Critical Making

I have never really considered critical making or then again, maybe I have but didn’t name it. I am reminded of a recent online story that has gone absolutely viral. Caine’s arcade is an amazing story about a impoverished nine-year old kid with a love for video games who builds a games arcade in his father’s used car parts shop. It ultimately changes his life. He builds the games out of cardboard boxes, string, tinfoil and various other craft components. Anyway, he spends his summer, hoping against hope that someone will come into the parts shop and play one of his games. One day, a guy who happens to be a filmmaker comes in looking for an auto part and is so struck by Caine’s spirit and determination that he decides to make a film about it. You can guess what happens next - cue the Olympic moment - the filmmaker arranges a flash mob to surprise Caine and show up at the parts shop and play the games. As sappy as it seems, it has inspired millions, and instigated a huge scholarship fund for Caine, as well as being instrumental in beginning a global foundation to foster creativity in kids. It has also sparked a travelling global phenomenon of cardboard games arcade construction kids’ events. Anyway look it up - a tearjerker of a video at www.cainesarcade.com. All that being said, reading about critical making certainly made me think about this experience - collaborative, creative shared acts with individual investment, more about the outcome than the objects, our connection with objects and our material experiences with them - all about caring and certainly a matter of concern. Even in considering Winner’s Citizen Virtues article, the whole idea of spontaneous and democratic creativity that is spawned out of the merging of politics and technology is undeniable when we consider the implications of being impoverished amidst mass pressures to conform to technology consumerism. It is our response that matters.

"Always start with what you know"

Hi groupies,

I am just wondering - if everyone feels comfortable - could you each state what previous degree(s) and research backgrounds you're coming from? Alternatively, state the area of interest you are pursuing for this course? Even if it is a work in progress (isn't it always)!

My curiosity emerged after reading through the blog and seeing the different ways we've interpreted the readings and commented on one another's posts. As we each try to grapple with the course texts it would be interesting to know more about the different (or similar) backgrounds we bring to the blog.

One of the best research tips I've received is to "always start with what you know" and then share it!

I always find learning in groups more rewarding when I have to opportunity to connect with my peers beyond the project we share. It makes it seem more real.

Latour and the art of critique

In “Why has Critique Run Out of Steam” Bruno Latour talks about how the art of criticism, which was once used to unmask certain truths in a given situation, is now being manipulated by people for personal and political gain. He explains that individuals are spinning facts in a way to tell stories that are not true (e.g. conspiracy theories like 9/11 not being a result of terrorism). Latour states that “a certain form of critical spirit has sent us down the wrong path, encouraging us to fight the wrong enemies and, worst of all, to be considered as friends by the wrong sort of allies” (Latour 232). Latour’s issues about using criticism in the wrong way reminds me of how mindful we must be of the influential power of language when we perform our own research in this class.  While I do not think that any of our research will lead us to the extreme of purporting conspiracy theories, we as small-scale researchers must still keep in mind the importance of using facts to remain as objective as possible, not to push our own biased views forward.

Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam?: from matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, spec. issue on the Future of Critique, 30(2), 225-248

Luker: Review of the Literature

Since in class we are discussing proposals, I found chapter five of Luker to be relevant. Where she discusses literature reviews and the daunting task of reviewing literature through out the whole process of research, not just at the beginning.  In my undergraduate degree, I never found literature reviews to be too difficult because I could always find five to ten articles on the topic. However I was never conducting my own research, just writing a review for class, so I never realized how big a job this would actually be. When conducting real research you would really want to find the most relevant and up to date publications. Luker’s point that you may not even know what field you are writing in, is so true. For example, if you were writing about the effects poverty have on civil unrest, it may appear to be a political science interest, but could be more related to peace studies. I think this is really important to keep in mind when we start writing our proposals. I also enjoyed how one of her tips is “make friends with a reference librarian” as I am sure many of the people in our class are LIS stream. It’s interesting that she mentions “your job is to analyze information; a librarians job is to help you find it in the first place”, where this is limiting as many MLS graduates get research jobs, and they in fact analyze the information. However in truth I relate to this because it is the “chase” I like best, not so much analysis. 

Ratto + Latour + ism = Ratourism (also equals awesome)

The three stages outlined in Ratto's critical making process:

 Stage 1-   "review of relevant literature and compilation of useful concepts and theories" (Ratto 253);

Stage 2:    designing and building technology prototypes that don't necessarily have to be fully functioning, but whose purpose is to "extend knowledge and skills in relevant technical areas as well as provide the means for conceptual exploration" (253);

Stage 3:  and then, employing "an iterative process of reconfiguration  and conversation" (253) which leads to reflection, exploration and "wrestling with the technical prototypes, exploring the various configurations and alternative possibilities, and using them to express, critique and extend relevant concepts, theories, and models" (253);

takes up Latour's challenge of "second empiricism" that Latour offers as the "next task for the critically minded"  (Latour 232).  In "Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern" Latour argues that a "powerful descriptive tool" (252) is required that deals with matters of concern, and instead of disproving and debunking previous ideologies and critical methodologies, would "protect and care, " construct instead of deconstruct, and  would not "subtract reality" (232).  Ratto's critical making is the answer; meaning is generated in the process rather than in the outcome.  The critical making process focuses on "the constructive process as the site of analysis and its explicit connections to specific scholarly literature.  Critical making emphasizes the shared acts of making rather than the evocative object" (Ratto 253).

Ratto takes Latour's challenge a step farther because he chooses to focus on the "act of shared construction, joint conversation and reflection" (253).  Meaning is  also generated in the critical making process because there is a call for conversation and for wrestling and physically engaging with the material, both of which make the critical making process a dialogic, a dialectic and a discursive process. 

Luker and Knight

Reading Knight I was struck by the “hoarding” comment. Although I do not hoard material goods, I could totally relate to the amassing of vast amounts of data without having a proper direction in finding significance. Most of my research papers have gone this way, though luckily I fluked into finding something that answered the “So what?” question in the end.  Finding meaning is I think the biggest challenge for us as researchers. While the cocktail party example is a creative way to make connections, I am sure there are some completely dull topics that would be difficult to make relevant to others. Linear research probably does make you crazy but like Luker, I am from a pre-internet, pre-cell phone era of collecting and connecting information. It is difficult, though likely necessary, to jump into the kind of cross boundary connecting and meaning making that is becoming more instinctual for modern researchers.  

From Michaelangeo to Aliens

I really like the way Luker illustrates the need to make a connection between one’s new area of research and the research that already exists in that field in Salsa Dancing into the Social Sciences. She uses the example of a cocktail party where a person would enter themselves into a conversation about Michelangelo and find a way to turn that into a conversation about aliens. Her analysis shows that it is not enough to just have a research question but that it must be framed in a way that slides into an already existing “conversation” or research area in order for the research to have long-lasting meaning (66). This point in her book has reminded me how important conducting a literature review will be in order to determine what kinds of research exist on my topic and what sort of questions I should ask to join the conversation.

Luker, K. (2008). Salsa Dancing into the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.