Reviewing a Series

I found Galey and Ruecker's observation that prototypes often come in a series (p. 414) to be an interesting point, because it reveals a key difference between texts and objects – that while both go through processes of editing, an object is much more likely to become a distinctly new concept in the process. Or rather, this may happen in texts as well, but the publishing process for academic work is such that the sense of a series is more obscured. Authors often refer in articles to related prior research they've done, but publishing two articles minimizes the connections between them. In the potential review system for prototypes that this article discusses, there is much more freedom to show gradual and incremental changes in prototypes, and in general to show how objects build on each other.

This potential approach to reviewing prototypes is a good jumping-off point for considering how the review process for texts imposes certain limits, like that against an article growing and changing over time. What would it look like for articles to have a space in between edits and entirely new pieces? I think it might be an exciting and fruitful possibility, although a difficult one to implement.

Credibility and Interdisciplinary Questions

After completing the readings from Week 3, I have discovered some answers to the second question I posed in my last post (see “’Mastery’ and Interdisciplinary Questions”). The question was how salsa-dancing social scientists ensure that they understand different fields that they are attempting to combine in an interdisciplinary research project. In the Chapter 5 (Reviewing The Literature), Luker (2010) mentions the Annual Review series,

 “which provide their own reviews of the literature on important, controversial, or emerging fields…[the] articles are deeply theoretical, showing you the topography of an area, or sketching out a new frontier of an emerging idea. If you are lucky enough to find an Annual Review article that covers two or more petals on your [bedraggled] daisy, or covers an adjacent topic, you can be sure that if you read the cited material, you will be in command of the key literature in this area.” (p. 87)

                Luker (2010) also recommends consulting dictionaries and encyclopaedias related to a particular social science discipline, as well as general encyclopaedias of the social sciences (p. 87). Finally, the book points out that dissertations are particularly useful for getting overview of the body of literature on a particular topic. These dissertations can be found by using the Digital Dissertations-Proquest tool (Luker, 2010, p. 90).

                It would appear that by using these tools, an investigator could achieve the level of interdisciplinary knowledge necessary to execute the project, as well as establish credibility with experts in the different fields from which the study’s concepts are drawn. The Annual Review would be particularly useful for wide-ranging research, as it covers not only the social sciences, but also the biomedical and physical sciences (Luker, 2010, p. 269).

                In my next post, I will address the questions and issues which Chaya, Emily, and Nicholas raised when discussing my first blog posting.

References

Luker, K. (2010). Salsa Dancing into the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    As Michael has pointed out in his last post, there is an increasing pressure for social science researchers to “cover the bases” when it comes to being able to understand and use the methods of other academic disciplines. In last week’s readings, Luker explained the importance of needing to “frame” ones’ research in terms of existing intellectual frames (2008, p.64). Choosing a frame is a difficult task when your research topic potentially fits in many. Knight calls attention to the fact that, although the distinctions are not absolute, disciplines tend to favour certain epistemologies and ontologies which affect the research methods they commonly use (2002, 27-28). In highly interdisciplinary institutions, such as the iSchool, students are faced with the added challenge of working between even more disparate scholarly traditions. I share Michael’s concern regarding how researchers are expected to generate such a comprehensive understanding of all the related fields. I am even more concerned about how to account for differences in epistemologies and ontologies as I try to synthesize multiple approaches to a field.

    This week’s readings gave me some comfort as they featured possible solutions to working in highly interdisciplinary fields.  We see an example of Luker’s “methodological agnosticism” as Ratto adopts constructionist approaches more commonly used in scientific and technology-based disciplines (2011, p.254). Also, the collaborative process and shared experience of building a prototype in Ratto’s explanation of  “critical making” involves the creation of a “collective frame” where participants can identify and address epistemic and ontological differences (2011, p.253). Similarly, the collaborative nature of the UTOPIA project, as described by Winner, featured the incorporation and synthesis of the perspectives of stakeholders from many academic and professional backgrounds (1992, p.357). Collaboration seems to be an easy way to help develop a frame which accounts for epistemological and ontological differences between fields. I am not certain how to achieve the same results through small scale research where opportunities for collaboration may be limited.         

 

Are Researchers Slaves to Technology?

This week’s topic has me pondering Digital technology and the internet as resources that have made vast amounts of information available for researchers, Meaning that these days researcher would be hard pressed to undertake a project without the use of these technological tools. However, the design and structure of these objects can have direct results on a social scientist’s work. Matt Ratto’s article “Critical Making: Conceptual and Material Studies in Technology and Social Life” and Langdon Winner’s article “Citizen virtues in a technological order” advocate individuals being part of technology creation processes.  Winner argues for the creation of public spaces consisting individuals with diverse backgrounds working together to create systems serve everyone’s needs (2008, pg. 354-359).  Ratto describes critical making as the connection of critical thinking and practical goal based material work (2011, pg. 253). Through this he aims to move technologies functioning from “a matter of fact” to “a matter of concern” (Ratto, 2011, pg. 259). From this statement, I derive that the design of the technologies do not have to determine all, but if one has an understanding of the design of these technologies they will be able to understand the effects they have as well as have an influence on them.

In my role as a small-scale social science researcher I might not directly engage in critical making or be involved in a public space devoted to the design of technology, but the ideas provided have important lessons. Technology does not have to be the determinant of research results. An understanding of the working of these systems will allow me to understand how they may affect my work so that I may use the systems in the way that best suits me.

Featured Articles

Ratto, M. (2011). Critical making: conceptual and material studies in technology and social life. The Information Society, 27(4).

Winner, L. (1992). Citizen virtues in a technological order. Inquiry, 35, 341-61.

Persistance through transformation

The concept of "persistance through transformation" jumped out at me during the reading, and as I continued reading, I felt the need to return and reread. 

"Persistance through transformation."

Luker introduces this concept with a story about political preasures created by black nationalist demanding  African managers and directors in the country's copper mines.  The concessions resulted in the positions themselves loosing power, i.e. "the elevation of such workers to positions of power and authority was parallelled by a set of processes which stripped power and authority from these positions, now newly filled with Africans." Luker explains, it's "the idea that when a system is disrupted, it will tend to reconstitute itself in ways that recreate previous positions of power."

Not only have I experienced this 'persistance through transformation" with my own career, but I know several others who would be able to identify.  What is it that causes us to recreate patterns and behaviors that support ideologies and social and political structures that don't seem to support us?

-Mandissa Arlain

Reference

Luker, K. (2010). Salsa Dancing into the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

"Mastery" and Interdisciplinary Questions

   Kristin Luker provides many interesting ideas and insights throughout the first three chapters of her book. For me, some of the most interesting material focused on 2 areas:

(1)    the changing nature of what is considered “mastery” in the social sciences

(2)    The explosion in the number of interdisciplinary questions as a result of the increasing size of the information universe

   The New “Mastery” in the Social Sciences: Luker mentions that many of the research methods being taught today are based on the notion of “information scarcity” dating from 1970s or earlier, whereas the new reality is that of information glut (Luker, 2010, p. 9). Luker elaborates on this point: “[W]hereas one once showed what a cultivated person one was by mastering one of the high arts in depth…such displays now have to do with the mastery of genres across boundaries.” (Luker, 2010, p. 14)  Earlier in the chapter, Luker wrote: “[K]nowledge today comes not from mastering esoteric facts or techniques, but in making connections across boundaries-going wide rather than deep.” (Luker, 2010, p. 13) It would appear that the tools associated with the information age (i.e. computers and digital information storage systems) have made creative and critical thinking more valuable to the social sciences than ever before. At the same time, those same technologies also have made the fact-filled expert appear less like an “intelligent” person and more like a great “memorizer.” The definition of “smart” in the social sciences appears to be changing, but it is not clear from the first three chapters how that change has affected research methods. The demand for interdisciplinary research is encouraging more creative, lateral thinking among researchers, but how has that altered their research methods (i.e. the tools that they use in the field, such as surveys)?

   The Increasing Number of Interdisciplinary Questions: Luker mentions that during her time as a graduate student in the early 1970s, “I lived in a world in which information was scarce…The ‘fields’ in all the social sciences were pretty well defined, and the few-but very few-interdisciplinary questions that then existed were mostly seen as crossing the boundaries of perhaps two or at most three fields.” (Luker, 2010, p. 11) One of the main themes of her book appears to be that not only have interdisciplinary questions within the social sciences increased substantially since then, but that the interdisciplinary question is the current modus operandi. However, I am left wondering how social scientists ensure that they have sufficient understanding of concepts outside their field of original expertise (i.e. the field in which they received their graduate degree). In Chapter 1, Luker mentions that she will be discussing the “pitfalls” of “mixing an insight from economics with one from history,” and mentions that those pitfalls will be discussed later in the book (Luker, 2010, p. 13). However, Luker does not cover this material in the first three chapters of the book. Chapter 2 provides a thorough overview of the strengths and weaknesses of both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Chapter 3 examines the assumptions underlying the research methods of the canonical social sciences. I look forward to learning how salsa-dancing social scientists ensure that they have “covered all the bases” in terms of their understanding of the different fields that they are attempting to combine in a research project.

I hope to have these questions answered as the course progresses forward.

References

Luker, K. (2010). Salsa Dancing into the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

The Bedraggled Daisy

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.