Personal history - Alasdair
For this task I chose to write (with Francesca and Yurim) on the ‘personal history’ theme that came out of Monday’s discussions. This encompassed sub-themes of ‘skills’, ‘crack (as in the observed problem/challenge)’, and the ‘enthusiasm/passion’ required to use that ‘crack’ as the starting point for a research idea. Francesca, Yuri and I also felt that the idea of ‘warrants’ fitted here (i.e. the ‘warrants’ we use to justify our research).
In terms of ‘personal history’ I’m interested in how our life stories/histories/experiences inform the research we do and how we do it. Sometimes coming up with research can be framed in a very neutral/objective way - e.g. we intuit or spot a gap in the literature and build our research from there. Practically, lots of research seems to be designed as an extension of something else one’s already done/been involved with (e.g. study a phenomenon using a different data set, different population or novel methodology) - I think this is especially the case in disciplines like public health, where research can be (sometimes tediously) iterative. Perhaps something that’s perhaps more common than is reported is that the things (and ways and places) we study are informed by our personal histories. Lofland et al (in Analysing Social Settings) have a nice section on this issue, in which they encourage (and permit) researchers to ‘start where they are’. This ethos resonates with me as the seed of my public space research on London’s South Bank was my own experiences as a skateboarder there. Other research I’ve done has been informed by the personal, though less overtly - e.g. I my own experiences of bus use in London informed the ‘on the buses’ study I was involved with, and my own household practices (to warm/cool my home) informed the things I was interested in when I studied sustainable living practices in Sydney.
By ‘starting where we are’, I believe the passion and enthusiasm that’s critical to productive (maybe even ‘good’) research can be harnessed. I think discussing this ‘personal history’ aspect of research is particularly important to interdisciplinary work- to help us unpack what we’re all bringing to a project, our personal dispositions/sensitising concepts and so on. To help us all understand what we’re coming to a project with, and what we hope to get from it.
Likewise the ‘cracks’ and ‘gaps’ that are so central to good research design may have very personal origins. For instance, my research often stems from an observed/sensed disconnect (e.g. between policy and practice; designed purpose and behaviour) rather than from a spotted gap in the literature. What are the ruptures in everyday life that we want to explore, question or learn from?
To do our research well requires research ‘skills’. However, the reality is that often our methods training is limited (in the extent it provides us with practical, hands-on methods skills). Being trained in participant observation, for instance, can often mean being trained in the principles of that methodology, rather than its practice. How can we ensure that the personal skills we bring to projects include practical methods skills, as well as the various learned skills we’ve acquired over the course of our lives? Work at the interface of the arts and social sciences seems to require a shared space of ‘doing’ (being and creating in the world). Here, for social scientists in such collaborations, I believe skills in doing ethnography are particularly relevant, as a method that affords connections of various kinds to the arts (in its appreciation of the visual, descriptive, live etc and its proximity to everyday life). In the interdisciplinary arts-social sciences space, perhaps dealing head-on with this methodological challenge at the outset would be worthwhile - can ethnography provide a shared window if understanding, even if a shared language is unachievable or undesirable?
