Author: Ana Ndumu

Last week‘s discussion on ethics was a great reminder (we can never be reminded too much) that research comes with tremendous responsibility. The readings as well as our discussion addressed issues of fabrication, ownership of data, power structures and speaking for others.

I realize that I briefly mentioned this book before but I was recently reminded of it at a Toastmasters meeting and then during our ethics discussion. I think it’s relevant to this week’s topic in several ways… The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks is about a woman whose cancerous cells were taken without her or her family’s permission in 1951 at John Hopkins University during a time when patient consent was tenuous. Henrietta Lacks’ cells were the first to indefinitely thrive in culture. HeLa cells led to many medical breakthroughs, including the polio vaccine as well as advances in cancer, Parkinson’s disease, AIDS and much more. Though the HeLa cells spurred billions of dollar in pharmaceutical profit, the Lacks children had no idea of their mother’s contributions to modern science. In fact, many of them suffered from health ailments such as blindness, heart disease and diabetes but were too poor to receive proper care.

Bringing this all back to ethics…The writer, Rebecca Skloot, is a brilliant qualitative researcher who put people first and her project second. She employed archival, ethnographic and intensive interview techniques in order to weave together Henrietta Lacks’ biography, the scientific history of HeLa production (interestingly, the HeLa saga also has roots to Tuskegee University); legal and ethical ramifications; along with the impact on the remaining members of the Lacks family.

Skloot spent 10 years tracing the story. All the while, she treated the family with the respect that they deserved. The Lacks profess that Skloot became a part of their family. I got a chance to see the Lacks family speak at a conference; they continue to have a great relationship with Skloot. The book was also the selection for our campuswide common reading initiative at the small college where I worked. The undergrads enjoyed it…or so they said! At any rate, there was so much room for the endeavor to go wrong, but I believe that Skloot’s work is an example of activist scholarship. All of this ties back to beneficence being fundamental to research.

Since my last update, I have:

1.  Interviewed 2 researchers/professors

Dr. Tameka Hobbs is a graduate of Florida State University where she earned her doctoral degree in United States History, and Historical Administration and Public History. In addition to her teaching experience, she has served as a researcher, writer, consultant, and director for a number of public and oral history projects in Florida and Virginia, including the African American Trailblazers in Virginia History Program, a statewide educational program focused on celebrating African American History. Her professional experience includes serving as Director of Projects and Program for the John G. Riley Museum and Center of African American History and Culture, located here in Tallahassee….Fast forward: I was fortunate to work alongside her on a “Reunion & Remembrance” oral history project centered around Florida Memorial University, a small HBCU in Miami. I soaked up practical techniques but had never formally picked Dr. Hobb’s brain on theoretical or abstract concepts pertaining to oral history research. Speaking with her was a real shot in the arm.

Dr. Tiffany Austin received the BA in English from Spelman College, MFA in creative writing from Chicago State University, JD from Northeastern University School of Law, and PhD in English from Saint Louis University. Her teaching and research interests include African Diaspora literature; including African, African American, Caribbean, and Afro-Latin American literature; Comparative literature; critical theory and gender studies. She is a prolific writer and consummate professional. I could insert a whole slew of top-tier publications and invited talks…To cut to the chase: Dr. Austin performed oral history research while documenting the life and work of social protest blues singer Willie King of and Aliceville and Old Memphis, Alabama (near the Mississippi border). I learned tons from my interview with Dr. Austin.

I was supposed to interview Dr. Anthony Dixon of the Riley Museum. I spoke with him in person plus emailed twice, to no avail. Thankfully, Dr. Austin had my back.

2. Dr. Hinnant’s talk

Dr. Hinnant raised good points about how qualitative and quantitative methodologies are usually intertwined. By way of example, he spoke about how oral history research is increasingly quantified through indexing/classification so that narratives are searchable through voice recognition technology. The issue of access is an important angle that I had not captured; I paid little attention to the curation and dissemination of oral history. I will work to include this valuable perspective from now until my project is due. Dr. Hinnant included in his Powerpoint a great article.

3. Added 8 more articles to my draft literature review

My oral history literature review outline has expanded. I am starting to really see the intricacies, benefits and limitations of the oral history technique.

4. Updated my taxonomy

I have added a few new constructs to my oral history taxonomy. 

 

This week’s discourse and content analysis readings emphasized the “objective, systematic and quantitative description of the manifest content of communication” (Frohmann, 1994, p. 19).

For my class activity, I chose to analyze the content found in the Rants & Rave’s board of the Tallahassee Craigslist site. My research question was “What topics are most discussed on the Rants and Rave’s board of the Tallahassee Craigslist site?” There were several open letters to colleagues and bosses; manifestos pertaining to the government, religion and race relations; complaints about bad customer services or lousy restaurant patrons and so forth. I noticed quite a bit of profanity, exclamation points, ALL CAPS, ellipses, and colloquial (slang) terms. The discussion board appears to be a confessional.

My big take-away: before the analysis of documents can take place, there must be lots of pre-thinking. “Every content analysis requires a context within which the available texts are examined. The analyst must, in effect, construct a world in which the texts make sense and can answer the analysts’ research questions” (Kippendorff, 2004, p. 24). So from a disciplinary standpoint, I chose to approach the Rants & Raves board study from the Information Science domain and along the “information grounds” theoretical lines. I wasn’t sure if I did what was asked of me in terms of the class activity. Still, I think the activity was successful in driving home the point that content analysis and discourse analysis are anything but simple “soft” methodologies. On the contrary, without property scaffolding, the work of analysis will be haphazard, which jeopardizes validity and reliability. Empirical research, especially those which involve hypertextual evidence, necessitates clear controls,  strict definitions and repeatable procedures.

Grounded theory

I was really struck by the copious attention to semantics and linguistics as well as the patience which entail the grounding theory process. Dr. Rodriguez-Mori showed that numerous iterations of coding, axial coding and then even more coding are necessary for a solid theory to bloom. This methodology 1. calls for serious information organization 2. requires thorough evaluation rubrics 3. is such that the data collection is yoked with the analysis procedure (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). The readings, the guest lecturer as well as Dr. K emphasized that

• one must repeat both the data collection as well as coding processes until the information reaches a point of saturation
• the need to consult theory for the sampling method (for instance, Dr. Mori used the information grounds theory to recruit Puerto Rican participants at churches, stores and other gathering places)
• process is a part of the theory in that “meaning has to be broken down into stages” (Corbin & Strauss, 1990, p. 241)
• and, finally, that patterns and variations must be accounted for. I very much appreciated the buckets analogy!

Coding

My literature background plus tendency to over-analyze affected my ability to code. I was distracted by what I interpreted as awkward interpersonal skills and interesting banter. I did, however, manage to find instances where the authors (especially P07) capitalized things which shouldn’t have been, such as Specialist Degree and I believe Cap & Gown and Graduation. This capitalization demonstrated that these were very important constructs. Furthermore, the use of emoticons and slang (“kewl”) indicated that the forum is an informal, if not, safe place. Finally, the students seemed to use very encouraging and positive language throughout the forum, which highlights the fact that it was used for peer supported.

I have been practicing coding throughout my course project but the class activity was another animal. The data was  jumbled and, at times, unrelated. Still, it was a great learning experience. Coding requires that researchers “empty themselves” and approach words (which are loaded with meaning) in a literal and mechanical way. Try as I might, I couldn’t be as objective as I would’ve hoped. I was sharpened by my classmate’s perspectives.

My project entails an exploration of the oral history method. I aim to create a 2,500 word synthesis of literature pertaining to oral histories. Additionally, I plan to interview two historians who have executed oral history projects. I also hope to provide insight based on my experience.

I. Pre-writing

Now in my third semester of the iSchool doctoral program, I have learned (the hard way) some tips in terms of synthesizing research or creating a literature review: 1. find, annotate and REALLY organize journal articles (at this point, twenty-five);  2. generate a taxonomy of topics in order to avoid perfunctory summaries of articles and, instead, write thematically (Dr. Stivilia taught us this valuable hack); 3.  use a dual-monitor PC in order to have articles on one screen and my Word document on the other; and 4. create bulleted sections of knowledge and quotes which can later be fashioned into an essay or report.

2. Content

I mention these steps not to appear high-minded but to state that I left off these important steps when creating my project proposal. In fact, I really underestimated the amount of work it would take to critically read, decipher concepts, organize categories using a taxonomy and transfer knowledge to the written report. Despite, my initial proposal, it is best that I coalesce all of my data at a later point, when I have fully explored the literature, the interviews as well as my own experience.

So far, I have read 17 articles and created a taxonomy of major themes, which you can access here.  Also, I organized said themes and insight in a preliminary report, which is available here. You will notice that I created bullet points or lists. In my estimation, have met my goal of providing a 1,000 essay as my second project update since my draft report thus far contains 2,038 words.

The dominant themes are that oral history is a democratic research avenue which allows for

• activist scholarship
• public discourse
• reconstruction of past/popular/limited narratives
• agency for the marginalized
• research as a shared experience
• acknowledgement of the value of the everyday life of the lay person

Trust, deep listening, reciprocity, unstructured/semi-structured designs and rich description are championed.

Yet, oral history research has its flaws in that it still upholds traditional power structures, calls into question validity and reliability on account of its reliance on memory, and jeopardizes the safety of participants  in highly-politicized and/or dangerous communities.

3. Accidental ‘Experiential Learning’ Experience

Ironically, writing about oral history requires me to employ some of the requisite techniques. Specifically, I employed what I would consider deep listening (that is, critical reading). I also extrapolated patterns as well as coded and quantified information, thereby utilizing the content analysis technique. In terms of my method, I paid careful attention to data quality control and knowledge organization.  Moreover, I will soon interview two experts and, thereby, apply intensive interviewing best practices. In essence, this project allows me to not just know, but do. I’m reminded of a quote by Confuscious: “I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.”

Considering the fact that I already have 2,038 words yet AT LEAST eight more articles, two expert interviews plus my own experience to include, there is no way that my final report will be contained to just 2,500 words. I am not sure what an adequate end goal is. Instead, I will allow the paper to naturally conclude when I have reached a point of saturation.

My next project update will describe how my interviews went!

ASK A QUESTION

My hypothetical study involves college freshmen and their perceptions of information literacy. Though largely adroit in terms of communication technologies, this multifaceted group may lack information literacy proficiency (Agosto & Hughes-Hassell, 2005; Gross & Latha, 2013; Jones, 2007). They can be described as having inflated perceptions of their ability to locate, synthesize and critically assess information. College students’ “self-taught” media skills often do not match the level at which they scrutinize content (Agosto & Hughes-Hassell, 2005; Gross & Latham, 2013; Jones, 2007). Furthermore, it can be argued that college freshmen view the academic library as a place to propel them in their self-guided pursuits as opposed to a resource by which they can receive instruction or training with—perish the thought—a librarian as the facilitator. In this vein, competency theory (Kruger, J., & Dunning, D., 1999), which posits that individuals with some domain knowledge are often unable to recognize their deficiencies and therefore tend to overestimate their skill level, is used as the theoretical framework herein.

My research question are: How do FSU freshmen rate their information-literacy skills? How do students’ perceptions compare to their abilities?

PICK A CASE

The particular case that I will study is FSU freshman students who reported their information-literacy skills to be moderate to high. I will investigate the logic and information by which the students assessed themselves. The purpose is to understand how students perceive information literacy; their experience or exposure (if any) to K-12 information literacy instruction; and their current information technology proficiency. I will not set a limit on the number of students that I will interview, which leads me to the next point.

DESCRIBE THE TYPE OF CASE

I have chosen the holistic multiple-case replication design. Thus, I will replicate the “experiment” or inquiry by continuing to study students until I have reached a point of saturation. I will choose participants, or cases, based on student demographic information. My aim is to obtain a group that is representative of the population parameter. In terms of technique, I will utilize the in-depth interview and will have a questionnaire. Since I am aiming for “the replication of an experiment” (Yin, p. 52), the case study research must be standardized or formal. Thus, based on our previous interview readings, I must strike a balance between conversation and interrogation. Though a multiple-case design requires more resources and time, my research question and desired outcome calls for a comprehensive description; the multiple-case design is the way to derive exhaustive information.

TYPE OF DATA AND ANALYSIS

When it comes to data, I must first ask assessment questions in order to see if students self-perceived moderate-to-high information skills are accurate. Students should be able to briefly employ information literacy skills. Afterward, I will probe to distinguish whether the participants earnestly understand the definition and concepts of information literacy. It is also important for me to distinguish the students K-12 information literacy education. Regarding the analysis technique, I will use the constant comparative method in order to synthesize, examine, compare, conceptualize and categorize data.

HOW COULD THE FINDINGS DIFFER FROM WHAT THEY WOULD BE IF I DID A STUDY ON THE SAME QUESTION BUT WITH MORE PARTICIPANTS/SITES/DATA AND FEWER DATA TYPES?

Another way to approach this same study is via a survey study. However, survey research is often superficial and lends itself to the very phenomenon that I intend to study: college freshman’s inflated perceptions of their information literacy skills. A trajectory involving multiple case study design utilizing in-depth interviews and constant comparative analysis will allow for deep exploration and skills assessment. As Yin mentioned, “the evidence from multiple cases is often considered more compelling, and the overall study is therefore regarded as being more robust.” (p.41)

This week’s interviewing assignment was insightful for many reasons. For one, interviewing appears easier than it is. Secondly, my research project centers on oral history research and the readings that I have gathered so far agree on one thing: oral history is more than an interview. To this end, I hoped to see if I could perceive what the differences are, based on my rudimentary experience. Unfortunately, I didn’t fully embrace the ïnterviewer” mode, which was a disservice. Before I describe my experience, I should mention that my research question was ¨How do American adults seek vacation travel information?” I asked the subjects: ¨Think of the last time that you went on a vacation. How did you locate information?¨

I began with the structured, critical incident interview. For all intents and purposes, this was to be the most formal of the interviews. I scheduled it first because I anticipated that it would be taxing. On the contrary, I accomplished very little and personal conversation took over (which Suchman and Jordan advise against). We ¨lost the plot” by praising Ethiopian food as well as discussing Ethiopian restaurants in Atlanta and Columbus, Ohio. We were enjoying a pretty neat exchange on Jacksonville’s Ethiopian restaurants (and lamented the fact that there aren’t any in Tallahassee) when someone reminded me that I was to be keeping time and five minutes had passed. This is all to say that I learned the following: don’t inject too much of your own experience, even if it is plenteous; it is better to make a note and return to ¨juicy convo¨ after the interview has ended; the researcher should tame their enthusiasm, especially if the research is their ¨baby,¨; one must balance the pleasantries of conversation with hard fact-finding. In my opinion, the critical incident technique is best suited for investigating non-personal, non-individualistic phenomena–that is, work-related, domain-related or skill-related processes. Maybe Flanagan mentioned this; I can’t recall at this moment.

The second, semi-structured interview was also very laid-back. It reminded me of the reference interview. I asked one or two questions but, for the most part, the interviewee was self-directed. I was a bit more focused yet the interview still leaned on the side of a conversation. I talk too much! I learned that researchers should foster dialogue but not conversation, which is hard to do without being cold. I agree with Suchman and Jordan, who noted that ¨standardization¨can make the interview process awkward.

The last interview, the unstructured, was the most successful. I introduced myself, stated the purpose of the interview and discussed the goals. I listened more than I spoke, but this had to do with the fact that I was restricted in terms of the number of questions that I could ask. Though it was unstructured, the interview was more professional because the interviewee was briefed. She understood the mission and the data I was after and answered accordingly.

A final note: the interviews collectively taught me that ramblings and digressions are pretty inevitable. The researcher would do well to anticipate distractions. These blurbs might be handy:
¨I’m glad you mentioned that because it leads perfectly into my next question: ¨
¨Ah, that’s extremely important and, along those lines, I was wondering…¨
¨So if I understand you correctly youŕe saying _______. Let me ask you, how do you feel about…¨

For my project, I observed a construction site just behind the College of Information.

I felt extremely self-conscious while writing my notes. For one, construction workers–typically males–are often stereotyped as “cat callers.” I was aware of the irony of my observing a group of men who are, generally speaking, often criticized for how they presumably observe women. For another, I would venture to guess that construction workers usually feel invisible in terms of how society views or interacts with them as they complete their tasks…and there I was gazing at them. At least one man noticed me as I watched the group. I wondered if he felt it odd that an outsider was interested in them. Fortunately, when my laptop’s mouse pad froze, I was able to switch note-taking methods so I ended up using the voice recorder app on my phone. I felt less conspicuous as I spoke into my phone.

When it came to turning my notes into a narrative description, first I realized that I had not chosen a very good place to focus because I was interrupted a number of times. Thus, I learned the importance of solitude when transcribing or analyzing. Moreover, I was very aware of the fact that some of my notes (i.e. Hispanic male workers, white male supervisor) may be controversial. I omitted some notes on the basis that they were button-pushing. I later learned that it is okay to note sensitive information so long as I don’t interpose interpretation.

I admit that I don’t recall any of my partner’s questions at the present moment. Nevertheless, the partner assignment was particularly enlightening. I was impressed by how often my partner quantified information. I opted for a verbal approach but, after exchanging paragraphs and posing questions, I recognized the benefits of quantitative subject data. I believe that it lends itself to balance and neutrality. Aside from the six Hispanic workers and one white supervisor note, I didn’t include quantitative data. Instead, I described the sounds, activities and structures at the scene.

I may be wrong but given the nature of my research interests—cultural heritage institutions and historically black colleges and universities—I am pretty sure that I will engage in qualitative research. (I really feel, though, that I should heed the consistent advice to have quantitative research in my tool kit. So the mixed methods route seems lucrative). Accordingly, this week’s readings are good road maps. The “Planning and Designing Qualitative Research” chapter was a rubber-meets-the-road, easy read. As mentioned in class, it was insightful, digestible and still sophisticated. I have tucked this reading away as a top reference.
Likewise, I was edified by the Denzin and Lincoln article; I must admit that I enjoyed the beginning more than the end. It became a tedious read after a while. I put it down and came back to it. The discussions on the politics and ideologies behind qualitative research were fascinating. I was drawn to the sections regarding colonialism and “otherness.” I feel as though I have a grasp on the various eras in terms of qualitative research methodology. More importantly, I thoroughly understand that I need to strive for value-free research.
The Westbrook article added to the concepts we learned in Research Methods. For instance, it provided more explanation on constant comparative, content analysis and other qualitative techniques. It was neat that this reading revolved around LIS research.
In closing, I feel that qualitative methodology is the natural course for those whose interests entail cultures, communities and underrepresented groups. One of my favorite books, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot, was an ethnographic slash biographical slash context analysis slash metaanalysis study of (ironically) one of the biggest medical breakthroughs in history: the discovery the regenerative human cell, HeLa. I am not quite as ambitious as Rebecca Skloot nor do I have ten years, as she did, to finish my research. Nevertheless, I see the possibilities!