Public Displays of Qualitative Enterprise: The Networked Researcher

• In Event: The Virtual in Qualitative Research

Abstract

Objective and significance: Researchers have traditionally engaged with intellectual slipperiness, uncertainty, hesitance, experimentation, challenge, determination, perseverance and accomplishment behind closed doors; independently or in hushed tones with others in similar fields. This may stem from previous practices where pace of life allowed leisurely philosophical discussions in physical spaces. However, technology has quickened and transformed ways of thinking and thinking about pace, space, and connectivity. Instead of leisurely discussion and exploration we now move at the speed of light and multitasking has become a survival strategy (Andrews, 2009). It is no longer possible to adopt the “aloof and dissociated role of the literate Westerner” (McLuhan, 1964, p.4). Within multiple, hectic, accelerated, and connected technology-enhanced environments, more thinking, writing, reflection, and conversations need to take place that address how contemporary researchers can integrate technology in their methodological considerations to create a form of networked scholarship. The purpose of this conceptual paper is to discuss ways qualitative researchers may use technology to cross the threshold from hushed, elite conversations to e-public displays of qualitative enterprise that invite, transform, problematize, challenge, and create a mosaic of globally connected research. What tools are available for qualitative researchers to network? How can qualitative researchers make decisions on which tools to use? How can qualitative researchers reach out to other scholars using these technologies? What are the implications of networked qualitative researchers?

Perspective: In this paper I will situate my arguments and make suggestions by drawing from McLuhan’ writings on the global village and Marcus’s postmodern notion of reflexivity. For McLuhan, electronic media moves mankind towards a collective identity in which “we necessarily participate, in depth, in the consequences of our every action” (1964, p.4). This has important implications for qualitative researchers, as this suggests that researchers should engage in fluid transformation and movement from, to, and between the electronic/digital, social, and the somatic. Experiences within such situations become important; multiplying the complexities of qualitative considerations. Marcus’ writings on reflexivity emphasize the complexity of experience, focusing on “the self-critique and personal question, the experiential, and the idea of empathy” (Marcus, 1998, p. 568) which involves being aware of self and the context in which one lives and works (Andrews, 2009). To make suggestions, I will turn to the experiences and writings of various other scholars who have used current technologies that facilitate “public displays of connection” (boyd & Ellison, 2007) and suggest implications for qualitative research.

Conclusion: McLuhan cautions against making value judgments concerning technology and believed that “there can only be disaster arising from unawareness of the causalities and effects inherent in our technologies" (1962, p. 254). Qualitative research invites messiness, slipperiness, and uncertainty, which are now multiplied by electronic and digital technologies. Such problems present both challenge and potential. As technology is situated at the interstices of the social and the somatic, deeply enmeshed and connected in our psyche, it becomes imperative that we qualitative researchers dare to move, experience, and digitize ourselves into being.

Author

• Prisca Rodriguez, University of Florida