Das Experiment: nicht gut?

I really enjoyed Druin’s article “What Children Can Teach Us” for this week’s discussion. As Druin writes, collaborating with children to develop library catalogues and digital technology is new. Fortunately, researchers from various disciplines have begun to realize the importance in seeking children’s input during the development of digital libraries’ information system’s (IS) interface. It was interesting to read this article while taking INF1003. Throughout the course we have focused mostly on systems development from a business perspective; I can see how mainstream IS development literature has marginalized children as both the user and as a part of the development team. It makes sense to me that children become a part of the discussion as IS has become such an important part of how our society learns, works, plays and interacts.  As for methods, Druin does not discuss any of the ethical issues involved in doing research with children, although she does recognize that a concern for children’s privacy has been the main reason research in this area is new.

Regarding this weeks top on ethics and ethical dilemmas, I immediately thought of the experiment done by a  Standford professor in 1971 that many see as a prime example of violating research participants’ well-being. Professor Zimbardo set-up a fake prison on campus and then had students take on the role of either gaurd or prisoner. Within days all those involved began to take their roles seriously, with the gaurds stripping the prisoners and humiliating them. Things degenerated quickly and the experiment was aborted less than halfway through. Knight writes that “Too many small-scale researchers start without being sufficiently alert to what can go wrong”, it seems like Zimbardo’s experiment falls into this category (161). Although Zimbardo’s experiment can be seen as an ethical disaster it brought up some pretty interesting issues with regards to human psychology. So I ask, was Zimbardo’s experiment not good?

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/30/understanding_how_good_people_turn_evil

http://www.bbcprisonstudy.org/

Luker may be suffering from tunnel vision…

The Knight and Luker readings were a bit redundant in that they both addressed the coding process, the methods used to code, and the challenges involved. The difference is mostly in the delivery and the fact Knight looks at statistical analysis as a way to make sense of data. Knight explains how to analyze both quantitative and qualitative data whereas Luker, despite her claim of being a mixed-methods salsa dancing social scientist, continues to be heavy on the qualitative side of research methods and analysis. At the beginning of the chapter “Getting Down to the Nitty-Gritty” Luker that writes that she has “strong opinions about how to do the kind of research that you and I are interested in” imposing on the reader her ideas about what methods of data analysis are appropriate and desirable (129). Luker fails to account for those researchers wanting to use descriptive statistics to analyze their data. Luker’s book is helpful but I find when it comes down to the practicalities, Knight covers more bases in a less biased manner.

Reading, interviewing, lurking

Hine asks “How can qualitative internet researchers define the boundaries of their projects?” What a good question. Before starting my studies at the ischool I saw the internet as a monolithic and unapproachable site for research, impossible to quantify and analyze. There was simply too much going on.  Now I see the internet as a rich site for analysis, one that must be approached with the willingness to be flexible. Similar to doing research on an offline community grounded in one geographical place, online community and culture is complex and, as a researcher with limited time and resources, we simply cannot account for everything. Hines is the epitome of a salsa dancing social scientist. Studying multiple sites and methods, Hines recognizes that websites are culturally constructed and that it is important to look at the processes involved in their creation, maintenance, and “life” on and offline. I found this article interesting as I (with my group) begin to construct a data mash-up geared towards a particular community of people in INF1003. Similar to Max Forte, the mash-up has/will help me “understand the social ‘constructedness’ of web sites” (14).

The constantly comparing master student

Throughout the course of this semester I have found myself constantly relating everything back to my undergrad studies, I think it’s probably a natural reflex; a B.A. lays down a pretty large foundation for one’s academic endeavors. And so, once again, Yin’s article from last week’s class was familiar territory for me. The case study method is a popular research strategy in political science and falls under the rubric of comparative politics. In order to predict or explain certain political outcomes political scientists will use case studies to identify particular variables and patterns. I had never heard of Yin before, or his article in defense of the case study approach to research, but it would seem his article could have had a cross-disciplinary impact. I used the cross-case analysis myself, along with the most similar systems design, to write a research paper about migration patterns in Guatemala and El Salvador. I found the case study strategy appropriate to my analysis of national policies and international relations but I wonder how it will be on a smaller scale as I plan on doing for my research proposal. My undergrad research was all secondary and done within the confines of my own home whereas my proposed research project for this course involves (oh my god) talking to people. It will be interesting to see what it is like using the case study strategy for doing primary research.

Critical discourse analysts and democratic principles

As I read Van Dijk’s article Principles of critical discourse analysis I kept thinking about a conference I attended last weekend titled Network Politics: Objects, Subjects, and New Political Affects. Several of the papers presented dealt specifically with software and the power structures that are embedded in them, they discussed how if the internet is to promote democratic principles than software needs to be more accessible and less like a “ghostly interface” (Kyong Chun, 2010). Van Dijk writes that critical discourse analysts (CDA) are “motivated by pressing social issues” and the methods they choose are meant to realize certain sociopolitical goals (252). Dijk makes a good point as many of the presenters (who used CDA) at the conference were concerned with software and computer technologies’ socio-political impact. Kyong Chun, one of the keynote speakers, said that “code empowers the executive” and identified many of the ways in which software and other computer-mediate technologies are reproducing and reinforcing unequal power structures (2010). Another presenter discussed how code is a language that is being increasingly used to govern, for example, the use of voting machines in the US (Sack, 2010). Many of the presenters believed that code, as a language, is something that everyone should learn to read and write so that democratic ideals such as transparency and accountability can be upheld (Sack, 2010). Needles to say, after the conference I have developed an interest in computer code.

Personal involvement in research: “paranoid fantasies, embarrassments, and the like”–Shaffir

Shaffir writes in his article on ethnography that “if we are being honest with ourselves, we realize that as the chief instruments of our research, the personal qualities that we bring to our work usually override the professional claims that we present about it” (678). As someone who plans on doing research as a participant-as-observer and member Shaffir address the fact there is simply no way I can do ethnography without having my own emotions and experience shape my research.  My proposed area of research, and the organizations and people that constitute it, have been formed due to shared social and emotional personal experiences. While my position as a member gives me access to a perspective, sites and a group of people that I might not otherwise have, it could diminish its value as a case to deduce generalizations from. I am happy it is acceptable for researchers to identify their own position in relation to their subject(s), for I believe that my position as participant-as-observer and member will bring more depth and insight to my research.

Having said that, Stebbin’s article on how to be a participant-as-observer without ‘threatening’ ones research drew my attention to how easily it is/will be for me to detract from my research goals (107). As a member, I have already been asked to help with an upcoming workshop on the use of social media, immediately I started thinking of ways I could contribute.  Being a member, and ensuring I maintain some distance to properly observe, will be challenging since my membership is based on the fact that I help/perform an action. I can understand when Stebbin’s writes that it can be easier to maintain distance as a nonmember (104).

Hooks, clumps, and walls

While writing my SSHRC proposal I’ve gone back on the Luker readings to help keep my thoughts on track. My mind has been reeling. It seems as though the more literature I read the more confused I am about my research topic, its scope and relevancy. Adding to my confusion is the fact social networks have been mostly studied by sociologists, a field I am not familiar with at all. So, in order to write a well-informed theoretical framework for my research proposal, I’ve had to give myself a crash course in sociology and the theories used in this field to analyze social media.  Luker writes that research has changed in this age of ‘info-glut’ and that “knowledge comes not from mastering esoteric facts or techniques, but in  making connections across traditional boundaries—going wide rather than deep,” as I enter the world of Information Studies I realize how true this is (13). While writing my two page proposal (a seemingly simple task after years of writing undergrad papers) I have learned new theories of communication and social change, the methods typically used for this area of study, all the while keeping my research interest and question in mind, not a simple task at all.

While I have hit some metaphorical walls writing my SSHRC proposal I have also been able to articulate how I am going to answer my research question. Luker writes that when using interviews as a research method the interviewer should find a “hook” and organize questions in clumps to help ensure you get the information you want from the interviewee (168). When I did my preliminary interview I had no idea what I was doing and let the interviewee guide the conversation, Luker’s advice will come in handy next time.

Hi social media, hello can of worms

To follow-up with my idea of doing my research proposal on e-advocacy I spoke with the Canadian Cancer Society’s  in-house social media expert. She was FULL of great information, advice, and insight. After speaking with her I get the sense that 1) not-for-profit organizations recognize social media is just a part of modern day advocacy and fundraising 2) are learning how to incorporate traditional forms of advocacy onto social media networks 3) there have been examples of success followed by a large amount of uncertainty regarding social medias’ ability to affect the policy process. I get the feeling this is unchartered territory. When I mentioned literature she said “what literature?”….yup. Methods?!!

Research interest–it fell right on my lap!

I’ll be honest, a week ago I had NO idea what I wanted to write my research proposal on or even what my “intellectual itch” was (Luker, 62). Then I got an email from the Ontario chapter of the Canadian Cancer Society’s (CCS) Public Issues Team. I’ve been volunteering with the Society for several years now and part of the reason I applied to the MI program was because of my experiences with them. I have seen how the CCS gathers and disseminates  information to then stop or promote certain practices, i.e. the push to pass right-to-know bylaws demanding businesses track and disclose their use of toxic substances, that can lead to small and big victories–legislation, awareness. Luker writes that in order to figure out your research interest you have to decide “who you are”, for a moment there I had forgotten who I was and what makes me “itch” (Luker, 62, 65). I am interested in how e-advocacy is being used by organizations like the CCS to create awarness and affect policy formulation and change. I have done some small preliminary searches to see what kind of literature is out there and it looks promising so far. I know I’ll have to narrow it down farther but for the moment I’m just happy to have remembered my interest!

The fishy part of research

I enjoyed the readings this week from Luker.  While reading chapters two and three I kept thinking about my T.A for a Canadian Public Policy course who, in response to our anxious questions regarding a research paper, told the class not to worry and that all academics feel like fakes waiting to get caught. My T.A. had pinpointed exactly what I find to be the most uncomfortable part of writing a research paper–the inherent sense of authority in forming and stating a research question. This feeling was then compounded by the fact that I became increasingly aware of all the other variables that can account for the outcome(s) I had chosen to study along with the fact I was doing secondary research. When Luker writes that as reasearchers  “we are engaged in an enterprise of discovery rather than verification” it helped to alleviate some of those feelings I have experienced writing reseach papers and redefining (for me) what research is, a process and not an end result (37).