Of Cabbages and Kings

All I can say about Asher and Lauer is


That's right. Nothing. I certainly read it. Didn't get it. I pray fervently for this week's facilitators.

The electronic reserve piece was a little more interesting (though large swathes were likewise unintelligible). Even now, I'm not sure what the researchers were really trying to accomplish. This shouldn't be the case: the reader, a grad student, not comprehending--after 2 hours of reading--what is going on.

Is this a symptom of some deficiency in me...or in the writing of the researchers...or in the presentation style of the "discourse" as a whole? What is wrong with writing simply, as clearly and succinctly as possible? Why the babbling jargon and long sentences crammed with many-lettered words of ambiguous meaning--sentences that are read over and over again, yet without any dawn of understanding???\

I look forward to the presentation tomorrow.

Experimental or Descriptive?

These chapters, while quite boring (come on, there's no denying it this week) were, however, very helpful (things don't have to be interestingly-written to be helpful; seriously, how can you write gripping, edge-of-your-seat prose on ANalysis Of VAriance and Chi Squares?).

One thing it brought to the fore: my own lack of ability in this regard! I think I completely lack the skill set, at least at this point, required to craft a good research question, decide which method to use, carry out the research, and analyze the results. The only step I feel comfortable doing is the last one: present the analyzing results in the form of an article. I can write. That's about it. I guess that's why I'm in this class.

Something I get the feeling that a lot of this research is stupid. Not most, but some. Like the researchers are grasping for something to study, and, though they carried out their research well, what they end up with isn't really all that helpful. Maybe I'm speaking entirely out of my own little bubble of a world (in fact, I'm sure I am--who isn't?), but I have to wonder why someone would even care about whether or not writing varies outside of academia from institution to institution. What are you going to do with those results besides present something that is interesting but, ultimately, not really that helpful? I'm probably missing something.

The Great Game, or, The Unending Competition Between Right Lobes and Left Lobes

What a wonderfully entertaining Asher/Lauer chapter--so full of bombast and verve.

Still, the nerd in me is, astonishingly, excited to conduct my first real survey, to organize and carry out my first actual random sampling. Even if, to my great disappointment, so much of it depends on first-rate skills in mathematics.

As for the other text, I can't help but be a tad annoyed; this competition of methodologies is really getting me down.

Can't anyone see that it's all nonsense?

The idea that this clash of research tactics will, eventually, lead to a clear winner, a victor perched atop the mangled pile of its fallen foes--there lies Empirical Variable Testing, dead atop Text Analysis and Theory-Embedded Experimentation and others. No, this "competition" will be eternal, and indeed, in this humble writer's opinion, it should be. Who can seriously argue that different modes of inquiry, a variety of methodologies, harms the common goal: the pursuit of knowledge? The more we know, the more we know, the more we know. And if you don't like a certain methodology, fine. Don't use it, and suck on that grain of salt when presented with results based on it. Otherwise, a multiplicity of ideas and methods, taken together, can only add to the body of knowledge. There are too many devoted Reflectivists who will never abandon their holistic approach, just as there will always be the numbers-minded Empiricists who inevitably view their labors as the most valid since you can't argue math. Most people, though--I would think--would want to take results from BOTH camps--and all those in between--together.

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.

Stop Watching Me

Much of the article seemed obvious, though couched as always in the high-falutin language of the Professional. For the most part, too, it came across as an introduction, as if some sort of deeper treatise or book were meant to follow.

Useful was the article's advice as to how one might more fully "legitimize" observational findings--through the compared and contrasted interpretations of multiple observers (rather than just one), conducting observation at different times and in different places, and combining observation with other research methods.

I found the discussion concerning the ethics of this form of research extremely interesting. In particular, I found the debate on the definitions of "public" and "private" enlightening, having never thought of any activity taking place in a public setting as inherently private before. It makes sense, though--we do create enclaves of privacy for ourselves and resent those who violate said enclaves, even if we're standing in the middle of Times Square. Note to self: when observing people, don't walk into a near-empty coffee shop, sit right up against the only two patrons, and begin furiously scribbling notes in plain sight. I'm inclined to agree with the liberty-preserving argument that calls for letting "sleeping dogs lie." Sorry, but there are lots of interesting and useful things to study without whittling away at the privacy--the very liberty--of others.

I'm trying to think of how this reading might be applicable to my particular field. Auto-observation, for example, seems fairly useless to a historian. Studying, say, the Tibetan Uprising of 1959, or the exertions of the Canadian military during the Battle of the Somme, how might observational methods come in handy? Perhaps in studying old videotape footage. And sound recordings, maybe. Do photos count? The reading certainly inferred that they do. Observational methods might be employed during an interview, too. Getting another's take on my own observations, then, would help to validate my conclusions. Drawing from multiple resources--video footage, photos, sound recordings, what have you--obviously also strengthens conclusions.

So there; I guess I have my answer.

This is all, of course, merely the humble opinion and scattered ramblings of a lone man modest as to the things of the world and the grand learning of its great thinkers.

So the readings are dry as a bone--that doesn't mean the research won't rock

The Alvarez piece was, in this humble man's opinion, poorly written and even more poorly edited--but the gist was, nevertheless, instructive. Especially interesting was a pervading theme (among many) that might be defined as "willingness"--a willingness to arrange for criticism, a willingness to accept, internalize, and act on said criticism. Listening and acting on the observations of acceptably neutral, outside parties is leaning on an intellect or a combination of intellects that are not one's own, and therefore may lead to surprising and/or "hidden" conclusions that one would likely have never discovered relying solely on powers within oneself. This is valuable, and the principle might be characterized as the "humility" of the true researcher.

Lauer and Asher, though steeping their writing in the driest of prose packed with (perhaps at times unnecessarily) technical, look-at-how-smart-I-am professional jargon, presented a helpful overture of composition research, particularly the rhetorical and empirical approaches, as well as, at least to this humble seeker of knowledge, a valuable breakdown of the various methods of study involved in empirical research.

It was refreshing to see Bourdieu's take thrown into the mix--a view with which this meek blogger must be compelled to agree. Whatever the results of one's various experiments (and indeed, the project as a whole) it must be remembered and duly noted that, in the end, the world is far more complicated than one's limited capacity to test and quantify and describe would allow--it is a combination of billions of independent wills and consciousnesses, each beyond the power of any researcher to fully comprehend, and together, unquestionably, far more complex and intricate than any research project could ever unravel.

Having read both Alvarez and Lauer/Asher, it seems clear that, certainly, one of the most significant acts along the path of research takes place at the very beginning--with the question; asking the right one is a real challenge. From there, identifying the various elements involved and, importantly, articulating said elements is essential to "starting off on the right track."

Knowing myself, this, I think, may be the most challenging step for me in formulating and carrying out a high-quality, highly useful research project.