I just wanted to clear up what I was getting at today in lecture. When I spoke of the issues of intent and function within the context of the macro-analysis of audience interpretation of methodology I was proposing that we shift the way we discuss research. In short, as much as the intent of a particular researcher's work is significant, perhaps, like art, what is mostly significant is the interpretation of that researcher's work. An important paper on this idea comes from studies of visual rhetoric, namely, Sandra Foss and her paper titled "Ambiguity as Persuasion: The Vietnam
Veterans Memorial".
This extends to discussions of claimsmaking. Is claimsmaking a limiting activity? How does interpretation of findings by the researcher limit further discussion of those findings? What if we simply provided the data, and let the broader academic community attribute significance to findings?
Mike, I understand what you are saying and completely agree with you. Often times, it is through interpretation that any meaning is made of anything. Whether that applies to a language translation of a fiction book or a research paper, often times one only reads the abstract and the conclusion and therefore is solely reliant on the claims made without a thought given to the raw data or its method of collection. Perhaps if what you are proposing were to be practiced, it would create a greater discussion as the research was in progress rather than an after-the-fact peer review of the validity of its claims.
ReplyDeleteSuzanne