Jackie and Gesa propose in chapter sixteen that Strategic Contemplation
allows for two different parts of the research process. The first is an outward journey, “in real
time and space, more in keeping with traditional notions of fieldwork, (85)”
where researchers would visit archives, historical sites, cities or regions of
their subject. The second form of research is an inward journey that focuses
on, “researchers noticing how they process, imagine, and work with materials
(85)”. However I believe that strategic
contemplations lies more on the side of the inward journey.
Yes researchers have to acquire knowledge to begin
contemplating an idea, yet a researcher does not always have to go out into the
field to find knowledge about their topic; sometimes it may be in the library
because someone else has already complied it. Just by the title alone I believe
that strategic contemplations focuses on the individuals own thought process
making it more applicable to the second style of journey. In almost every
scientific paper there is a large section about the methods and another about
procedure; where the authors of the study describe in great detail, how the
processed the information and how they worked with materials. This section is
very important because it is written with the intention that others can preform
the same experiment and get the same results.
Another large section is the discussion/ reflections where the
scientists are able to note anything they felt like could have impact the experiment
as well as their conclusions about the study. Again these sections are a
reflection of the experiment and thus make me think that the inward journey is
more important than the external.
I agree with you; I think the inward journey is extremely important. Jackie and Gesa discussed the importance of the researcher to feel a deep connection with her/his work. It is obvious that Jackie and Gesa love what they do. They express their close connection with work in the introduction of the book, which we read at the beginning of this semester. They struggled as female rhetoricians (especially Jackie as an African American woman,) and they told us how that made them all the more passionate about discovering the hidden voices of female rhetoricians in the past.
ReplyDeleteI think that so long as the researcher feels a closeness to her/his work, strategic contemplation will come naturally. If the researcher is passionate about the work, he or she will already be thinking outside the box and looking at the bigger picture. Jackie and Gesa provide a textbook for improving strategic contemplation, presenting it as a powerful research tool, based on their own experience with working in a field that is full of challenges and missing links.
I do think that it is easy to loose a connection with your research when focused in so closely. Maybe you're trying to quickly get an article published. Maybe you're always focused on the next deadline. Jackie and Gesa remind us to slow down and be thorough and passionate. The results will usually be better, at least according to their experience.
I like the comment you made about the Method's section of papers - that it is intended that other's should be able to replicate the study. But how does this complicate the idea that the authors of these studies are looking inward so much that it is impossible for other scholars to replicate? If I were to go and try to do the same study that these women did, by looking inward at my own experience in order to understand the same piece of writing that they did - I would most likely come to similar, but very different conclusions. Similar in the respect that I'm a woman scholar, but different geographically, historically, etc. This, to me, seems like a major flaw with the feminist rhetoric methodology; unless I'm supposed to lax the demands of wanting repeatable conclusions to research. I wonder if any of you think that I am off-base.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of medical research, I'd say we want similar conclusions across a variety of study groups performing the same study or experiment. That said, they won't be identical. There will always be that margin of error, which makes any study a probability test. We are 99% sure that this new medication will revolutionize (whatever), but we can't be for sure. But we're willing to take a (small) chance on it.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think the feminist rhetoric field, and other fields in the humanities, are a little different. I would say the research communities within these fields are more idea, rather than result, driven. So new ideas and new takes on the same data function to progress the field. I think if everyone looked at the same data and came to the same conclusion, the field would stall, because there would be nothing else to study.