What struck me about this week's blog post is the "theoretical tension here between experience, memory, and the sharing of knowledge". Too often, research places the greatest value on data - anything that is measurable and quantifiable. However, this is often done at the expense of preserving stories, and the breadth of knowledge that can be derived from them. I very strongly believe that there is invaluable knowledge that can be derived from experiences. Experiences, taken holistically, provide insight and information that no amount of quantitative data, surveys, or charts, could ever hope to provide.
While some research methods, ethnography in particular, do leave space for stories, there is more often than not a reduction of the knowledge that is truly available. There are, as always, challenges that come from studies that produce stories as their results, and use these stories to communicate messages. A recent example that comes to mind is a study that was run by a university - the intention was to gather stories from folks who live in the surrounding neighborhood. However, only clips of long interviews were made available, and it is arguable that specific snippets were chosen to paint the university in a positive light. In this case, the stories are data that are preserved digitally, yet this does not protect them from targeted editing. This may lead to folks in 2112 receiving an inaccurate perception of what the research was actually about, and what the stories were actually trying to say. I suppose this reason, the vulnerability that collections of stories/data face when digitized, is why I still have a soft spot for also storing things in hard copy (however problematic this may be!).
(Having asked you in person by what you mean by hard copy and you saying transcription as an example...)
ReplyDeleteTranscription could also be selectively cited in a way that changes the meaning (like in interviews or a lot of magazines). Everyone who interacts with information is also likely to interpret it in their own way, which might not be the way the speaker intended it. Do you see any way to avoid this type of thing from happening? Is it worth trying, or should people be allowed to present information according to their own views?
My concern isn't so much with interpretation. Say an interview is transcribed word for word - I would expect this to garner different interpretations. That's part of the beauty and value of learning through stories - we each relate to different aspects and connect it to different things we've experienced.
DeleteMy concern is more so what happened in the example. Of a long interview, only small snippets were made available. I'm only aware because I know a few of the interviewees personally, and they felt as though they were being censored. This un-holistic representation of data is what worries me.
Would you consider full video interviews to be preferable? That might make tone of voice and body language a bit clearer (although it would damage anonymity)
DeleteIf people felt they were being censored that is a big problem. Of course the university (or other sponsoring body) will highlight what they think is complimentary - but to not have the full transcripts available is problematic for sure.
ReplyDeleteStephanie A.