Christopher Fahey wrote:
>common sense and individual expertise is too-often neglected in
>questionable research conclusions.
Thoughtful posts, worth checking out.
I have certainly seen the expectation that research will magically
produce the answers. I think the reliance on video edits (as
persuasive as they are) to support all the main insights is really
challenging, because sometimes the great stuff is never explicitly
said. I'm sure many of us have had the experience of telling and
retelling a story from the field and emphasizing some strong
reaction, only to find that it's not actually as clear as we thought
from the video....the person never really told the story directly,
they talked about the point you wanted, they didn't "fall out of
their chair" etc. But our memories, though inaccurate, are rich. If
it's not about truth or simply documenting reality, then it's okay.
If we want truth out of it, the more interpretive tools are probably
the wrong way to go.
Point 2 - about inference - is really key for me, and I believe often
misunderstood. I think about the researcher as a piece of apparatus
that is placed into an experimental situation, and retrieved from
that environment containing a great deal of data. The person, that
is, not the tools of documentation.