A few days ago I was worried I wouldn't have enough sources to fill up my literature review. Now, I'm worried I'll have too many! In order to broaden my scope of sources, I consulted the bibliographies of my already-selected sources for helpful texts. I read a few interesting and relevant ones, which then led me to more studies of interest, and so on and so on. It was as if the floodgates had opened, and I couldn't stop the material from pouring in. This is the problem with research, especially research in a popular area: there's so much material! I couldn't possibly read every important content analysis study ever written, but with so many out there, I can't help but feel like if I don't look at them, I'll be missing something. Which is just a feeling I'm going to have to get used to, because in research, there's probably always going to be something you're not reading. I guess the important thing is to read as much as you can of the fundamental, cornerstone works that define your field so even if there is some new study on some small part related to yours, the foundation of your study will remain intact.
That is not to say that I've neglected my research, it's just that when using a popular method and studying in a broad field, it seems that widening your search parameters can be both useful and problematic. Too narrow and you've got nothing, too wide and you've got everything, and that is simply too much to go through in a few weeks.
Showing posts with label Holly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Holly. Show all posts
A New Appreciation for Quantitative Methods
I am currently finishing up an edition review for another class, in which I discuss editorial decisions made throughout the Riverside Chaucer (1987). The research conducted is quite familiar to me, mainly focussing on literature and content analysis, with some manuscript studies in there as well. In doing my research for this assignment, I was struck by how similar these methods are to some of the studies we have discussed in class, especially ethnography and discourse analysis, as well as some of the more quantitative methods.
In compiling an edition of the Canterbury Tales, scholarly editors have to go through all of the existing (and acceptable) manuscripts and collate them, determining variants in spelling or word choice, etc., in order to decide what manuscript to use a base text, or whether to compile several manuscripts in order to create a new edition. I had never thought of it before, but thanks to my new found knowledge of research methods, doing this work would involve so much more quantitative analysis than I ever realized. You would have to count and record every variant in every manuscript, and then use your data to decide what edition is most accurate for your purposes. This is a far cry from the textual analysis I had always seen it as.
I have been doing research in this area for a few years now, but it was not until this past week that I saw manuscript studies as being so data-centric and quantitative, something I can surely attribute to my introduction to those methods in this course.
In compiling an edition of the Canterbury Tales, scholarly editors have to go through all of the existing (and acceptable) manuscripts and collate them, determining variants in spelling or word choice, etc., in order to decide what manuscript to use a base text, or whether to compile several manuscripts in order to create a new edition. I had never thought of it before, but thanks to my new found knowledge of research methods, doing this work would involve so much more quantitative analysis than I ever realized. You would have to count and record every variant in every manuscript, and then use your data to decide what edition is most accurate for your purposes. This is a far cry from the textual analysis I had always seen it as.
I have been doing research in this area for a few years now, but it was not until this past week that I saw manuscript studies as being so data-centric and quantitative, something I can surely attribute to my introduction to those methods in this course.
Source Dilemma
I'm having a bit of a dilemma right now over a certain source and whether to use it or not. First of all, the research I'm proposing involves computer-mediated discourse analysis and political discussions in certain forums online. Sound familiar? It's similar to the research conducted by Kushin and Kitchener in their article "Getting political on social network sites", on which I did my peer review assignment (I had picked my topic long before reading these articles). My dilemma is that in reviewing this article and the research conducted, I am aware of all the flaws in the research design and implementation. However, their research would be very useful in order to provide a sort of background and support for the research I'm proposing. But since I have found it to be flawed, is it ill-advised to use this article as a source in my proposal?
In fact, I think it might not be that much of a dilemma after all. Their only similarities are in method employed (which isn't unique to their study) and the general subject area of focus. Also, it might be easier to justify the need for my research if one of the fundamental studies in this area has some serious flaws and biases all the way down from research design to implementation and data analysis. I don't think I really have a choice but to use this study as one of my sources, as long as I acknowledge its' weaknesses and don't repeat them.
In fact, I think it might not be that much of a dilemma after all. Their only similarities are in method employed (which isn't unique to their study) and the general subject area of focus. Also, it might be easier to justify the need for my research if one of the fundamental studies in this area has some serious flaws and biases all the way down from research design to implementation and data analysis. I don't think I really have a choice but to use this study as one of my sources, as long as I acknowledge its' weaknesses and don't repeat them.
Thankful for Salsa Dancing
I'm currently working on my research proposal, and I'm finding that the methods section is giving me more trouble than I expected. I'm not used to doing research in a way that requires me to define my method and explain its' parameters, but I guess doing discourse analysis of human subjects is a bit different from a literature analysis. I am struggling a bit to define my method, as I will be drawing on a few different ones in order to do my hypothetical research. Herring's computer-mediated discourse analysis will likely serve as my main method, but I am not ruling out drawing on other methods as I move forward and as they are appropriate. However, this leaves me to find out what else I can use that would be useful in my study, so I've been doing a lot of research on research methods (which is a bit too meta for me).
Luker's salsa dancing social scientist idea has never been more useful to me than now, because picking one method and sticking with it seems to be a bit too narrow a path for me and my research tastes. Following her allows me some more freedom when deciding on a method for my research, which suits me perfectly, especially when the research I'm proposing would require a wider range of methods in order to have any conclusiveness.
Luker's salsa dancing social scientist idea has never been more useful to me than now, because picking one method and sticking with it seems to be a bit too narrow a path for me and my research tastes. Following her allows me some more freedom when deciding on a method for my research, which suits me perfectly, especially when the research I'm proposing would require a wider range of methods in order to have any conclusiveness.
Bias in Research Methodology Design
This week's peer review made me realize just how complex research methodology can be, especially in terms of the design. Those in charge of the study have to make sure that their methodology tests everything they intend it to and that these tests are reliable. The problem is, every researcher approaches the study with a bias, and this can affect the results. It's one of those things that can't really be avoided, but it can sometimes be argued that a bias can be good for the study, as it might bring a new and unique perspective. However, sometimes the bias can completely distort a study because the researcher had something particular in mind and, subconsciously or not, designed the study towards that bias.
Biases are something that every researcher has to deal with, but it just becomes a question of how aware you are of your bias and whether the bias affects the research design in a negative way.
Biases are something that every researcher has to deal with, but it just becomes a question of how aware you are of your bias and whether the bias affects the research design in a negative way.
The Importance of Limits
I am not doing a thesis. It feels sometimes like I'm the only one in class who isn't, because it seems that most people have great, well thought out, clear research projects, unlike me. I never realized how difficult it would be to come up with a research project completely on my own, which is what I'm having to do for this SSHRC proposal. Without a pre-planned project, this mock proposal is essentially an exercise in imagination: what I would do research on, if I had the desire to do a thesis. Because I have no foundation of already-done research or a plan for a future SSHRC proposal, it's been difficult to rein in my interests into one potential research project, seeing as I am not constrained by research guidelines or course material. At the beginning I thought it would be awesome, to do whatever research project I wanted. But when you have unlimited space to work in, it gets difficult to find that one small thing you want to focus on.
This process gets even more difficult as the research process begins, because (as I mentioned previously) I have a tendency to get of track with my research - whatever catches my eye, I have a need to follow, sometimes until the original topic of my project is almost forgotten. Without a clear idea of what I'm researching, or at least with an idea that's very malleable and up to my own discretion, any source I find that is only halfway related to my topic but nonethless seems interesting, I will follow. I guess this project will be, for me, an exercise in self-discipline, as I force myself to finally focus on one thing and follow one track to the end.
This process gets even more difficult as the research process begins, because (as I mentioned previously) I have a tendency to get of track with my research - whatever catches my eye, I have a need to follow, sometimes until the original topic of my project is almost forgotten. Without a clear idea of what I'm researching, or at least with an idea that's very malleable and up to my own discretion, any source I find that is only halfway related to my topic but nonethless seems interesting, I will follow. I guess this project will be, for me, an exercise in self-discipline, as I force myself to finally focus on one thing and follow one track to the end.
The Importance of Having a Plan
For me, this week was about focus and concision. Doing research in the age of the 'info-glut' can be really difficult and time-consuming, but I found that Luker's tips were really useful in learning to navigate that.
Research is a process, and it tends to be a long one for me just because I get caught up in certain tracks and then I change my mind or I realize I've been reading about the wrong thing (true story). I have always had a problem with being organized before going into the research process, but Luker's tips were really helpful for that. Her idea of not reading a whole book, just the introduction and conclusion and the table of contents is something I did during my undergrad, but not nearly enough. I would often find myself reading a book that my professor had told me would be useful for my topic, but finding it wasn't really that relevant, but I would continue to read thinking that maybe it would eventually say something useful for me.
I also appreciated Luker's point about not always listening to your professors. While they are extremely knowledgeable and helpful, they don't always know exactly what your research interests are, and may try to give you advice that doesn't quite fit your ideas. Research is a personal thing, in that it's your own personal interests, and I appreciated Luker reminding me of that.
It's really easy to get off track when doing research, especially if you're like me and have a curious mind and can't help but follow every lead to its end no matter how pointless. This chapter really helped remind me that to do research properly and not waste time, you need to go into the process with a plan and a clear research question. I'm really going to have to work on that.
Research is a process, and it tends to be a long one for me just because I get caught up in certain tracks and then I change my mind or I realize I've been reading about the wrong thing (true story). I have always had a problem with being organized before going into the research process, but Luker's tips were really helpful for that. Her idea of not reading a whole book, just the introduction and conclusion and the table of contents is something I did during my undergrad, but not nearly enough. I would often find myself reading a book that my professor had told me would be useful for my topic, but finding it wasn't really that relevant, but I would continue to read thinking that maybe it would eventually say something useful for me.
I also appreciated Luker's point about not always listening to your professors. While they are extremely knowledgeable and helpful, they don't always know exactly what your research interests are, and may try to give you advice that doesn't quite fit your ideas. Research is a personal thing, in that it's your own personal interests, and I appreciated Luker reminding me of that.
It's really easy to get off track when doing research, especially if you're like me and have a curious mind and can't help but follow every lead to its end no matter how pointless. This chapter really helped remind me that to do research properly and not waste time, you need to go into the process with a plan and a clear research question. I'm really going to have to work on that.
Yet Another Intro...
Hey everyone!
So since introductions seem to be the theme this week, I should give you mine. I just graduated with a BA from Mount Allison University in New Brunswick, where I did a double major in English and History. I basically took every Medieval studies-type course I could, which is where my love of research became apparent. I know it's sort of dorky to say I love research, but I really do! In my third year, I took an Intro to Medieval Literature course, in which the main assignment was a Codicology project. I had to pick a Medieval manuscript and essentially locate - and acquire whenever possible - every piece of information that existed on that manuscript, including its history and contents. I had never done anything like this before, but I was hooked. I loved spending my time searching for sources and information in the most obscure databases and libraries, and it was always so rewarding when I found what I was looking for. After I finished this project, I told the professor how much I had enjoyed it, and she actually suggested that I should maybe consider a Master's in Information Science. So here I am.
I find research to be the best part of the academic process, and I think that's why I want to be a reference librarian in an academic library. I'm interested to learn more about the research process and different methods, because it's definitely something I will use in the future.
So since introductions seem to be the theme this week, I should give you mine. I just graduated with a BA from Mount Allison University in New Brunswick, where I did a double major in English and History. I basically took every Medieval studies-type course I could, which is where my love of research became apparent. I know it's sort of dorky to say I love research, but I really do! In my third year, I took an Intro to Medieval Literature course, in which the main assignment was a Codicology project. I had to pick a Medieval manuscript and essentially locate - and acquire whenever possible - every piece of information that existed on that manuscript, including its history and contents. I had never done anything like this before, but I was hooked. I loved spending my time searching for sources and information in the most obscure databases and libraries, and it was always so rewarding when I found what I was looking for. After I finished this project, I told the professor how much I had enjoyed it, and she actually suggested that I should maybe consider a Master's in Information Science. So here I am.
I find research to be the best part of the academic process, and I think that's why I want to be a reference librarian in an academic library. I'm interested to learn more about the research process and different methods, because it's definitely something I will use in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)