One thing I was asked to do was to just write about the things I enjoy and whatever else comes to mind. What are some things that I might enjoy researching? Let's find out.
The one thing that I always thought I wanted to study was race. This probably came to me after I came to Ohio Northern. Seems strange, right? Well when I came here, it was sort of a reverse culture shock (if that exists). I am from Middletown, Ohio. Very different from Ada. In Middletown, there are roughly 55,000 people. In Ada, there are about 5,000. In Middletown, there are people from all race and social statuses. In Ada and at Ohio Northern, most of the people are cut from the same breed. I joke around with my friends a lot of the time that there are too many white people here from me. It usually generates some chuckles. Anyways, the lack of culture here made me want to share my experiences from Middletown to the people here who had never experienced it. With that happening, I also wanted to learn more about race myself.
Another thing I am very intrigued by is figuring out the question, "Why do people do the things they do?" This would deal with psychological factors mostly. What previous experiences hve made a person make that decision now? Why would they fold in this situation? Why would they excel in another situation? Why would they treat this type of person in a particular way? Why does this person interact this way in this situation as opposed to another situation? All of these questions (and many more) are very interesting to me.
Since I've een at ONU, I've been around a lot of great sports teams, including playing on some myself. I was a part of a national championship team and was the captain for that team. I've also seen some other talented teams do not so well in the NCAA Tournament. On the other hand, I've seen other over matched teams make deep runs in the tournament. This begs the question, what makes one team more successful than another team if the talent level is nearly equal? How much do team dynamics matter? How much does coaching technique matter? What is the most important ingredient to team success? Does it all start with strictly recruiting? Do coaches have the most impact on the outcome? Or do the players decide all contests?
These are just a few of the thoughts that I've had today and over the years. Maybe one of my biggest issues is that I really enjoy a wide variety of things. This is an issue when narrowing down an area of research to just one topic, and it is still the issue. Hopefully I will think of something really soon.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Inglis Article
I basically just wanted to outline the five steps of qualitative research according to Inglis as suggested by Bogdan and Biklen (1982).
The first is that the research should take place in the most natural setting. If I am observing a practice, the most natural setting would be for the team and coaches to be where they usually are. Also, if I am somewhat hidden from their vantage points, they will not notice me and practice like usual with the usual dynamic involved.
The second is that the data should maintain its original meaning. This can be done with still photos, video, documentation and transcripts. If I take video of a practice, I can refer back to that when trying to answer questions as opposed to having to recall everything from memory.
The third deals with the process that the data is collected as opposed to the data itself. If I'm worried about data or a specific result, I might have a bias going into the process. However, if I only focus on my method of collecting information, I can deal with the results later and not worry about swaying my opinion at the time.
The fourth deals with theories being born through induction. Through observation, the researcher can come to conclusions based on reasoning and evaluating what occurred during the observation.
The last one involved the meaning of the information. This does not necessarily mean the meaning for the researcher but for the participants. I should ask myself, "How did the events of my observations get perceived by those I was observing?"
The first is that the research should take place in the most natural setting. If I am observing a practice, the most natural setting would be for the team and coaches to be where they usually are. Also, if I am somewhat hidden from their vantage points, they will not notice me and practice like usual with the usual dynamic involved.
The second is that the data should maintain its original meaning. This can be done with still photos, video, documentation and transcripts. If I take video of a practice, I can refer back to that when trying to answer questions as opposed to having to recall everything from memory.
The third deals with the process that the data is collected as opposed to the data itself. If I'm worried about data or a specific result, I might have a bias going into the process. However, if I only focus on my method of collecting information, I can deal with the results later and not worry about swaying my opinion at the time.
The fourth deals with theories being born through induction. Through observation, the researcher can come to conclusions based on reasoning and evaluating what occurred during the observation.
The last one involved the meaning of the information. This does not necessarily mean the meaning for the researcher but for the participants. I should ask myself, "How did the events of my observations get perceived by those I was observing?"
Agar Article
I will say that I definitely enjoyed most of the Agar article. There were three points that I want to touch on in this post.
The first is the thought about eye contact. I found it interesting that eye contact can mean different things in different settings. It was odd at first, but after thinking more, it made sense. Pretty much everything we do in life can be construed differently in other cultures. One simple example deals with women in the United States compared to those in some middle eastern nations. Here, women can dress how they wish. There, women are restricted to wearing certain items and must cover their faces. In the U.S., we think nothing of women wearing business attire with her hair done and makeup on her face. There, some men might be a little upset (to put it extremely mildly). In dealing with eye contact, this is a very clear cut issue for me here. If someone is staring at me, as was the case for Agar, I would have a problem with it here. I would feel uncomfortable and suspect that the person is extremely curious about me. In other situations, eye contact is not only welcomed, but expected. I would expect a presenter or speaker to give proper eye contact. Likewise, I would expect both parties of an interview or conversation to give eye contact. Not giving eye contact in these situations would shoe me a sign of disrespect or indifference.
The next idea I wanted to talk about was how forming questions can reveal a person's intelligence. When someone asks me a question, it is pretty apparent how much they know about the topic they are asking about. If its a basic question, they may not know much. If the question has detail that reveals some information, then the person might have some knowledge. Also, the timing and tone of the question can tell me about the person. Let's look at the Jim Calhoun example I've alluded to before. The reporter asked Calhoun about his salary after a game. This was not the right place to approach this situation. The reporter was not concerned about the answer as much as he was trying to get under the skin of Calhoun. This showed little tact. If he really wanted to know about the salary, a more private venue would have been better. The tone of the question is also important. The person can show him/herself to be sarcastic, sincere, confused, intelligent, etc. all by the tone of their voice.
The last thing I wanted to touch on was that multiple perspectives on a situation are better than just one. The biases and differing view points will be able to more completely assess the situation. My opinions will be formed based on my experiences. Another person might have different opinions because of their experiences. When we combine our thoughts, we can discuss both viewpoints and see which one makes more sense for the situation as opposed to sticking with what we believe individually.
The first is the thought about eye contact. I found it interesting that eye contact can mean different things in different settings. It was odd at first, but after thinking more, it made sense. Pretty much everything we do in life can be construed differently in other cultures. One simple example deals with women in the United States compared to those in some middle eastern nations. Here, women can dress how they wish. There, women are restricted to wearing certain items and must cover their faces. In the U.S., we think nothing of women wearing business attire with her hair done and makeup on her face. There, some men might be a little upset (to put it extremely mildly). In dealing with eye contact, this is a very clear cut issue for me here. If someone is staring at me, as was the case for Agar, I would have a problem with it here. I would feel uncomfortable and suspect that the person is extremely curious about me. In other situations, eye contact is not only welcomed, but expected. I would expect a presenter or speaker to give proper eye contact. Likewise, I would expect both parties of an interview or conversation to give eye contact. Not giving eye contact in these situations would shoe me a sign of disrespect or indifference.
The next idea I wanted to talk about was how forming questions can reveal a person's intelligence. When someone asks me a question, it is pretty apparent how much they know about the topic they are asking about. If its a basic question, they may not know much. If the question has detail that reveals some information, then the person might have some knowledge. Also, the timing and tone of the question can tell me about the person. Let's look at the Jim Calhoun example I've alluded to before. The reporter asked Calhoun about his salary after a game. This was not the right place to approach this situation. The reporter was not concerned about the answer as much as he was trying to get under the skin of Calhoun. This showed little tact. If he really wanted to know about the salary, a more private venue would have been better. The tone of the question is also important. The person can show him/herself to be sarcastic, sincere, confused, intelligent, etc. all by the tone of their voice.
The last thing I wanted to touch on was that multiple perspectives on a situation are better than just one. The biases and differing view points will be able to more completely assess the situation. My opinions will be formed based on my experiences. Another person might have different opinions because of their experiences. When we combine our thoughts, we can discuss both viewpoints and see which one makes more sense for the situation as opposed to sticking with what we believe individually.
Denzin Article
Quite frankly, this was a difficult article to sift through. However, one sentence resonated with me more than the others. On page 29, the authors say, "The search for grand narratives is being replaced by more local, small-scale theories fitted to specific problems and particular situations," (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003). This sentence is found under the fifth moment, the postmodern period of experimental ethnographic writing.
For the longest time, I've always told people I want to be some sort of "field expert." I tell them that I just want to know more about something than anyone else. This could be anything at this point in my life. I think the sentence above is indicative of my long-time wishes.
It seems at this point in history, now towards the end of the moments of research so far, most "grand narratives" have been written. Obviously there are still things that need to be generalized in a big way, but I believe more topics regarding specific ideas are what need to be researched. For example, a grand narrative before could have been "Why do high school athletes pursue a collegiate career in sports?" That is very broad and all-encompassing. Now, people would like to answer more specific questions. Staying with the same sort of example, a question could be "Why do high school athletes choose to play football, basketball or baseball at the Division III level?" This question is much more specific and deals with a smaller group of people.
These are just examples, but it would go along with my wish to be the most knowledgeable about one thing. Is it possible to know why high school athletes play sports? To an extent, the answer is yes. However, the population of college athletes is much greater than those playing college football, basketball, and baseball and the Division III level.
So, for whatever I end up wanting to study, I think I want it to be something more specific than general.
For the longest time, I've always told people I want to be some sort of "field expert." I tell them that I just want to know more about something than anyone else. This could be anything at this point in my life. I think the sentence above is indicative of my long-time wishes.
It seems at this point in history, now towards the end of the moments of research so far, most "grand narratives" have been written. Obviously there are still things that need to be generalized in a big way, but I believe more topics regarding specific ideas are what need to be researched. For example, a grand narrative before could have been "Why do high school athletes pursue a collegiate career in sports?" That is very broad and all-encompassing. Now, people would like to answer more specific questions. Staying with the same sort of example, a question could be "Why do high school athletes choose to play football, basketball or baseball at the Division III level?" This question is much more specific and deals with a smaller group of people.
These are just examples, but it would go along with my wish to be the most knowledgeable about one thing. Is it possible to know why high school athletes play sports? To an extent, the answer is yes. However, the population of college athletes is much greater than those playing college football, basketball, and baseball and the Division III level.
So, for whatever I end up wanting to study, I think I want it to be something more specific than general.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
