnographic study.
The final report, entitled Shadows in the Cloud and produced by the Information Warfare Monitor and the Shadowserver Foundation, provides an interesting description of the mixed method - definitely worth considering for those approaching their research through science and technology studies.
However, discussing my thesis proposal with Professor Grimes today, it hit me that not all parts of the Internet are conducive to this type of study. In fact, some parts of the Internet would better be qualified as 'technologies' or even 'artifacts' than 'places'. This applies to my chosen area of study, the US Government's geographic information system. While an ethnographic lens, particularly the one described by Star (1999), may be useful in examining the politics and of the GIS, Pinch and Bijker's (1984) social construction of technology framework/method might provide the right bridge between relationships and technology.
In this line of thought, at the DIY Citizenship conference at the University of Toronto this weekend, Ron Deibert of the Citizen Lab talked about the methods that his team used to study cyber attacks on the Office of the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala, India. Deibert discussed what he termed 'fusion methodology' which consists of field methods (participant observation + focused interviews) and technical interrogation (in-depth analysis of the technologies in play). This gives equal value to the social interactions and the technology itself, differing from Star's method which examines technology only as a small part of the ethnographic study.
The final report, entitled Shadows in the Cloud and produced by the Information Warfare Monitor and the Shadowserver Foundation, provides an interesting description of the mixed method - definitely worth considering for those approaching their research through science and technology studies.
Public relations, funding and case studies
As I started reading Beaulieu et al's (2007) article, I was struck by their mention of the cultural and institutional context of case study use in science and technology studies and how this might link the research to multiple audiences. This made me think about the fact that case studies can provide an extremely powerful illustration of a more complex issue for a public outside of the research field.
While research popularization can contribute to general understanding of an issue, if the research is publicized adequately, it can also lead to increased funding, as grant-making institutions want to fund relevant research. I haven't examined this enough to be in the position to make a link between case studies and the funding that they receive, but my experience with the mock SSHRC proposal tells me that the clearer the link between research and a current social issue, the better the chances are that it will be funded. My work in public relations also has taught me that the more concrete and emotionally engaging a story, the more likely it is that it will be picked up by the media, and thus reach the public through traditional channels. Therefore, an engaging case study that can be covered by the media and insert the researcher into a societal debate will also receive financial support to do so. What's more, the funding agency might benefit from a little publicity as well.
Since I have diagrams on the brain (and I'm sure I'm not the only one in this situation), I thought that I would illustrate my point with a little drawing. I think that this applies whether the research is in the social sciences, humanities or hard sciences. The 'generalization' ring is what links the case study to societal debate.
I then thought about how the diagram above might translate into a press release, and because I have a lot of time on my hands, I made a model of a press release that might get media attention by making the case study relevant to the public.
I'm not sure to what extent this reflects reality for researchers who have been funded, but I think that examining the politics of research methods and funding is a very interesting way to position the researcher within a broader societal context. Taking this into consideration is, in my opinion, a good way to make sure that our research can both happen and have an impact.
The dehumanizing effect of critical discourse analysis
In the closing paragraph of his article, van Dijk writes: "this paper has sketched a rather simplified picture of power, dominance and their relations to discourse" (1993). Unfortunately, that is exactly why critical discourse analysis should not be used, in my view, for social research.
Dualistic frameworks about power and oppression, dominance and hegemony can be applied in the formulation of a research question, for example during an ethnographic study. They might also be useful in examining social phenomena, such Paulo Freire's popular education movement. However, they ideally should only represent a portion of the researcher's work.
Van Dijk's statement that: "critical scholars should not worry about the interests of perspectives of those in power, who are best placed to take care of their own interests anyway" is frightening, because it implies that there are two classes of human beings: the powerful and the powerless. It also indicates that the former class is less worthy of study, and even of human compassion, than the latter one.
I would venture that, in reality, power dynamics are much more complicated than this, and that human beings, whether they hold more or less power, remain multi-dimensional and unclassifiable. Any researcher that splits a population into two groups, discards one group and promotes perceived interests of the other, is not only misguided, but can also create serious damage in any community.
Offline and online research
This week's readings made me think about how useful ethnography can be in studying online activity, as we talk more and more about 'online communities' and 'social networks'. However, they have raised one question for me, and that is, how do you set the limits to an online community? Physical communities, such as the one described by Shaffir, have perhaps more delineated borders. Often, in fact, researchers travel to a community and physically imbed themselves within it.
Online communities are a little different. I was recently studying the Etsy social e-commerce site; examining how buyers and sellers interacted with the companies and what kind of social dynamics were present on the site, if one dug a little. I soon realized, however, that the network had tentacles, which extended into many other social media, and through them, into face-to-face meetings. In this sense, an ethnography of the network might include observing how its members interacted on and offline. This tendency is made even more visible by websites such as Meetup, which allows users to network online before meeting in person.
Perhaps what is so daunting about studying online communities is that often, each member of that community is part of one or several physical communities, distributed around the world. A solution might be to examine how distributed communities are studied, such as international communities of practice. I may simply be pointing out the obvious - that in our current highly networked societies, framing the subject for an ethnography is a challenging endeavour.
The Visualization Workshop
On Friday, a few students met in the Inforum to take part in a hands-on visualization workshop, based on Gauntlett's visual sociology methods. As many of you know, we built clay models of our research ideas in order to externalize our proposal and share it with other students for feedback.
Although there were no rules given to how literal or abstract the model had to be, it was interesting to see different approaches. Some people kept to quite literal figures (virtual library = a person with a computer), others resorted to conventional signs (money = dollar sign) while others kept to incoherent figures that could not be read without explanations (balls of clay representing people). Each student explained her research idea in detail, and the conceptualization was critically examined by the other students. This led to attempts to clarify, reframe and explore the research.
Clay proved to be an effective medium. While it was perhaps more intimidating than lego at first, requiring students to be more artistic than some of them might be used to, after the icebreaker students seemed much more at ease. It was commented at the end of the workshop that clay is much more flexible and tactile than lego, which lends itself to linear structures. All in all, we concluded that this method could be useful both in the practical setting (community workshops) and the academic setting (research).
Thank you to all who participated!
Get experience in visual research methods - October 8 at 2 PM in the Inforum
Jennette and I have been going back and forth on the ArtLab approach and we decided to host a visual research workshop for all those interested in exploring the method and delving deeper into their own research topic. The workshop will be based on Gauntlett's approach, as highlighted in the Lego Serious Play Research Project. The workshop will take place on Friday, October 8, from 2 PM to 4 PM, in the Inforum. The room number will be confirmed as soon as possible.
Because Lego is too expensive, at this point, we will be using clay to model and explore our research areas, examining ways to visually represent our areas of interest and what is still unclear to us. After an introduction and the modelling session, we will share and discuss our models with each other, exploring questions such as: why we chose to present our ideas in this way, how the other participants understand our model, and what insights we can derive from this discussion into our research.
We hope that the participants will leave the workshop with: 1) experience with a modelling research method; 2) a better grasp of their research ideas; 3) a clearer sense of how their research might be perceived and interpreted by others.
Because we will be buying the clay ahead of time, we suggest that each participant contribute 1$ to the materials. If you have any suggestions on how to make this workshop more useful or would like to be involved in organizing it, please do not hesitate to let us know. If you intend to participate, please also RSVP at: eleonore.fourniertombs@utoronto.ca before Thursday, October 7.
Because Lego is too expensive, at this point, we will be using clay to model and explore our research areas, examining ways to visually represent our areas of interest and what is still unclear to us. After an introduction and the modelling session, we will share and discuss our models with each other, exploring questions such as: why we chose to present our ideas in this way, how the other participants understand our model, and what insights we can derive from this discussion into our research.
We hope that the participants will leave the workshop with: 1) experience with a modelling research method; 2) a better grasp of their research ideas; 3) a clearer sense of how their research might be perceived and interpreted by others.
Because we will be buying the clay ahead of time, we suggest that each participant contribute 1$ to the materials. If you have any suggestions on how to make this workshop more useful or would like to be involved in organizing it, please do not hesitate to let us know. If you intend to participate, please also RSVP at: eleonore.fourniertombs@utoronto.ca before Thursday, October 7.
Visual research methods
While these workshops are not academic, they do seem to have elements of action research and I wonder if the lego method could be applied in this way - to support community workshops, as a tool for action research, or both. The photo above, reproduced with permission, is from a community map made by a participant at a youth conference in Yellowknife, in March. In a post-conference questionnaire, many participants discussed their Aboriginal identity and how it had been reinforced during the conference. I would venture that this is also somewhat reflected in the community map shown here.
A Research Daisy
I'm also a visual thinker. Not that I don't like writing; in fact, I work with writing and drawing to crystallize my thoughts. When working on websites or publications, for example, I am usually responsible for the architecture and the content, and I often send scanned drawings to my graphic designer to illustrate how I want the information to flow before I even start writing the texts. I was therefore thrilled when Luker suggested that we draw a Venn diagram to illustrate the multi-disciplinarity of our research.
After having done a few of her exercises, it seems that my "intellectual itch" involves investigating how architects of websites aimed at various cultural groups define how to structure the information in a way that will appeal to their various publics. You may have noticed that, if you change the language on a multilingual website, you may see more or less text, more or less graphics, and even a different navigation system.
It seems to me that website architects have a lot of power over how information might be represented to members of different cultures and may contribute to changing their preferences over time. Given that power, do they choose designs intuitively? Using primary data collection? Secondary data collection?
This idea will, I hope, evolve during the course of the semester, but as a beginning, here is my first research daisy. It was drawn using Aviary, a free online tool that is very similar to Photoshop.
Introduction #2
Thanks Aurianne for starting the ball rolling with our blog. I'm very excited that we are already starting to post; it's so great to be working with such passionate students.
A little about my background - I finished my undergrad in 2006 at McGill in History and Political Science. Since then, I have worked in the non-profit sector, at first as a program assistant in international development organizations, and then as a communications officer. I now manage communications at Motivate Canada, an NGO that focuses on promoting youth engagement.
I'm taking this class because I want to research the impact of communications and information methods on the public. What interests me the most is the social impact of the Internet, which is an incredibly broad but very topical field. Specifically, what I keep coming back to is wanting to explore the relationship between graphic designers/information architects and website users. A few questions include: how do culturally (or other) appropriate visual cues determine the success of a website? Is there a link between preferences in physical and online environments? How can knowledge sharing be enhanced through colour and structure?
I hope to be able to discuss these and other ideas with you all further during the semester!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)