I've just finished reading Luker's chapter 6. She writes wonderfully, and it's all clear and wonderful until the end of the chapter where I actually have to apply what she was talking about to my own case... And here I suddenly realize that my awesome, society-changing, definitely publishable study is... well, a mess.
Briefly, I want to see if the TPL programs and services targeted to newcomers to Canada actually hit the target. My "hypothesis", if I can use the word, is that TPL (in the same way as most immigrant-library-use studies) bases its decisions regarding programs for immigrants on the wrong kind of data - surveys, census info, staff perceptions - when they should be talking to the community. Sounds good so far? The problem is that I can envision the actual research: the interviews, transcribing the audio, the "aha!" moment when I discover that all three of my focus groups mentioned one particular service they wanted to see in the library... but when it comes to practical aspects - samples, or operationalization - I have not considered those. Particularly because my study is based on focus group interviews, I simply intended to let them talk as much as they wanted to, with me only steering the conversation in the right direction if it totally veers off course.
When trying to answer the question posed in the exercise I first encountered a difficulty with sampling. Originally, I just thought I'd talk to whoever will talk to me, just like Luker did in her abortion study. But she was lucky, as she said - she didn't need to worry about sampling. In my case, talking to anyone who will talk to me might mean I only talk to women, or only to library patrons, or only to older people, or only to people with post-secondary education. I'd have to do a whole bunch of focus groups to get all these variables accounted for... As for "tacit control group", I don't know if I have one. My study is narrow - I just want to look at the TPL, and just at the Russian speaking community. I think I can reasonably generalize and say that other libraries would benefit from the same approach. But one of the main points I'm trying to make is that different ethnic groups have different needs, so generalization is pretty limited...
Also, the operationalization stumped me a bit. As I mentioned, I intended to just let my respondents talk. As I read the chapter, and also taking into account Kline's article about her disastrous interview, I concluded that I need to spend a lot more time actually formulating good questions and trying to predict which way the conversation could veer, and what would I do if it did veer that way. Luker's writing style is so deceptively down to earth that when she springs the exercises on me at the end of the chapters, I'm always taken aback by the realization that, actually, research is really hard work.
Briefly, I want to see if the TPL programs and services targeted to newcomers to Canada actually hit the target. My "hypothesis", if I can use the word, is that TPL (in the same way as most immigrant-library-use studies) bases its decisions regarding programs for immigrants on the wrong kind of data - surveys, census info, staff perceptions - when they should be talking to the community. Sounds good so far? The problem is that I can envision the actual research: the interviews, transcribing the audio, the "aha!" moment when I discover that all three of my focus groups mentioned one particular service they wanted to see in the library... but when it comes to practical aspects - samples, or operationalization - I have not considered those. Particularly because my study is based on focus group interviews, I simply intended to let them talk as much as they wanted to, with me only steering the conversation in the right direction if it totally veers off course.
When trying to answer the question posed in the exercise I first encountered a difficulty with sampling. Originally, I just thought I'd talk to whoever will talk to me, just like Luker did in her abortion study. But she was lucky, as she said - she didn't need to worry about sampling. In my case, talking to anyone who will talk to me might mean I only talk to women, or only to library patrons, or only to older people, or only to people with post-secondary education. I'd have to do a whole bunch of focus groups to get all these variables accounted for... As for "tacit control group", I don't know if I have one. My study is narrow - I just want to look at the TPL, and just at the Russian speaking community. I think I can reasonably generalize and say that other libraries would benefit from the same approach. But one of the main points I'm trying to make is that different ethnic groups have different needs, so generalization is pretty limited...
Also, the operationalization stumped me a bit. As I mentioned, I intended to just let my respondents talk. As I read the chapter, and also taking into account Kline's article about her disastrous interview, I concluded that I need to spend a lot more time actually formulating good questions and trying to predict which way the conversation could veer, and what would I do if it did veer that way. Luker's writing style is so deceptively down to earth that when she springs the exercises on me at the end of the chapters, I'm always taken aback by the realization that, actually, research is really hard work.
No comments:
Post a Comment