If a man sets out on an expedition, determined to prove certain hypotheses, if he is incapable of changing his views constantly and casting them off ungrudgingly under the pressure of evidence, needless to say his work will be worthless.
- Bronislaw Malinowski, Argonauts of the Western PacificThrough all high school and undergraduate classes in science, the hypothesis is stressed as the focus of research according to the "scientific" method. I began this project feeling pigeonholed by not really knowing better into formulating a hypothesis, which, given my lack of experience in the field, ends up sounding more like a narrow presumption. Then, in addition to doing literary backflips to make qualitative data fit a binary hypothesis, I would have to contend with my conscience over why I came up with such a presumption in the first place. Enter my Jiminy Cricket in a discussion on modes of research in my STS class: This research is descriptive. A question mark will suit better for this project.
Why did I always get the impression that research had to based on investigating a statement rather than a question? As Malinowski implies, there is potential here to compromise the integrity of an investigation when it is based on a preconceived idea, especially when you're an academic plebeian (though far from the only requisite) like myself. I am glad to have moved further from that risk on this first go-around.
My decision to drop the American observations also relieves the weight on my shoulders. Now I can narrow down my question to the souqs in Morocco. The American observations I have scheduled will now function as guinea pigs for my guinea pigs. Actually, I'll be the guinea pig because I will be testing out my own time and space zones to find out how I can be the least intrusive in my research setting, so I can be more prepared for the real thing in Morocco.
No comments:
Post a Comment