When I first saw Luker's “bedraggled
daisy” (p. 83), I was unimpressed. Not because of the concept of a
daisy, but because it seemed so different from my experiences with
research. If you're researching flirting in the workplace (p. 82),
why bother conceptualizing it as involving the different elements of
sex, gender, organizations, etc.? Those are all broad concepts –
much broader than “flirting” – so what could possibly be the
value of searching for texts on sex and work when they're such broad
concepts?
After thinking it over, I do still
think there's a disadvantage to conceptualizing with terms so broad –
it aggravates the info-glut and can make the whole process seem
overwhelming. Luker's example is also not the best – flirting in
the workplace isn't nearly as unusual topic as it could be, and
Luker's comment that there will possibly be some texts on both sex
and gender is a bit absurd (p. 82). But there's also an advantage
that I hadn't really considered until seeing Luker's daisy. When
focusing on a specific topic, it is easy to ignore related sources.
Although it may not be necessary for the project, expanding one's
relevant literature in this way can help to reveal key sources that
might otherwise be ignored. I think the most valuable point in her
discussion is not to consider broader concepts in the literature, but
something she mentions less explicitly – to discuss related
concepts. For instance, are there other social interactions with
similarities to flirting? These would be an excellent place to start
for surveying the literature.
Indeed! Not to mention the fact that it's always exciting to find a seemingly unrelated source that scholarship in a certain field hasn't yet acknowledged, and then attempt to build that bridge.
ReplyDelete