Reflections on the HIstory of Qualitative Research with Technology

This week's class helped me synthesize the readings, and really brought forth two points that I want to elaborate on here and will take with me throughout the course. 

The first point is an obvious one, but one worth repeating. In qualitative research, we are not seeking a single truth, and while we may have goals in mind, we will discover things about our work and ourselves on the research journey. This has become a very salient point for me, due to a recent discussion with a friend in cognitive science. He very simply does not understand how any study without randomized controlled trials can be called science. The first time he accused me of "not doing science," I was extremely offended and didn't know how to respond. Then I spoke with my advisor and I realized that my friend just didn't have the grounding to understand a different kind of research and study. I know I won't convince him, but this fundamental difference of not looking for a single truth is what divides us. As friends we'll get over it, but as researchers we likely won't collaborate.



The second thought I want to extend is the images of history exercise we did. When we were asked to think of images of the history of technolgy in qualitative research, I immediately thought of my mother-in-law, who is quite cautious with technology. While she has the capability to use computers and use them well, she is often concerned that she will break the computer, and uses language like "the computer did X." This lead me to think of other images of people interacting with and talking about technology. I like the way I characterized the four phases of technology use in class, so I will expand them here and see where they go.

fear - of being replaced, of being out of control The first image - could I venture to say phase? - is of being afraid of what the technology will do to the research or to the researcher. There is an unknown in this phase, and perhaps a lack of understanding of the technology's inner workings. It seemed from the readings that researchers were afraid of being replaced - many statements were made to ensure the reader understood that technology CANNOT or cannot (emphasized either way) analyze data for the researcher. This statement was often positioned as a caution against thinking that the technology will automate a process that can be arduous, but I think it revealed an underlying fear that the technology perhaps could someday do that, or at least that the technology has the potential to shape research in ways that can go undetected by a not-so-cautious researcher. There was also discussion of underlying epistemologies, and whether they aligned with the theory behind the tools. Again, I think this reveals a fear of something alien or unknown. The language surrounding these statements were about what the technology does, as though it were alive.

cautious embrace - Next there are those who see the value in some uses of a technology, but still caution against allowing the technology to shape the research or understand the ways in which using even minimal digital technologies shape research and the research process. These statements seemed to acknowledge the burdens that can be lifted by using word processors and audio recordings, but cautioned using digital filing as it may take data out of context and make the full data difficult to access. Of course, this is all set up by the user, so if one wanted to make sure they had access to all data in context and pieces as well, they could arrange that, but these statements didn't acknowledge that. Again, the language was about what the computer does.
 
full embrace - Then there were a couple statements that embraced new technologies as capable of moving research and the field as a whole forward. These accounts made sure to state the importance of recognizing how (especially) digital tools shape research, but the tone was that this could be a good and useful thing.

manipulate and shape tool use - We didn't see too much of this, but I think it is the next step. Once a person is comfortable working with new technologies and understands the basics of how they work, they can begin to as what the tool can do for them and what they can do to and with the tool. The language changes here. The researcher is in control, and the technology is a tool, just as a hammer is a tool, and different tools can be used in different ways to perform many functions.

As I'm sure is clear by now, I stand in this last phase. I inherently look at a new technology and think, "now what can I do with that? How can I manipulate it to get the result I need?" I know that convincing someone in the first stance is really difficult, but I try anyway. People in the middle are more open to at least trying the new technology to see what happens. Of course there are timing and cost issues to consider with the adoption of any technology, but that aside, these phases may characterize the way in which people approach technology in research, particularly in qualitative research.