Radical Constructivism as the Basis for How Romance Is Developed - Essay Example

3 1. Where would you locate each researcher on the continuum represented in figure 3 page 47 of the Schran text? How are their respective research purposes, as stated in the articles, served by the extent to which they chose to emphasize a critical or interpretive perspective within their research stance? In creating a perspective on the way that Rogers and Crepeau have structured their studies, it is imperative to look at the methodology sections in order to understand the direction each has taken in creating their work. Rogers states that she uses “a two year ethnographic study of literacy and language practices in the community of Sherman Oaks”(Rogers, 217). In her work she studies two individuals as the focal participants in her research. In Crepeau, the investigation is focused on the way in which interpretations are made from transcripts of team meetings. Both of these studies utilize a very limited scope for their research. In Crepeau, the researcher would be best defined in terms of the figure in the Schran text as “questioning participants perceptions of the way thing are” for the direction of the researcher’s aims. In creating orienting questions, Crepeau asks, “What is going on to make ’the way things are’ feel like the natural order of things to participants in the setting” ( Schran 47). The meetings that Crepeau studies are from transcripts of recordings of the meetings, creating a foundation for an interpretation of the culture of the team meetings. In Rogers, she attempts to observe and draw objective conclusions, which would have her research aims at the “taking issues with the way things are”, but in her participation moves into the aim of “Unsettling and transforming the way things are” ( Schran 47). As she participates in school meetings over the educational status of her participants, she challenges the contradictions in the original findings, thus affecting the participants and becoming a part of the community she is observing and affecting change. She straddles the orienting questions between “Do participants in the setting assume that the way things are now is the way things must be” and “Should I assume the privilege of showing those in the setting perspectives or choices they may not even know they have?” (Schran 47). While her methodology states that she is to be an observer, Rogers becomes a part of the process as she develops recommendations and opinions on the circumstances of her subjects. 2. In her article, Roger makes the following statement: “Further, I gain insight into how, as a female literacy researcher and teacher, I was implicated in a system of education that assumes literacy is women’s work but not their right.” (p. 218) How could Rogers have reshaped her research aims, focus and/or questions to foreground an even more explicit feminist perspective? The first question that would have needed to be answered to support the concept that the literacy issue was a feminist issue would have been developed by comparing the way in which the system handled her subjects compared to similar male subjects. In pursuing the feminist aspect of the issue, an understanding of how the male experience is different than the female experience would need to be established. After this was established, research questions that search for the answer to why this difference exists would have been central to the feminist perspective. Creating an aim that focuses on the difference between the handling of the education of female students next to those of male students would change the way in which the research was approached. 3. Would it have made sense for either researcher to filter her ideas, aims, and methods through an ecological or system –oriented perspective? Why or why not? Rogers does, to some extent, filter her research through an ecological or system-oriented approach. By taking histories of the participants and putting those histories in context of historical data from census reports and educational records, she has put her participants into a cultural context as well as the context in which she observes. Creating a broader base of participants and collecting data that is not specific to just one family might have created a stronger cultural basis for her research. Crepeau might have created a stronger cultural indication of her participants by determining how each individual of the team was defined in terms of cultural perception to the participation within the team meeting. However, this information may have muddied the research that Crepeau was attempting and might have created a situation that was less clear, confusing the conclusions that she could draw from her research. However, in making a study of the culture of the team meeting based on transcribed recordings, much of the emotional content of the meetings was lost to her and this did create an obstacle. So, in respect to the cultural atmosphere of the meetings, her choice to study transcripts may have deconstructed some of the central influences that could have changed her conclusions. 3.2 Next exercise: Then Based on the required readings, provide a 1-2 page discussion of the interpretive framework(s) (e.g., such as those described in chapter 5 of the Shank text) that best fit your perspective and proposed study. Provide appropriate rationale for the chosen framework(s) and include sufficient detail in your responses to demonstrate evidence of your ability to think critically about the subject matter. Please include both exercises in single document. In creating a framework for the research that I will be doing for The Anatomy of Romance, the first method toward creating a clarified research study will be to create a thick interpretation of the topic. In creating a detailed definition and interpretation of romance, a further course of study can then be made from the variety of details that come to light. These details will need to be clearly relevant and without being weighted toward issues that are not relevant to the central research topic. This topic will be subjective in nature as the issue of romance is subject to a variety of interpretation. The way in which romance is most often perceived will be central to the way in which the research develops. The inclusion and omission of factors will develop from a method of identifying the perceptions of participants and the way in which they interpret romance within their life. This does not allow for objectivity within the framework of the study, but develops a need for defined subjectivity. This is relative to Charles Pierce and his statement that “I cannot know anything that I do not first believe”(Shank, 83). However, in creating this subjective framework, I will need to avoid defining reality in order to situate my findings. As Shank suggests, reality and cultural structure is far more complicated than can be simplified by a framework of research (Shank 84). In working with this study, finding an understanding of the phenomenon of romance will be the primary goal of the study. Therefore, the phenomenological process of examining experience will be utilized within the study. By understanding romance as it is relevant to perceptions, first of the researcher, and then of the subjects by setting aside the preconceived notions of the researcher, the concept of romance can be more thoroughly analyzed. In creating an understanding of the ideology of romance, the study will be able to define the way in which the “organized sets of beliefs” affect “social action” (Shank, 88) in regard to the way in which people in loving relationships are able to communicate their feelings through romantic gestures. Critical theory, however, will not be a relative platform from which to conduct this particular type of study. The problem of critical theory in regard to this study is that it suggests that there is only one reality, where in the emotional context of this study, the sense of reality varies within each individual experience. Radical Constructivism is the basis for how romance is developed. Social Constructivism in the sense that there are certain aspects of romance that has been culturally developed, such as flowers and jewelry as signs of love, might seem like the way to frame this study. However, in reality, the way in which romance is constructed is specifically defined by the way in which two people develop a system of survival within their relationship. This system may seem culturally influenced, but it is created by the way in which survival is achieved, not by how culture dictates that survival to be accomplished. Interpretation will therefore be developed around qualitative inquiry. The way in which the interpretation will be discovered is through the Lantern as we devise empirical questions that will suggest that meaning of romance will continually extend beyond our scope of study. In looking for meaning within our subject of study, it will be understood that the work can only shed light on a piece of that meaning and that a piece of work such as this study can never fully discover a complete interpretation of the information that is gathered. References Crepeau, E. B. (2000). “Reconstructing Gloria: A narrative analysis of team meetings”. Qualitative Health Research. 10(6); 766-787. Rogers, R. (2002). “Through the eyes of the institution: A critical discourse analysis of decision making in two special education meetings” Anthropology and Education Quarterly. 33(2); 213-237. Schran Shank Read More