I’ll summarize the reading and what it means for WRT2:
The reading discusses the four “turns” required to move from objective/quantitative research to subjective/qualitative research – from numbers to narrative, and the many reasons over the history of research as to why the change has occurred. We really don’t need to know the why, it’s the “how” that is important to our work for WRT2.
Forget the numbers, forget the charts, graphs, equations, spreadsheets, and any idea of objectivity. We’re going to focus on the words, the stories, the narratives, the social interactions and constructs. Most importantly, we have to realize that as soon as we dip our inquisitive minds into the research, we have an effect on the people, places, and phenomena that we research. We can’t think about making “grand” generalizations or uncovering universal “truths.” Our research will focus on the particular, not general. Our research will bring us new understanding, not universal laws which can be applied to all.
See how I just turned 34 pages into one paragraph? I think Sage Publishing could use a change in copyediting standards. Just because it’s academic, doesn’t mean it has to be mind-numbing. But, I digress.
Here’s my view on the four “turns” from objective/scientific research to narrative/social research described in the thirty-four page reading – (31 if you don’t count references).
Turn 1 - Paradigm shift on relationship between researcher and the researched:
It’s a fallacy to believe that a researcher can be completely “objective” and removed from the research. Bias is built-in; first due to the area of research (the researcher chooses WHAT he or she will research) and the researcher has an effect on the people being researched. Questions can be leading, bias, and formed in such a way that “true” answers cannot be established. Once the researcher interacts with participants, the objectivity is gone. There is no way to remove yourself from the observation. It’s a simple idea that has been proven time and again in physics. First with Newton – for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Second with Quantum Physics – Entanglement theory – one example is Schrodinger’s Cat. Schrodinger’s thought experiment put a poor little kitty cat in a sealed box (kinda like the decontextualized research the article cites), and there’s a vial of cyanide in the box, there’s also a radioactive atom. If the atom decomposes, it opens the vial of cyanide and the cat is, well – dead. If the atom remains in its full and glorious state of being – the kitty cat lives to chase its tail another day. While sealed in the box, the cat is BOTH dead and alive. Yep, it’s simultaneously laying feet-up and purring. However, the fate of the kitty is determined when the observer (researcher) opens the box. It is only upon observation that the kitty is finally (truthfully) dead or alive. I think that sums-up “turn -1” – the shift from believing the researcher/observer has no influence on the research to knowing that we do.
Turn 2 - Move from numbers/quantitative data to words/qualitative data
Numbers, formulas, charts, graphs, and spreadsheets are quite dull, especially for writers. And we can’t place every human idea/phenomena into a box and plug in a bunch of numbers to represent ideas. Humans have many layers, and it is impossible to devise a survey/test/experiment that can reduce our dynamic selves into a bunch of numbers. Moving away from the idea that numbers represent research that is somehow more valid than words is one way in which researchers “turn” from numeric data to narrative data. Everyone has a story, and everyone has a point of view. There is simply no way to quantify every story and every perspective. Numerical data alone limits the scope of research to what can be counted and dismisses other valid responses that cannot be boiled-down into a numeric term. The numbers themselves mean nothing without descriptive language. Researchers use numbers to devise “grand” theories and explain things all neat and tidy within a little box. Moving away from numbers helps researchers open the possibility of uncovering a deeper understanding of what is being researched. This leads into the next two “turns” in research.
Turn 3 - Moving from generalizations to the particular
When researchers decide to move away from numeric data and focus on narratives, they free themselves of the burden of making grand generalizations about human nature. One person, family, community, or sub-group may become the object of research rather than entire states or nations. Researchers may be able to explain the patterns of behavior of a small group without feeling the burden of transferring those findings onto a larger group or culture. It’s impossible to put all people of one religion, race, ethnicity, or nation into one big lump and make generalizations about their behaviors. The move in this direction is necessary in a world that is becoming smaller with migration and technology. There are few “universal truths” compared to many viewpoints and perspectives on “truth.” This leads to turn four.
Turn 4 – Moving from controlling/predicting the world to understanding
There are many ways of “knowing” in the world. Different people and cultures have different beliefs and “know” different truths. I was never one to subscribe to the idea of a single, universal “truth” for anything. It’s one of the reasons I have difficulty with formal religion. I like to read and learn about the “truths” from many different religions – there are positive and negative aspects in every religion. What one group holds as “true” is an absolute “lie” with another group. Truth is more about perspective than law. Researchers have to realize that understanding phenomena is paramount to uncovering the ever-elusive “truth.” Moving away from truth finding leads to better understanding of human nature – which is the POINT of research in the first place.
I think that pretty-much sums it all up.
(I threw in the "Schrodinger's cat thing to see if Mangini was listening - haha)