Data Generation and Digital Tools

Over the next few weeks, we will be exploring the data generation process and the place of digital tools within it. This the first of many conversations around data generation and digital tools.

As we think about data sources/types, we must also keep in mind the methodological perspective(s) that we take up and the theoretical orientation(s) that frame our understandings. These considerations are also related to our own perspectives about where we think knowledge lies and who we believe is part of the knowledge construction process. I talk a bit about this in the first video. 

Furthermore, when we consider qualitative data sources, it is often helpful to think about 'organizing frameworks' that help us distinguish between data types. Silverman (2001) and many others have made distinctions between researcher-generated data and naturally-occurring data. I consider these distinctions in the video below.

Here are a few examples of naturally-occurring data sets available online:

• https://archive.org/
• http://cadensa.bl.uk/uhtbin/cgisirsi/x/x/0/49/%20;%20charset=UTF-8
• http://www.paultenhave.nl/Forrester.htm
• http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ls/cava/faq.shtml

Another important distinction to keep in mind is the idea of the Internet as both a 1) tool for collecting data (e.g., online interviews) and 2) a context for research (e.g., virtual ethnographies). I consider this development in the next video.  I mention Annette Markham in the video (see her blog here with related publications: http://www.markham.internetinquiry.org/research/)

There are a variety of digital tools that support a qualitative researcher who goes about the challenging work of collecting researcher-generated and/or naturally-occurring data. When we think about interviewing, for example, we must carefully consider how we go about recording the interview data (see http://www.sagepub.com/paulus/study/Chapter%205/top-tips-recorders.pdf). If you use mobile devices to collect data, there are certainly pitfalls to consider and hopefully avoid (see http://www.surrey.ac.uk/sociology/research/researchcentres/caqdas/support/integrating/georeferencing_and_caqdas_mobile_interviewing_experiences_and_pitfalls.htm).

Across data types,  qualitative researchers frequently spend time audio or video-recording data. This week we read two articles (Gratton & O'Donnell, 2011 and Matthews & Cramer, 2008) that highlighted how the Internet might serve as a tool for data collection. The authors illustrated how emergent technologies act to expand who participates in the knowledge construction process. Others have highlighted this reality as well (http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-2/downing.pdf). Alongside the excitement around technologies expanding the data collection landscape, there remains a commitment to understanding the methodological impact(s) of new technologies. I talk more about this in the next video.

To further are thinking around this topic, let's engage in some dialogue around the following two questions:  

• How might technology enhance our understanding a given phenomenon? 
• What are the ways in which we can ensure ethical practices as we generate data for our research studies?   

As you respond to the ideas shared here and the above prompts, I encourage you to situate your discussion in relation to your own research experiences and practices. You can make comments/responses by directly posting a comment to this blog post. I look forward to learning/thinking with all of you. 


References
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing text, talk and interaction.
         London, UK: SAGE.

"Staying Up" with the Literature

Long before the term "information explosion" entered the lexicon, "staying up" with the literature was certainly not easy. In recent years, this challenge has fairly been described as increasing. Yet, this remains one of the daily tasks of academics -- being well-versed in the literature.

After yesterday's class, I was inspired to list out the various tools that I'm using to stay up to date with the literature. Yesterday's speakers primarily focused on organizing and annotating literature, which is central to the literature review process. Yet, what are the ways that we can assure that we are doing our part to stay up-to-date? There are a variety of tools, but I thought I'd share a simple one that I've always found useful. 

One very simple tool that has served to support my 'daily' reminder to remain steeped in the literature are my search and journal alerts. If you haven't already, I encourage you to go into EBSCO today and set up search word alerts and journal alerts.

• The first thing you'll need to do is create an account. 
• Make sure you are signed into your account.
• Then, you can use keywords of import to your work and save this search as an alert. 
• You can set up the alerts to be daily, weekly, bi-weekly, etc. 
• For details of how to do this, check out this link: http://support.ebsco.com/help/index.php?help_id=1164

Reflexivity and Digital Tools

One of my favorite topics is reflexive practice. I like thinking often about how reflexive practice shapes the research process. More recently, I've been playing with how varied digital tools may or may not underlay this process.

Pinterest is my most recent exploration -- one which, as some of you noted today, is perhaps quite 'public', but also affords news ways to construct the meaning(s) of self in relation to others. I posted here a recent board.

I've been thinking about how collaborative research projects might engage in collaborative reflexivity through the use of visual representations/textual support (as in pinterest). Perhaps this could be done more conveniently and efficiently in a shared blog. Nonetheless, it is always healthy to explore ways to push the bounds of how we represent our assumptions.

Here it goes...any thoughts?