Wednesday, 27 February 2013
In the spirit of Luker, welcome back from your week of Salsa Dancing. I hope the week provided time for enjoying walks, books, movies, naps, and whatever else puts a little dance step into your life. My mother broke her hip two weeks ago so I spent the week in a rehab with her trying to help her learn to walk again. A break from all my other obligations and a chance to focus on the immediate. And maybe it was with this mindset that I approached the three peer review articles which I simply read without any note-taking or highlighting. The "Occupy Online..." looked to be engaging for it was not too long ago that I was in Washington DC with my iphone trying to log on to a server and I picked up the "Occupy" server. But this research paper didn't hold my attention. Despite the charts and graphs, I felt as though I was just being handed lots of summarized data without any argument or new information. Perhaps that is what happens with some research projects--perhaps after the process of collecting data and analyzing data--the researcher realizes that nothing new has been revealed. What does one do then? Consider changing the method of data collection? Consider changing the method of analyzing data? I found myself wondering how another researcher might have approached the "Occupy Online" question. Maybe my week with my parents has made me more impatient --I don't want descriptions, I want new information or insights. My final comment, again likely related to my time with my mother and the staff, was that all three of these articles were collaborative projects. In a sense, that is the purpose of the blog and the class discussions. In the second half of this term, I am going to try to give more feedback and respond to my fellow bloggers. Whether it is learning ot walk or doing a research proposal, you can't do it alone.
Mary Power
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree about the ‘Occupy Online…’ article. I found it interesting to read but I kept waiting for an argument to appear in the article. While you could see a clear methodology with the way the authors researched the likes and activities on various Facebook pages, I did not feel like this data was telling me anything new. I liked the way the authors organized their conclusions, listing how the Facebook pages helped recruit members, get resources, and share personal stories among occupiers, but I wish they would clearly explain why these conclusions were relevant.
ReplyDeleteI suppose if you gather all this data and realize that it has nothing new to tell the reader, the next best option would be to alter your research question so that it explains why your findings are relevant. Perhaps the authors could have done some extra research to talk about the significance social media has made in recruiting people to join occupy movements compared to the participation level in movements before social media existed. However, this question is also flawed because one can already assume that movements have more participation with the use of social media than without. However, you could perhaps take that finding and use it to suggest that future movements should primarily use social media sites in order to recruit the highest level of participation.
I was also interested in one part of the article that talked about using the Occupy Facebook pages to show the way different media sources interpreted the same event according to their own perspectives (that of the occupiers or of the police). Changing the research focus to look at how these Facebook pages uncover media bias would allow the authors of this article to use the same data, but perhaps in a way that does not just summarize information.