Barbara Herr Harthorn...Nanotechnologies, Cultural Values, and Methodological Challenges

Image via WikipediaI do not work in a nano-deficient environment.  At my university (UMass-Lowell) we have what we call the "Nano Queens", three female scientists who excel in this field, and a new building is rising on our North Campus that will be dedicated to nanotechnology, among other things.  So, I think of myself as nano-aware.  But, Barbara Herr Harthorn's article "Methodolocial Challenges Posed by Emergent Nanotechnologies and Cultural Values" in Hess Biber's edited volume--The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research (65-88)--has taken me to new heights.  Harthorn is definitely the nano-babe of social science research (in my eyes).

Her piece took me back immediately to the first article in the book, by Edward Hackett, and the issues he raises about researching in the new scientific and technological environment of today.  Her piece provides many specific illustrations to fill in the general ideas he discussed. 

Nano queens, Nano buildings, and Nano babes aside--Harthorn makes it clear that defining the nano is not all that easy, and, thus, researching it is just that much more complicated.  Nano is in the process of becoming, it is quintessentially emergent, so research of the issue is "upstream". In other words, you are in the business of identifying, finding, describing.  This danger is well noted when she says:

Social scientists and humanists recruited to study NSE processes for technological development are thus at some risk of creating the very object we are studying, of reifying a category that may have little inherent meaning outside the funding world (71)

As an ethnographic, feminist social science researcher, Harthorn has had a unique opportunity to be in on the beginnings of the nano world through participation in the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at the University of California at Santa Barbara.  Her article makes excellent reading because the social science that she is describing, she has lived! 

Of the points I take away with me from this reading, one is related to interdisciplinary research (a point Hackett also raises)...and this point is also related to the issue of researching those things that are "upstream" as she defines the emergent world of nanotechnology...and this is that true, dynamic interdisciplinarity is required to get at these forming masses that span science, social science, and the humanities.  Having scientists, social scientists (of diverse backgrounds and skills) and John and Jane Q Public together at the table is probably the only way to get at the potential good (and bad) of these extremely powerful, but as yet, emergent technologies. 

I am also drawn to her discussion of the importance of mixing qualitative and quantitative in order to be open enough to discovery of what you haven't imagined and, simultaneously, primed to track down what you have identified.  Harthorn recommends use of a methodological toolkit that is constantly evolving itself, always being honed to address specific questions and situations that may not have been imagined by methodologists from an earlier era.  This experimentation in methodology has led her to team to develop "deliberative forums" and to make use of "experimental deliberation" as well as  new forms of web surveys.  She charts an interesting pathway in the social sciences.  From lab-based experiments, social scientists moved out into the world to focus on behavior and practices in their real or natural locations, but now with new communication media we can move back into another kind of lab where we can engage with a much wider range of people in a virtual space (a kind of lab) asking them to reflect on their behaviors, practices, decisions, and potential outcomes (a kind of naturalized perspective). 

The article is worth much, just for the bibliography alone.  Harthorn's close connection with the development of this field--the social study of nanotechnology--has given her access to a vast amount of the material that is being released on this topic.  She shares her riches generously with the reader. 

Qualitative Research Network at UMass-Lowell: Another Great Brown Bag

Image via WikipediaToday our qualitative research brown bag featured Pia Markkanen from the Department of Work Environment at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell.  Pia made a presentation on the mixed method study that became the Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine (JOEM) article--"There's No Place Like Home: A Qualitative Study of the Working Conditions of Home Health Care Providers".  It was fascinating!

Pia described the qualitative to quantitative to qualitative interactions of the study like a dance.  Project SHARRP,as she called it, Safe Homecare and Risk Reduction for Providers, was funded by National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Like it's name, Project Sharrp focused on accidents with sharp instruments in home health care and the issues related to blood borne pathagens. 

Her audience of qualitative researchers was interested in all the nitty-gritty detail, from how she selected participants and gained informed consent to the development of focus group questions and integration with quantitative data.  For more informationon this excellent study, contact Pia!  

In the course of this work, Pia has become a daily user of NVivo.  We didn't get a chance to look into her project, but she showed how coding was reflected in the article's charts, and she shared an NVivo model with us. 

Our last brown bag of the Fall 2011 semester will take place on Tuesday, December 13 from 12:30-1:30 pm.  Steve Tello and Yi Yang from Management will present.  We will be meeting in Southwick 240 on North Campus. 

Edward Hackett and Emergent Technologies in the Human Sciences

Hackett, E. (2011). Possible dreams: Research technologies and the transformation of the human sciences.  In The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research, edited by Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber.  Chapter 1:  pgs 25-46.  Publisher:  Oxford Press. 

Hackett has made a follower--me!  This was a great chapter to lead off this volume--BIG PICTURE!  I note that he refers to "the human sciences", a term that takes me back in my mind to Dilthey, but he brings a new twist to the idea with the notion of "complementary research in the social and behavior sciences" (p. 27).

Another term that brought back memories to me was "ensembles" as in "ensembles of research technologies".  Years ago when I was working on the Hanau Model School Partnership I wrote about the ensembles of school technologies (I presented this at AERA, wrote the paper, but never finished the revisions--such is life).  Hackett points to environmental studies and the ways they have made strides through assembling new "ensembles of research technologies", urging the human sciences to consider this model.

Hackett brings experience working at NSF to bear on the discussion.  Clearly it provided him with the opportunity to look across emerging areas of science/social science and consider the lessons that were being learned. 

I like the way he has integrated history (a discussion of the development of the survey) and the future (the new models described above) to provide a context for thinking about the integration of research approaches.

He identifies four critical domains that research in the human sciences must contend with:  place, scale, time, and engagement.  Here's the quote that ties this all together for me:

In sum, ongoing changes in the importance and nature of place (from local to virtual), the scale of phenomena (from genetic or neural to global), the scope of time (from briefer than a blink to evolutionary), and the terms of engagement with research subjects and users are combining to form the ensembles of research technologies that will be developed by the social and behavioral sciences (p. 35).

  He offers 8 "categories of innovation" (p. 35) that address these issues--not to be missed.

What I take away in my quest to understand what this all means to qualitative research is:
-he doesn't mention qualitative research (nor quantitative research specifically)...he is talking on another plane
-he doesn't mention qualitative data analysis software...and yet is talking about the next generation of technologies that build on the CAQDAS base

-he IS talking about the kind of inclusive (multi-disciplinary/multi-methodological) research that I blogged about not to long ago.
-he IS talking about constant experimentation and purposing/repurposing of technologies to support the goals of research

A very good start to the reading of this book.  

Visual Memos in Qualitative Research: Part III

Image via Wikipedia

Began this morning with more thoughts about visual memos. 

Is a visual memo a cartoon?  Is it a story?
What is the form of the narrative of visual memos?
How do the elements of the narrative work?

Would qualitative researchers use visual memos for the same thing that they would use written memos for?  How does a researcher decide to insert the visual? 

This reminded me of single photos or drawings--artifacts from my data collection activities--that I came to refer to as memos becuase I found them so iconic and I used them repeatedly to talk about a concept/notion that had arisen in the interpretation.  An example is a photo of a 1st grade classroom that I have used many times to talk about multiple ways to read the photo and think about the cluster of things and practices.  One way I approach it is to talk about "reading the walls".  I can read the whole day on that one wall--from morning message through the day's schedule, to a host of other activities.  Another way to approach it is to look at the intersection of things (computers, record player, blackboard) and the things they imply...and the technological eras they represent. 

When photos take this relationship to the study, I no longer consider them an artifact, but a memo.  Do I have the right to do this?  Is this a legitimate way to refer to them?  Perhaps more important then if they are a memo or an artifact, is the peculiar transformation (in my mind) that has occurred to this piece of visual material.   Does a well used artifact become a memo when it has accreted experience for me...not just for them?  Meaning, do my experiences of explaining the photo from methodological perspectives facilitate the process of memo creation?

This reminded me of the kinds of problems that students in qualitative research class have with the notion of memo.  When first introduced, many struggle hard with it.  It seems very foreign to them.  They want to turn out business memos--something similar to ordering new office supplies.  The word memo seems like an impenetrable barrier.  I've tried changing the word, but it's like mixing medication in applesauce, they can smell out the duplicity.  They know there is something different here. 

I've examined many texts about memos in qualitative research--I suppose I should do something like Johnny Saldana's overview of coding--what are all the different ways qualitative researchers have of describing memos? 

This does not end here--there's more to consider. 

Qualitative Data Analysis (QDAS) and Web 2.0: Which Way?

Qualitative Data Analysis Software (QDAS or CAQDAS) grew up over several decades.  Designed by qualitative researchers to serve the unique needs of qualitative researchers, it is fantastic stuff.  Each brand (and there are quite a few out there...if you don't believe me look at the list maintained on the CAQDAS web page (CAQDAS Networking Project)  does some similar things...and sometimes some different things.  What is common to all is the nice little digital container you get to store, organize, and work with your materials; a means of tagging or coding those materials, that is, breaking them up into small findable bits and pieces; and a means of reorganizing them, juxtaposing, linking, etc. 

But like much stand-alone software, QDAS is now having to face the challenge of Web 2.0.  They are not the only ones (consider Microsoft Word up against Google Docs or Wiki's) and you get the idea.  Suddenly the world is a lot wider; there are more possibilities; and potential gains and losses. 

As with most things in our technologically fast-moving world, the horizon on this issue moved toward us very quickly.  Silvana diGregorio and I published our book on QDAS in December 2008 (Qualitative Research Design for Software Users, which focused on a suite of well known software packages.  Since that time, we've become increasingly aware of the fast-paced change out there as Web 2.0 moves forward with new tools for qualitative researchers...and QDAS developers are pushed by Web 2.0 innovations in new directions to meet user demands. 

As a result of these changes, several issues arose for us:

1.  What do you call this new stuff?
Currently, we have settled on QDAS 2.0, which stands for the hybrid situation that currently exists while the field uses a mixture of both QDAS and new Web 2.0 tools that do qualitative research types of things.

2.  Who's Who is this area now?
Whereas QDAS developers used to be a cozy world unto themselves, the field is wide open now.  In addition to QDAS developers you now need to keep track of:

• the big companies in Software and Web 2.0 development.  (Google, MS Labs, IBM--and many more of the big, hardy group are conducting research and developing prototypes for tools that will do a lot of things qualitative researchers will like and want to use)
• Government funded research tools--pay attention in particular to the UK's Economic and Social Research Council activities (ESRC)  
• Wild West of new independent developers who are developing web-based tools and new Apps.  Take a look at Annotate, Ethnosnacker (where you can learn about the Everyday Lives application for the I-Phone).  
  

 As I write this, Silvana is in Hawaii (lucky lady!) delivering a talk "Using Web 2.0 Tools for Qualitative Analysis: An Exploration" at Hawaii Int'l Conf on System Science (HISS-43).  Good wishes for a great talk! 

I'll be writing a lot on the QDAS/QDAS 2.0 challenge in the upcoming months because it is so near and dear to my heart. 

The Journal Project: Containers for Thinking

Image via Wikipedia

Douglas Harrison has an interesting piece in the Fall 2008 NEA Journal--Thought and Action.  "Scholarly Voice and Professional Identity in the Internet Age"  He blogs at  http://averyfineline.com/  and this piece is about the issues related to being a blogging academic.  It certainly spoke to the excitement and fear that I have with this endeavor--how dare I do anything without anonymous peer review!!  How dare I communicate in new containers?

Actually, blogging exacerbates the problem of containers for thinking...but for me, it didn't start there.  It's been a long slow process.  You can think of me as a Crockpot on low.  The Blog was the moment when you lift off the top of a dish that has been simmering for 8 hours.  Before you could just smell it, but now you can taste it. 

The issue of what kind of container I will use for my thinking has emerged for me on several fronts.  It has been a crucial part of my exploration of Qualitative Data Analysis Software (QDAS or CAQDAS, which ever you prefer) and the notion of the E-Project, that little womblike electronic container that these software create for one to stow research materials in and to grow interpretation.  It is also an issue with my investigation into Arts-Based Research, which forces me to ask myself--what are other ways (containers) that I could use to express my thinking?  How are these different from ye old academic/social sicence genre?  What happens when I start using a different kind of container?

The Journal Project

These two ideas merge in the Journal Project.  Post-tenure I came down with a familiar academic malaise characterized by a sense of surprise at the positive outcome of the tenuredecision and a feeling of survivor guilt--why me?  As I cast around for answers, I wrote--I am a perpetual journal writer.  I write every morning and have done so for years. The writing has always been totally for me, a way to center myself, understand the world in which I move.  It is a place to explore the past and try to discern the future.  It's addictive.  I feel strange when I don't do it --like starting the day without a cup of tea, I can't seem to wake up properly without it.

I'm not sure now how it happened, but the use of QDAS and the interest in Arts-based research came together in the Journal Project.  I decided to enter two years of my journals--from the receiving of tenure in August 2006 to two years from that point--into my QDAS of choice--NVIVO.  I would analyze it there and see what I learned from studying myself from a distance with a tool devoted to the interpretation of qualitative research texts.  It was a mixture of autoethnography, self-study, document analysis, middle age angst, and several other approaches.  It goes slowly--like the proverbial Crock Pot--I devote about two hours a week specifically to this project.

In undertaking this study of self through documents one thing I have asked of myself is that I stretch the ways I interpret and represent what I am learning --within and beyond the confines of the alphabetic text.  As I type and code the entries (yes, I write my journals in longhand in composition books--what could be more retro), I seek out naturally occurring poems and stories that I separate out to review and work on at another time. 

No surprise to me, this being a  journal, the codes are highly emotional in nature.  It was a painful time during which I wrestled with hard personal issues.  I imagine, at some point, extracting the coding tree and working it into a piece of art.  Perhaps I should do some code weaving a la Johnny Saldana.  (Johnny Saldana in Methodspace)

But what has been most intriguing is trying to use methods of visual art to better understand the issues that are arising for me.  As a person who works with fiber and paper...in collage, mixed media, spun fiber, and felt, I have challenged myself to use the visual as I would use a memo in qualitative research....and to see what this does for me, and how it helps me to see the material.  I also ask myself to incorporate the ideas that are emerging from the journal project into different art pieces.  This has created pieces that are different from visual memos, but equally memorable in their own way. 

While I am enforcing this new method on myself, I have also been using it with students.  Each semester I try to find new ways to expand the possibilities available for data collection, interpretation, and representation using a range of arts-based methods.  

As time goes by I want to share my work in this area with the blogosphere...maybe tomorrow.