The Moose Ate My Crackers

Reading pp. 25-26 of Lauer/Asher, I couldn't help but think that this, perhaps, would be the most difficult part for me--to "self-consciously be critical" of the theoretical assumptions that I carry into the research.

Again, too, we notice the mantra to gather a wide variety of "samples," if possible--like, for example, the researchers were able to gather extensive writing samples, autobiographies, obscenities, etc. In my case, studying, for example, the position of a leader during the lead-up to war, I may need to gather audio or video recordings of speeches, the minutes of meetings, personal notes, diary entries, quotes from newspapers, and anything else, both public and private, I can find to help "triangulate" the data into a coherent and more accurate conclusion.

Reading further, I wonder if the actual content analysis, at least in my case as a budding historian, wouldn't present the most challenges. What, after all, would the variables be in, say, a presidential speech? Perhaps a particular argument--or argument type--or maybe a certain appeal, or a kind of expression. Just writing this makes me excited to do this. I am, without question, a nerd.

Another possibility is to gather a group of subjects--diverse in their political and social backgrounds and opinions--then present them with a group of articles or a selection of information, then ask for a specific response. This could be followed by a presentation of a different set of information, then an analysis of their responses to this second batch. Anyway, I'm thinking as I type. This is a blog, people. A blog.