I found Luker's discussion of data reduction and analysis (ch. 10) compelling. The motto for this chapter seems to be something like: 'reduction without reductivism'. Luker has mentioned the view that pattern recognition plays a fundamental role in social research in previous chapters and initially I was wary: the phrase 'pattern recognition' is often used to describe simplistic causal relations. While it's true that there are relatively simple social phenomena that can be explained in terms of simple causal relationships, I'm really only interested in the more complex, messier side of social research. I've become interested in actor-network-theory (ANT) -- particularly as it is described by John Law in the article "After ANT" -- which is fundamentally concerned with complexity. As I understand it ANT is an attempt to describe complex phenomena in their complexity instead of reducing the phenomena to simplistic representations. Law borrows Deleuze and Guattari's image of a rhizome to describe ANT's method: to borrow Luker's description of Ragin's method, a rhizomatic structure is "neither linear nor random" (pp.208). Like actor-network-theory then, Luker (channeling Ragin) wants to preserve complexity and wants to understand social phenomena rhizomatically and non-reductively. Qualitative comparative analysis is a means to that end.
I've written the above to demonstrate that I am both genuinely interested in what qualitative comparative analysis has to offer and that I understand why it's important (by way of ANT). I also have a good understanding of sufficient and necessary causes (I've read my Aristotle), of induction and its related problems (Hume), and, yes, I've actually spent time writing out truth tables (for a logic course I took once upon a time). With all of this in mind, and following a few hours of research on Ragin and QCA, I still have no idea how you would actually apply this to actual research. I mean, is it just what Luker presents in the exercise for this chapter? If so, I can't help but feel that the actual method bears no resemblance to her foregoing description of it. I've also spent some time reading about Cronbach's Alpha (mentioned on pp.203) and find it equally confusing: again, I understand the premise but I don't really understand how I'd calculate the alpha value for an actual research project. Also, the mathematical equation on the
wikipedia page is terrifying.
Has anyone made any headway with either QCA or Cronbach's alpha? If so, I'm all ears...
I had other things I wanted to comment on this week, but I couldn't resist getting drawn into this. While Cronbach's Alpha and its application is of little interest to me, understanding phenomena rhizomatically is something I strive for. Not that I didn't come into Luker's book without preconceived notions of how I would do research, but I'm really beginning to appreciate how on-point some of her recommendations are.
ReplyDeleteBecause I was already in the habit of writing/collecting ideas on a regular basis, the transition to daily research writing has not been difficult. I have yet to write a major (100+) page paper, but I'm going into my thesis with the assumption that writing and, further, sorting ideas will help me with the (inevitable) existential crisis upon finishing. To this point, writing regularly has really helped me build on what I am hoping to illuminate, and to whom. By writing with fairly loose categories in mind, and always remaining open to change throughout the research process, I find it easier to take a rhizomatic approach. Luker states in one of the endnotes for chapter 7 (note 4) that she feels all research is somewhat autobiographical. This resonated with me throughout this week's readings, and has really underpinned my approach, to a degree, for some time. I want people to be interested in what I'm interested in. I feel almost insulted when they aren't! Trying to understand phenomena rhizomatically allows me to think about how I speak to people with varied backgrounds, understandings, and conceptions of meaning. Although it isn't always the case, my elevator speech has been improved significantly by this.
An interesting debate has been active in my particular salsa dance for a while, and I think it's kind of relevant here. In Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (a popular martial art that can be roughly described as submission grappling), there is a conflict between traditional practitioners who wear a gi (a uniform similar to the one judo practitioners wear) and many modern practitioners (many of whom are coming from collegiate wrestling) who don't. No-gi relies on speed and explosivity, while wearing a gi slows everything down and allows a practitioner to take a more cerebral approach to the martial art. Over the last decade, traditional BJJ has been forced to adapt by the growth of no-gi jiu-jitsu, which tends to draw rhizomatically from Russian sambo, judo, collegiate wrestling, and other forms of grappling, While there are plenty of obstinate holdouts, many of the traditional practitioners are finding that they can no longer close their eyes to the myriad influences. What is interesting and relevant here, is that in the end many no-gi practitioners find that going back to tradition, and practising with a gi, makes them better when they fight/compete without it. I think about this when I approach the canon (in my specific field). I use it as a base, but always try to explore beyond its boundaries.