Readings response: Week 4

“The objectives of qualitative research are to discover, describe and analyze the complexities of common phenomena through observation and involvement in a research setting.” (Gorman & Clayton: p. 182)

To fulfill these objectives we need to clearly define our research methodology, which is done after an initial process of preliminary preparation as explained in the readings for last week (see Gorman & Clayton, Ch. 3). Preparing the methodology also encompasses identified which strategies will be used to collect data (interviews, focus groups, observations or texts analysis). Chapter 6 of Silverman brakes down these data gathering strategies into to main concepts. One concept is research-provoked data, which applies to interviews and focus groups. The other concept is naturally occurring data, which applies to observations and analysis of written text. Is one better than the other? I think than more important than arguing if naturally occurring data is better that research-provoked data, or vice versa, what is important is that the methodology (or methodologies) selected eventually will present strong evidence to support the researcher’s findings. Or as Silverman indicates: “have the researchers demonstrated successfully why we should believed them? And does the research problem tackled have theoretical and/or practical significance?” (Silverman, p. 237)

This week readings deal more with the concept of naturally occurring data, and more specific on fieldwork. By engaging in fieldwork, the researcher “’inserts’ his or her presence into the natural setting of the subjects.” (G&C, p. 65) This explanation of fieldwork reminds me of the methodology of archival ethnography, which has as its main purpose for the researcher to became immerse in the archive’s daily work. Dr. Karen Gracy used this methodology for her doctoral dissertation and explain it in her article “Documenting Communities of Practice: Making the Case for Archival Ethnography” (Archival Science 2004, vol. 4).

From the readings of Gorman and Clayton, which explains in details how to use fieldwork and what are the different strategies for note-taking, I will like to mention two important issues. First, good note taking is am acquired skill that needs a lot of practice. This discipline of note taking also requires that the research not only records his or her observations, but also is recommended that he or she should look at the data soon after the session is finished to add other notes that are not recorded. Second, just as for the rest of the methodologies and strategies, there’s the issue of error and bias in note taking (see G & C, p. 190). To face this issue, Gorman and Clayton recommend that the researcher could control bias “through the practice of building trustworthiness.” (p. 191) I will add that to build trustworthiness, the most important aspect is to keep and present strong evidence of the researcher’s data, methodology and findings.

Ideas about my research project

After searching for more information to start working in my research project, I have found that my initial idea of studying the concept of evidence and archives in the case of Pinochet regime will be very difficult to work during this semester (mainly because of the limitations with data). I came across Alasdair Roberts book “Blacked out: government secrecy in the information age” and found very interesting one his argument that even though the current government has been trying to increase government secrecy, the development of new information technologies has also increase the leaking of secret information (ex. Abu Garib scandal). As he indicates, “from a technical point of view – leaking was also easier than ever before.” (Roberts: p. 73) These kind of discussions are of interest of me, specially on analyzing the archival implications of government secrecy.

Following Gorman and Clayton discussion in Chapter 3 (specifically on p. 39) on thinking about research design, I’m establishing a possible framework for my project:
- What should be the focus?
I will like to focus on studying the discourse on government secrecy in the United States. What are the arguments that the press has present discussing government secrecy in the past 25 to 30 years? What about groups and organizations? And more important, what is the discourse from the archival profession?
- How should this be studied?
This question deals with the possible data sources I’ll be studying. These sources will include newspaper articles (specially op-ed), selected organizations websites, archives listserve, records manager listserve. In addition, I will be reviewing the literature related to this topic.

I still struggling on developing a more specific framework, and is very probable that I will need to narrow my topic (narrow it by a specific period of time, or by specific cases).

Some notes on this week readings:
I found Ch. 3 of Gorman & Clayton the most useful of the readings for this week, probably because what is explained here is where we are right know on our research project (selecting a topic, initial questions, etc.). In addition, it includes an explanation on the relationship of historical research with qualitative research (p. 42-43). Most of the discussions about qualitative research concentrate on the methods of observation and interviewing. But as explained by Gorman & Clayton, “although the historical method is often overlooked in qualitative research texts, it certainly embodies most of the characteristics of qualitative methodology.” (p. 42) By understanding and analyzing the historical context of organizations or events, we will also understand “its historical roots, its evolution over time.” (p. 42) It would be interesting to do a more in depth analysis on why historical research is overlooked in the literature about qualitative research.

Reading response: Week 3

“To put it more directly but quite indelicately, no one cares what we think – the scholarly community only cares what we can demonstrate.” (King et al.: p. 15)

This quote is the one that most called my attention in the readings. It also summarizes in some may what I think is one of the main ideas for this week’s readings: the importance of evidence in research. Not only the researcher needs to study the literature about his/her topic and establish a strong research methodology, but in the end he/she needs to demonstrate that the project is a significant contribution to the field. For example, in discussing reliability as part of the evaluation of qualitative research, Gorman & Clayton states,

"In qualitative research, because it is frequently the researcher who acts as ‘instrument’ or data gatherer, it is difficult to establish the reliability of the researcher. However, if the researcher notes his or her own assumptions and biases so that these may, if necessary, be discounted; fully and carefully explains the data gathering procedures used; keeps thorough notes; and uses multiple sources of data to verify observations, then we are more likely to accept these data as reliable." (p. 24)

In their explanation about the various criteria for choosing a research question, King et al. list a number of possibilities researchers can look at to make a contribution to the scholarly literature. (King, et al.: p. 16- 17) All six possibilities listed are closely related to evidence. Even if the research is to strengthen or disagree in accepted hypothesis, or to bring into attention an important topic that has been overlook in the literature, the goal of your research will be to demonstrate with strong evidence the answers to your questions.

As discussed last week, and in most of the readings, one of the main criticisms to qualitative research is that the project can be very much influenced by the researcher’s personal perspectives, and though this can cause questions to the research’s validity. However, and in some way different from quantitative research, the goal of qualitative research is not to produce standard results that can be replicated by other researchers studying the same situation. The real goal is “to produce a coherent and illuminating description of and perspective on a situation that is based on and consistent with detailed study of that situation.” (Ward in Huberman & Miles: p. 174) What is important in terms of validity is that the researcher can show strong evidence supporting his or her work, which is what Ward calls “internal validity.”

Week 2: Reading response

In one of my courses at Michigan I did a study about the Gerarld Ford Presidential Library. As part of the assignment, I was asked to observe members of the staff, specially how they interact with users at the reference room. Because the number of researchers visiting the library was so low (basically one or two daily), I decided to make my observations by becoming a researcher and experience the process users go through at the library. Without knowing, I was basically doing some sort of qualitative research, and this experience came regularly into my mind while reading the assigned chapters. As Gorman and Clayton states, qualitative research “is something that every information professional does instinctively almost every working day.” (Gorman and Clayton: p. 1)

Although qualitative research is rising as a strong methodology option, this does not means it is not out from strong criticism. One of the main arguments is from those who consider qualitative research as soft. Furthermore, some argue that while quantitative research reports reality, qualitative research can be affected by the researcher’s political values (Silverman: p. 35) However, these arguments doesn’t does not takes into consideration that also analysis of quantitative data is not free from different interpretations. Silverman presents as an example the skepticism of the general public on government statistics (Silverman: p. 38).

Taking the different arguments for or against qualitative research aside, I think that it is more important to analyze how both research methodologies can be mixed for a stronger research (see Silverman: p. 48). Gorman and Clayton explain that by combining both methodologies, “the researcher is able to address different aspects of the same research question, thereby extending the breadth of the project.” (Gorman and Clayton: p. 12) For example, most of the research done on digitization and digital preservation in archives has concentrated on surveys and statistics (quantitative methods). Because of these studies, archivists are aware of the challenges and issues we face on this area. However, there’s a gap on understanding how archives face these challenges in their institutions. How they apply the recommendations for digital preservation? How this affects the organizational culture of the archive and other responsibilities? Numbers can’t offer answers to these questions. Here is where qualitative research can be helpful.

Finally, I found very interesting Gherardi and Turner discussion about the importance of research communication, and specially about regular writing as a research skill. They state: “The goal of writing every day not only helps avoid writing blocks, but gives regular practice to the qualitative researcher in externalizing thoughts about the issues and evidence of the research in hand.” (Huberman and Miles, ed.: p. 94)