Putting theory into practice

This week I would like to think a bit about the research assignment as well as the questions that I have about putting my research idea into practice. In fact, I may have the opportunity to do so in the coming months (confirmation pending), which definitely adds a level of excitement to the creation of my research proposal. As I wrote in my SSHRC Proposal, my research seeks to:

Ask what KM protocols can be implemented to preserve the tacit knowledge of librarians, archivists and curators in the face of an exodus of seasoned professionals? I will conduct my research using the methods of ethnography and oral history for collating and managing the knowledge ecology of art galleries, libraries, archives and museums (GLAMs) as a means of preserving institutional knowledge and memory.

Ok great. So where and how do I begin? The research proposal will allow me to really break down these ideas, but looking back to the Knight chapter we read a couple of weeks ago, appropriately titled “Doing It,” has me asking questions about interview ethics, data collection (affordable methods; transcribing audio, etc.), and disclosure and grief. Fortunately, given the nature of my project, I do not think I will have to deal with this last point, but it is important to consider the extremely personal nature of oral history interviews, regardless of whether they intended to record personal or professional experiences. While Knight is approaching the issue of sensitive research questions, he makes a salient point that I will need to consider should my project eventually come to fruition: the approach of “encouraging [participants] to disclose fully their thoughts or to act in front of the researcher as they would in private” (Knight 2002, 169). Planning interview questions and observations around how best to capture the tacit knowledge of an art librarian will not be without its own challenges, but collecting this information in a way that feels natural yet comprehensive for the participant may prove difficult. It makes me think of how I would feel about being on camera. I don’t think I could ever be on a reality show because I wouldn’t know how to act when someone is watching me, let alone studying my answers. There is certainly a degree of pressure added within these types of situations.

In addition, thinking back to last week’s class on ethnography, I am hoping to employ an ethnographic approach as part of the oral history method since the two are not unrelated. I decided to re-read the Davidson and Layder chapter where they refer to Raymond Gold’s article, “Roles in Sociological Field Observations.” The authors suggest that there is room for change and negotiation within the researcher’s role throughout the process as defined by Gold, and I found these distinctions worthwhile to think about. What category would I belong to? Firstly I suppose it would depend on the institution and my relationship to those working within it. But for the sake of my project I would anticipate that the ‘participant as observer’ would be the most applicable. This involves disclosure regarding the nature of the research being conducted, but also offers up greater freedom for the researcher by establishing a relationship with the participants while also examining their practices (Davidson and Layder 1994, 168-9). As my goal is to gather tacit knowledge and institutional memory and expertise by means of oral history, it is also important that I blend into my surroundings and observe how day-to-day tasks are carried out. I have never had the opportunity to conduct fieldwork, in the traditional sense, so I hope I have the chance to put this theory into practice in the near future.

References:

Davidson, Julia O'Connell, and Derek Layder. (1994). Methods, Sex, and

Madness. New York: Routledge.

Knight, P.T. (2002). Small Scale Research: Pragmatic Inquiry in Social Science and the Caring Professions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.