As one of the first steps discussed for the formation of this project, as well as a step towards one of its goals, I have spent the last week reading selections from Wayne C. Boothe's book on research methodologies, "The Craft of Research" in hopes of expanding the ways in which I will continue to conduct research for this project.
The first chapter of the text, "Research, Researchers and Readers" functions to introduce the reader to the concept of the task the book expects they are taking on, that is to say, a research project of one sort or another. This book is written in such a way that it would not prove surprising to me to hear that it is used in some freshman college writing courses, and a large portion of the material was familiar or occasionally even obvious to me. That having been said, however, I would have been so lucky to have used this text in such a course. The writing is far more compelling than most handbooks of this sort and even provides some useful thoughts for more experienced researchers to mull over. The focus of this introduction is that of introducing the different types of research, research in the public and private sectors. Research that answers a practical question, or problem, or what they refers to at one point as "pure" research, research designed for the sake of increasing our knowledge in a given area.
While this endeavor certainly falls more into the category of "pure research" than would the type of research that may go on a company like 3m, I think it interesting to consider the ways in in which these types of research intersect with one another. To use an example given by the book, there was a researcher who was interested in why coffee creates a circular pattern when spilled. While this project was not directed towards a specific need, the findings that the researcher had were of great interest to other fields outside of purely academic research, as this was new information on the properties of certain liquids. While at the moment I may not have an easy time understanding what broader implications my research into this topic may have for other disciplines, that is in part the beauty of it - the collecting dialogue of many researchers.
One of the other interesting focuses of these 100 or so pages that I read is the emphasis upon reasons for writing throughout the process research, beyond just drafting when preparing to write the final essay. While in someways this was an affirmation of my interest in continually updating a blog in order to document this process, it also pointed out some aspects of writing that I hadn't actively considered. As Boothe puts it "Write to Remember, Write to Understand, Write to Test Your Thinking." The first of these is pretty obvious, at least to me. Writing things down has always been a way of pressing the knowledge into my brain, like cutting grooves into a wax record. This has always helped monumentally for me, not just taking notes to record my thoughts, but taking notes in order to remember what I read at all. The last two are closely tied to one another and while I hadn't thought about a reason for this blog beyond the loose concept of "reflecting" and documenting the process, writing to understand and writing to test one's thinking is something that I have experienced time and time again. Even beyond writing of an outline, on numerous occasions I have found that it was not until I was actually in the process of trying to articulate my findings an connections in my research that I discovered more connections that further strengthened my analysis. I feel this free format blog can help me make some of these discoveries earlier on and thus possibly expand upon them.
Another major question that drew my attention throughout the reading of this text was a focus upon the defining, or if not defining then careful consideration of one's audience. While a familiar theme, harped upon by endless numbers of writing professors, it is still one worth consideration, especially given the public format of blogging about this process and its eventual culmination into a writing sample. I'm not sure exactly how to discuss this facet of the reading's relation to my project, primarily due to the last part that the book focused upon: asking questions and finding answers.
The trick, so it would seem is moving from interest, to topic, to questions (plural), to question (the one primary research question, though like a thesis, it may have several facets.) And eventually to problems and answers to those problems. While the ways in which Boothe and company defines these stages can get slightly convoluted, the idea of continuing to provide new questions, not just of your research, but of the implications of your research, I think helps lead to more fully informed, reflective final product. My interest is in this period of pre-revolution into early Soviet Russian history and literature and drama's relationship to sentiments and movements of the time. Because (and Boothe emphasizes the reasons that we want to know are almost as important as the knowledge itself) this is an area of history that has been played with by those in power, in control. As is, for that matter, the entire narrative of pre-revolutionary Russia, when told from a Soviet perspective, by Soviet historians or critics and the complicated nature of political bias leaves aspects of this history, ill defined, despite attempts by historians such as Paul Dukes to differentiate between various types of historians, indicated by the title of his book "A History of Russia" (not THE).
I have many more questions to ask of myself in regards to nailing down what the specific "Research Question" is to be. As a matter of fact, I think I may revisit the Boothe chapters on developing questions. Boothe says in the book, and I agree, that whenever possible important sources should be read twice and while not a source that I will cite in my final project, "Craft of Research" is proving already to be an important source for me on this project.
That is all for now
до свидания,
- Эрик (Erik)
No comments:
Post a Comment