First, I am actually very happy for the newly instituted blog deadline of 9pm. I think this will help me greatly on keeping my research on the straight and narrow. I like freedom, but sometimes I can take advantage of a lack of structure, thusly transferring that into laziness and procrastination. A sad panda face for the new deadline for those that were actually keeping up with the blogs regularly. I was getting behind, as I am sure most others were, so happy day for our renewed chance at blog obedience. I look forward to keeping my research going, as well as reading the new blog posts from Courtney and Ben.
Ok, on to Quantitative Research...
I think quantitative research can be helpful in some projects. The right artifact research could really be moved forward using the quantitative approach. I for one, don't see a whole lot of room for it in my particular study, but that is not to say I do not think it could be beneficial.
I think, if someone was looking to use this in their study, you would have to be careful not to get skewed numbers. For instance, I think surveying people and then potting their responses in a quantitative, mathematical approach could be great. I liked the example of looking at responses to Poe's 4 works. But, even in a study like that you would most likely have to involve the elements of the IRB formatting, so as to not offend, hurt or do any other kind of mental of psychological harm to those that you wish to survey. (Granted, those pieces alone could scar someone or greatly hinder their psychological and mental health standing as is, but Poe started that ball rolling...)
Personally, I think it could be really easy to manipulate numbers to get the response you wanted, which really is a disadvantage in my mind to using this method. Someone could theoretically throw out certain studies or number finding; a survey, a percentage, whatever the quantitative material, so as to drive their research in their "right direction." That aspect really makes me frown. If you were to survey people, you could make up any excuse you wanted to shrink the spectrum you are looking at, changing the results. And personally, this kills the research and the reason for doing the research in the first place. Finally, that makes the whole shebang unethical!
If you think about if for a moment, it could be argued that we can unethically change/skew our research using any and all methods of research. We have to rely on our own moral conscience to stay ethically honest and authentic.
I couldn't agree with you more about the deadline. It is going to be super helpful, at least for people who are deadline–motivated or just coast-along slackers like me. And look at the results! We each posted some bitchin' blogs...uh, am I allowed to say that on here?
ReplyDeleteAnyways, so on the subject of quantitative research, are you sure there are no avenues whatsoever to use it in your project? I'm just curious. I think for mine it would be hard/awkward to fit it in too, but it may convince that one person in my audience who simply has to see some numbers. And yeah, I haven't come up with anything for mine beyond just asking a sample group to personally define the concept of celebrity. Maybe you could have a large sample group watch a short clip from "Double Indemnity" and then answer some questions based on their reactions? Just an idea. Yeah, that might be difficult to do. I don't think Survey Monkey allows for video clips in surveys...and then you'd have to get copyrights and all that bullshillackin. Um. Nevermind.
I think it is interesting just how much more objective numbers SEEM to be––I never noticed until that last article pointed it out. It makes sense though: numbers don't really illicit an emotional response...unless you're that one special robot on earth who has feelings and stumbles across a binary-encoded love poem or something. Numbers appear to have so much weight and authority. But it's only on the surface, really. I do think in certain studies, though, when all options and possible experiments are exhausted, and thoroughly conducted and reviewed by a collective group of diverse and morally responsible individuals (morally responsible being an impossible term to define if we are to digress into truth being relative and all that), numbers CAN be trusted...a little bit.
Though, since the speed at which knowledge is changing now––social or scientific, I think it doesn't matter much what method of research we use, since most of our findings will be either obsolete or passé in like 10 years anyway.
Okay that's a bit cynical....let's say in 20 years.
Yes, you can say bitchin', Ben-- unless your blogger, Kara, objects?
ReplyDeleteIf you want a little more cynicism, consider that even theoretical approaches get outdated every 20 years or so... reader-response theory was hot hot hot in the 80s, but now it's been left along the side the highway like roadkill. But there are tons of scholarly peeps out there that try to reclaim certain methods and arguments, so you could end up getting recycled about 40 years later, when you are old and gray... some young undergrad might say, "But Richards was right about XX!!!"
Ahhh... yes, the life of the mind!