To be perfectly honest, not much has changed over the past few weeks with my research project (from the time I actually nailed down what it was!), at least in terms of the question itself, or its theoretical or methodological basis. What has changed, however, are the people who I feel might benefit from it.
To recap, I decided to look into the way that graffiti is used as strategic outlet and participative communicative tool by marginalized groups. Despite some changes in the conversation surrounding graffiti, and the recognition of how important it has been during periods such as the Arab Spring, ideas of graffiti remain largely negative, and laws are harsh. My project involves conducting two case studies, involving widely divergent regions and time period, in order to create an understanding of the way that graffiti is used by marginalized groups beyond the constraint of a single time and/or place.
Initially, I had the usual target audience: other academics. However, when I began to examine the political scene, my audience gradually expanded to the policy makers and, even, politicians who are making the actual decisions. Following this further down the line, you arrive at the people who are actually being impacted by the existing laws, and would benefit from any changes: those individuals who are participants in the writing and revision of various graffiti texts.
I ended up dividing my intended audience into two groups: those who I hope to impact immediately (other academics), and those who are ultimately the target of the work and its primary stakeholders (those involved in graffiti making). I think that my biggest questions, then, would be the actual process by which this trickle-down would happen; however, I also don't believe that it it really much of a concern at this time. The process of reaching the point where it could effect policy change could take years, even decades - I am looking to start a conversation to bring about a natural shift in policy. I am not looking to force an artificial change.
Just wondering Kara, was your shift towards the policy aspect at all inspired by Caidi's policy course? I think that's a great way of examining your question, to see understand this split in terms of getting the information out there and how and who its impacting. I like your recognition that the policy-making process is a tedious one and that forcing artificial change won't have the impact you ultimately hope to achieve.
ReplyDeleteHi Kara, I think I have read the first part of your research proposal in class when Professor Galey asked us to do a peer review. And I learnt a lot about graffiti from that short conversation between us. Your elaboration on the case sampling of Paris and New York was really informative and convincing.
ReplyDeleteWhat’s interesting is that I found a similarity between you and one of our blogmates, Domenico. I was reading his post: Narrowing in on the Fundamental Question, in which he wrote, “a worthwhile proposed question for research should be one that is ambitious in its effort to provide answers to a certain way in which society functions”. And in your post you mentioned, “The process of reaching the point where it could effect policy change could take years, even decades.” You guys are similar in that you believe research work should contribute to the society, which is an essential element of applied research.
But then what do you think of pure research? What do you think is the purpose of pure research? Does it make sense if a research is conducted for research’s sake? And finally, would you do a research if you knew it was supposed to be “pure”?
Wish you the best luck!
Kara, I love that your research seeks to make a contribution to society and potential effect policy change. I can't do research unless I feel that has even a small chance of doing that or attempting to resolve entrenched rifts. Very interesting tension that you have revealed here, Yun Zhan though. I personally think that social scientists who are being funded essentially by citizen tax revenue therefore have responsibility to citizens as key stakeholder. So, this research is generating theory or seeking to test theories about social phenomena that bear on the lives of people or document social process. So, I think that there's an ethical need for responsibility to society and accountability to that end that is embodied in methodological rigour and documentable research. The same goes for applied science. At the same, so-called pure research across all disciplines can reinvigorate societal hope, especially with respect to the human power to create and innovate. For instance, there are many who wonder how the American government and NASA could even consider funding a mission to Mars when the current social welfare structure has trouble supporting the basic needs of many. But, is the alternative of not having hope and the optimism to dream such a great option? I should probably stop here before I start overtly invoking the rhetoric the 2008 Obama campaign or further -- Johnson's Great Society. (But don't we want a great society?)...
ReplyDelete