Research Methods (spoiler alert!)
Resulting from a night of viewing pleasure with the Swedish film Kitchen Stories (2003), I have been thinking more deeply about varying methods for collecting data in research studies.
The entire concept of non-participant observation, when the observer is not directly involved in the situation being observed (Airasan, Gray, and Mills 2009) is in my mind both phony and impossible. The act of being present as an observer in any situation would almost always skew the actions and behaviors of anyone being observed, and the creators of the film Kitchen Stories really brought this home. I suppose it's important to understand the differing methods of collecting data and conducting research in order to have exposure to the results and consequences of the different data collection and research styles so that and I can use the best method(s) for my own research purposes. But I want to get a MA degree because I have this strange, completely non-lucrative passion for developing relationships with young people, and supporting them in their own personal human journeys to acquire knowledge and better their understanding for what's meaningful to them.
The act of research is based on inquiry. A researcher, or research team has a question (or inquiry) they are looking to answer. But I believe inquiry is universal, a part of what it is to be human. I also believe that curiosity is innate, and that people, from birth, are oriented toward trying to understand their surrounding world with the help of others. Those others, being human themselves- demonstrate and engage in their community's ways of inquiry together. Therefore, inquiry acts are acts of imposition. There are different degrees of imposition: Negative Imposition (in which someone feels interrupted or offended); Positive Imposition (in which one or more of the participants gains knowledge or pleasure from the interaction); and Neutral Imposition (in which the participants feel unaffected by the imposition). The non-participant style of observation that was intended for the research practices in Kitchen Stories began as a negative imposition. The result was a situation in which the observer became the observed. This happened the moment Isak (the Norwegian research participant) watched Foulke (the Swedish researcher) arrive in his trailer and park next to his home. Isak then took his observation to a deeper level when he cut a hole in the ceiling directly above the chair where Foulke sat in the kitchen to observe, so that he could he could observe his intended observer (Foulke) from above, without his knowledge (perhaps a more authentic form of observation, but questionably unethical without Foulke's volunteer participation).
Because of this peephole, Isak got to see Foulke carry out actions he might never have done while being observed, such as using Isak's salt to season his boiled egg while lunching from his observation post. In response, Isak came down from upstairs and played out an entire theatrical act of searching for his salt. He opened and closed several of his cupboards, looked on shelves and ultimately walked all over his kitchen- giving Foulke false data about his "normal" kitchen travel patterns.
Clearly Foulke experienced one of the greatest downsides to non-participant observation, which is having difficulty obtaining reliable information about participants' actions, opinions, reasoning for doing things the way they do, and emotional states. With the strict regulation that researchers and participants were not to have any interaction, Foulke was left to develop conclusions based on pure assumption. I found this story particularly fascinating because the kitchen is often a central location for intimate conversation, family gatherings, and the making of food- the substance that has the potential to nourish our bodies and our minds. Because Foulke was more or less an interloper in this space for the first half of the film, Isak chose to conduct his "normal" kitchen behavior elsewhere. He began cooking upstairs in his room instead, which was Foulke's assumption not based on direct observation, but rather his sense of smell. Interestingly, Foulke once did walk in on Isak and his friend socializing in the kitchen, but as he entered, their conversation ceased abruptly and both left the room. Certainly Foulke's "neutral" observations skewed the "normal" pattern of Isak's daily life in the kitchen, but as mentioned before, actions and reactions in any given situation are all a cause and effect patterns based on human interactions and inquiry. Just the act of observing an experiment, the experimenter changes the outcome, which became the case with Folke and Isak.
Isak immediately regretted his decision to participate, which was decided by a promised horse for compensation. He did what he could to make Folke's job miserable. He often turned off the lights and left whenever Folke began to record something. Folke soon retaliated and became more intrusive in his observations. Before long, participatory observations of one another developed on both ends. Occasionally, Isak got into the observation chair and recorded observations of his own. Initially their relationship (which slowly developed into a friendship) started with subtle interactions between two people (each playing both roles) playing little mind games with each other. The film portrayed minimal dialogue, but it was entertainingly subversive how the two of them tried to get the better of the other. Once Folke and Isak began to talk, they found enjoyment in each other's company. By the end of the story they actually got to know one another, and several of the initial presumptions each had developed about the other were erased. This ruined Folke's experiment, but he also realized that communication, connection and relationships were all more important than his job.
For my own inquiry-based research questions, Folke's realization about the importance of human connection for obtaining true and meaningful information really hits home. I am ceaselessly amazed by ways in which language learners (which includes anyone who engages in communication with others) use language to carry out purposes that are important or meaningful to them while acquiring language, and making sense of the world. In order to truly understand how others use language to make meaning, a relationship with that person is essential. A good example of participant observation came in email form from a friend of mine just yesterday. She was marveling at the contemplative thinking strategies her four-year-old was using while reading a book about lady bugs eating other bugs that are harmful to garden plants. He stopped her mid-sentence to point out, "Hey! Spiders do that too! They must be on the same team!"
Not only was his response unbelievably cute, but it also provided information about her son's ability to draw parallels between the actions of different types of insects, their relationship to garden plants, and his knowledge about teams-players working toward the same goal. Because of her participatory-observation stance, via authentic social interaction between two very connected people, she was able to acquire a deeper understanding of her son's thinking and reasoning abilities.
Another example came about last summer after spending a fun-filled day at the county fair with my three-year old daughter. In the car on the way home she said, "Mom I think you are fair because you took me to the fair."
This information-packed (and utterly adorable) statement told me that at just three years of age, she is making sense of language by playing with the concept of homonyms in different grammatical contexts. She identified with the word fair (adjective) to mean something positive and just, and connected that feeling to a good time at a fun place the fair (noun). Again, I was given the opportunity to study her complex language development and ability to use it in meaningful context because I spent the day with her having fun at the fair, and because I have a close relationship with her as her constant teacher, student and participant-observer.
The act of research is based on inquiry. A researcher, or research team has a question (or inquiry) they are looking to answer. But I believe inquiry is universal, a part of what it is to be human. I also believe that curiosity is innate, and that people, from birth, are oriented toward trying to understand their surrounding world with the help of others. Those others, being human themselves- demonstrate and engage in their community's ways of inquiry together. Therefore, inquiry acts are acts of imposition. There are different degrees of imposition: Negative Imposition (in which someone feels interrupted or offended); Positive Imposition (in which one or more of the participants gains knowledge or pleasure from the interaction); and Neutral Imposition (in which the participants feel unaffected by the imposition). The non-participant style of observation that was intended for the research practices in Kitchen Stories began as a negative imposition. The result was a situation in which the observer became the observed. This happened the moment Isak (the Norwegian research participant) watched Foulke (the Swedish researcher) arrive in his trailer and park next to his home. Isak then took his observation to a deeper level when he cut a hole in the ceiling directly above the chair where Foulke sat in the kitchen to observe, so that he could he could observe his intended observer (Foulke) from above, without his knowledge (perhaps a more authentic form of observation, but questionably unethical without Foulke's volunteer participation).
Because of this peephole, Isak got to see Foulke carry out actions he might never have done while being observed, such as using Isak's salt to season his boiled egg while lunching from his observation post. In response, Isak came down from upstairs and played out an entire theatrical act of searching for his salt. He opened and closed several of his cupboards, looked on shelves and ultimately walked all over his kitchen- giving Foulke false data about his "normal" kitchen travel patterns.
Clearly Foulke experienced one of the greatest downsides to non-participant observation, which is having difficulty obtaining reliable information about participants' actions, opinions, reasoning for doing things the way they do, and emotional states. With the strict regulation that researchers and participants were not to have any interaction, Foulke was left to develop conclusions based on pure assumption. I found this story particularly fascinating because the kitchen is often a central location for intimate conversation, family gatherings, and the making of food- the substance that has the potential to nourish our bodies and our minds. Because Foulke was more or less an interloper in this space for the first half of the film, Isak chose to conduct his "normal" kitchen behavior elsewhere. He began cooking upstairs in his room instead, which was Foulke's assumption not based on direct observation, but rather his sense of smell. Interestingly, Foulke once did walk in on Isak and his friend socializing in the kitchen, but as he entered, their conversation ceased abruptly and both left the room. Certainly Foulke's "neutral" observations skewed the "normal" pattern of Isak's daily life in the kitchen, but as mentioned before, actions and reactions in any given situation are all a cause and effect patterns based on human interactions and inquiry. Just the act of observing an experiment, the experimenter changes the outcome, which became the case with Folke and Isak.
Isak immediately regretted his decision to participate, which was decided by a promised horse for compensation. He did what he could to make Folke's job miserable. He often turned off the lights and left whenever Folke began to record something. Folke soon retaliated and became more intrusive in his observations. Before long, participatory observations of one another developed on both ends. Occasionally, Isak got into the observation chair and recorded observations of his own. Initially their relationship (which slowly developed into a friendship) started with subtle interactions between two people (each playing both roles) playing little mind games with each other. The film portrayed minimal dialogue, but it was entertainingly subversive how the two of them tried to get the better of the other. Once Folke and Isak began to talk, they found enjoyment in each other's company. By the end of the story they actually got to know one another, and several of the initial presumptions each had developed about the other were erased. This ruined Folke's experiment, but he also realized that communication, connection and relationships were all more important than his job.
For my own inquiry-based research questions, Folke's realization about the importance of human connection for obtaining true and meaningful information really hits home. I am ceaselessly amazed by ways in which language learners (which includes anyone who engages in communication with others) use language to carry out purposes that are important or meaningful to them while acquiring language, and making sense of the world. In order to truly understand how others use language to make meaning, a relationship with that person is essential. A good example of participant observation came in email form from a friend of mine just yesterday. She was marveling at the contemplative thinking strategies her four-year-old was using while reading a book about lady bugs eating other bugs that are harmful to garden plants. He stopped her mid-sentence to point out, "Hey! Spiders do that too! They must be on the same team!"
Not only was his response unbelievably cute, but it also provided information about her son's ability to draw parallels between the actions of different types of insects, their relationship to garden plants, and his knowledge about teams-players working toward the same goal. Because of her participatory-observation stance, via authentic social interaction between two very connected people, she was able to acquire a deeper understanding of her son's thinking and reasoning abilities.
Another example came about last summer after spending a fun-filled day at the county fair with my three-year old daughter. In the car on the way home she said, "Mom I think you are fair because you took me to the fair."
This information-packed (and utterly adorable) statement told me that at just three years of age, she is making sense of language by playing with the concept of homonyms in different grammatical contexts. She identified with the word fair (adjective) to mean something positive and just, and connected that feeling to a good time at a fun place the fair (noun). Again, I was given the opportunity to study her complex language development and ability to use it in meaningful context because I spent the day with her having fun at the fair, and because I have a close relationship with her as her constant teacher, student and participant-observer.
 |
| Cow Milking at the Fair |
Comments
Post a Comment