Sunday 31 March 2013
"Open-Hearted" Lit Reviews
In chapter 7 of Salsa Dancing Into the Social Sciences, Luker (2008) states that we should read literature surrounding our research interest in an"open-hearted way" (p. 133). This got me thinking about my own reading patterns while investigating a certain area of research. Typically, when I'm looking into a subject, I have a preconceived stance on what I am reading. I read looking for what I want to argue, while either disregarding what is irrelevant or noting it so that I can argue against it in a paper. However, in light of what Luker said in chapter 7, I now think this is the wrong way to approach literature. If I am set in my thinking on a topic, in a way, I am not allowing my brain to work at its full capacity. I am not allowing different ideas to mold, shape, and change what I think. This is a natural evolutionary process of thinking that is healthy and, as I see now, vital in research. In my prior way of reading, I was allowing room for ignorance and lazy thinking. I want to apply this, firstly, to my research proposal. As I'm working on it and finishing up my lit review, I want to make sure that I'm addressing all sides, thinking through all perspectives, and being as well informed on the topic as possible, rather than being selective in the information I talk about for convenience sake.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I also find that I sometimes have difficulty abandoning my assumptions when conducting a literature review. I always try to have an open mind regarding all sources and find that to accomplish this I need time thoroughly read and reflect on the content. I find however that the vast amount of available literature prevents me from accomplishing this. This information overload sometimes makes it difficult for me to shed my assumptions and to see the full value of a source. Does anyone else have this issue? If so what are some ways that you deal with it?
ReplyDeleteLast night I read an article by Thomas Mann on 'Why LC subject headings are more important than ever', in which he argued that the OPAC and LCSH based searching functions allow for more relevant searches than web and database boolean searching. What does that mean? His argument is that a subject search is just that, a subject search, but a web based (or database) search, particularly when the searcher is constructing the search, will 'hopefully' bring up results that are relevant, or in other words, supportive of the researcher's position. The example he gave was of the history of Yugoslavia. The very act (or intent) of the searcher, frames the question, and if successful, the results.
DeleteIs there a way to deal with it though? Is there a way to overcome the initial mercenary style of source inspection where we skim through 25 page papers in 20 minutes, abusing the Ctrl+F function and looking for keywords?
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking about this a lot too and I am totally guilty of doing everything I just described. I have a tendency to skim lots of literature and mark down the ones that actually stay with me so that I can read them at a later time. And sometimes, the pieces I examine in depth will change my topic of study, or lead me to another paper that's even better, and that's great. However, I really can't see a way to engage in this approach with every piece of literature relating to the subject.
The metaphor that actually comes to mind is speed dating, where you have lots of five-minute dates and at the end of a session, you can choose to contact the people with whom you actually connected. There's got to be some kind of reasonable compromise between rushing around haphazardly and spending way too much time with material that isn't useful. Time limits are a reality and I don't know about Luker, but I find that it's not always possible to get into long-term relationships with papers that I don't plan on using.
- Laura C (Researchophile)
I like the metaphor! I try to skim through a lot of texts the same way (at some point Luker herself says we shouldn't read everything through carefully, so I have to feel like this at least an ok approach).
DeleteI really don't see an obvious solution either...maybe if you read everything carefully every piece would change your mind, but maybe they wouldn't. I just read about 20 articles on video games, and most of them really weren't that innovative/project-changing. I don't know any good ways of finding out which ones are going to be worth reading thoroughly, except for checking numbers of citations, but that's not ideal.