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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is interesting that you related the quote by Denzin and Lincoln to your desire to be a "field expert." In a way, your observations of the volleyball team were a way of doing "field research." I think the idea of grand narratives can also mean that there is not one overriding theory to explain all behavior. For example, many theorists at one time believed that Marxism explained things on the basis of economic conditions, but that theory has been debunked by many, and it is believed that more local conditions must be taken into account. Things cannot just be understood in relationship to one factor.
ReplyDeleteAnother way to look at your observations is to say that perhaps I (or you) cannot understand why every high school student wants to go to college. But perhaps you can begin to know why one or two, or even a team of players wants to go. So you cannot make generalizations about everyone, but you can begin to say that for this person, or team, in this place, we can get a better idea of why they want to do what they do. The difference between a grand narrative (macro) and theorizing about a smaller number (micro) is where qualitative research often begins. You may interview 5 or 10 people, and you may get a better understanding from them, of what motivates them, or what it means to be human. But you cannot generalize those findings to every other person in that population.