Understanding Tensions in Integrating Digital Tools Into Research

I grew up with computers and technology in my life, though I dislike the terms "digital native" and "digital immigrant" because they imply that natives are somehow inherently better at using the technology than immigrants, which is not always the case. Whatever terms we use, I recognize that I am not only comfortable using and trying new and old technological tools, I expect them to be part of everything I do, and I expect them to enhance and streamline my work, including my research. I hadn't really thought about the fact that some people may feel that technology could get in the way of doing sound and ethical research, so this week's readings really helped me explore this tension and think about how I use digital tools and the role I want those tools to play in my research.

Paulus, Lester, and Dempster (2014) present a reflexive prompt and three questions that helped frame my thinking around these readings. When I consider whether I am an "early adopter" or not, I think about the way I choose to use digital tools, and I realize that, while I am open to trying new tools, I want to know about their affordances and constraints before I put them to use. of course there is always something to be learned by just "playing around" with a tool, but I do like to know how it will enhance and streamline my work and process before I determine if I will use it. Part of the reason I like to learn a lot about the tool before I use it is I really feel that there is a reciprocal relationship when it comes to tool use specifically and research in general; our work is shaped by the tools we use, but in working with them, we also shape the actual use of the tool as well. In that sense, it is important to have a general understanding of the consequences of picking up a particular tool. 

With that framing, I really appreciated the textual analysis conducted by Paulus, Lester, and Britt (2013). In this paper, the authors analyze 11 qualitative inquiry textbooks and the way they present the presence and use of technology in qualitative inquiry. I found it interesting that for each topic analyzed, there were essentially two camps: one that approached technology with caution and a fear of how it would change research, and one that embraced the technology and the shifts it brings. This latter camp, the more progressive camp, appeals to me partially for the reasons that the authors surmise (that technology is integrated in my daily life, and I therefore want to use it in my research), but also because I strongly believe that researchers must - albeit with care and thought - look forward to how they can use the most current and available resources to both impact their field and be impacted by it. As we conduct research, we grow and change, and (hopefully) move the field forward. It makes sense, then, to use all of the tools available to make both the research experience and the study itself richer and more well-rounded. Those tools can be a mix of traditional and new technologies and methods.

Coffey, Holbrook, and Atkinson (1996) take a bold - especially for the time in which this paper was written - and interesting stance on the integration of technology into research, falling resolutely in the embrace-technology-beacuse-it-is-changing-the-way-we-conduct-and-present-research camp. The authors begin by outlining the divide between science and rhetoric, and proceed to explain that as times have changed, research has evolved, and such a distinction can no longer be made appropriately. By removing these distinctions, we see that  "scientific accounts and texts have rhetorical qualities" (Coffey 3.1), and can conduct research that is richer in experience and substance for both the researcher and the subjects. This opening point leads into an important discussion of giving voice to the muted populations, and that researchers can foster this kind of empowerment by fundamentally changing the way they present their research. Rather than write in a linear fashion, present subjects, data, and conclusions in a more interactive way using hypertext and links that allow the reader to make sense of the information and draw their own conclusions.

With so many ways to present information in at least an interactive and possibly non-linear fashion via the Internet and its accompanying technologies, it is possible to empower voices and uplift stories in exciting and invigorating ways. This, of course, does not come without cost; we still value journal articles and linear papers to build esteem and achieve tenure, but the presence of new forms of data representation such as academic blogging, infographics, and Popplets provide researchers with an alternative to the traditional publishing route. This is more labor-intensive on the parts of both the researcher and the reader, but it may be well worth the effort. Coffey et al. drive this point home in their final sentence, projecting that the traditional way to present data "could well seem like a dreadful anachronism" (9.3). This is a particularly bold statement given the year that this was written, but if things progress as they have been, they may be right. Already we are moving toward more open-access journals, academic blogging, professional social networking, and visual representations of data through video, infographics, and the like. Certainly in my own doctoral journey I have had to learn to do all of these things, and it seems that the emerging generation of researchers will value the more interactive reports with links to data and multiple representations of information, giving the reader more power to make sense of the information contained in the study for themselves.


These readings particularly helped me think through the tensions that are inherent in integrating technology into research. I still think it is important to use the digital tools we have to enhance, extend, and streamline our work, but I have a better grasp of how those tools might also constrain research, and I glad to be more aware of this as I move forward in my own research.