1. Discuss the difference between Madlenka's and Tionna and Lyon's loose tooth experiences through the concepts of context, events, and practices described in the article; How does this relate to qualitative case studies?
2. How does angling visions lead to multiple cases within one setting?
Dyson and Genishi argue that research depends on the subject(s) as well as the researcher(s). Each have their own ideals about a place or experience, and they vary depending on individual visions. Researcher come into a site with preconceptions and try to balance those with the ideals of the scene they enter into. A researcher can approach a case in many different ways depending on their notions and those they are observing. This angling of visions leads to multiple cases within one setting by viewing a certain aspect in different ways. Then, researchers can analyze multiple incidents. Ideally, one researcher should be able to observe a setting in the same manner as another researcher. However, the preconceived ideals of one researcher may cause him to focus on a specific aspect that another researcher might pass over. Meanings are not the same because everyone interprets experiences differently. Different visions lead to different outcomes because the interpretations vary. These different views create different cases which leads to multiple interpretations of one experience.
ReplyDeleteEven after fiddling with the idea of angling visions and reading other interpretations of it, the best summation of it is still found in Dyson & Genishi’s article itself: “Researchers make decisions about how to angle their vision on these places, depending on the interplay between their own interests and the grounded particularities of the site” (12). These interests and particularities are two factors that greatly contribute to the subjective nature of forming cases. Our own interests can be similarly as subjective and varied as the cases for it is our interests that ultimately contextualize the cases. For example, though we are all Education 140 students and visiting sites in low-income areas, the similarity of all our cases ends there. The shape our notes take and the emphasis we pursue is from then on totally shaped by our interests and expectations of the site. Even things such as our difference in majors will be cause for variation in our interpretations of the same setting. Being a Cognitive Science major, I may use what I know about associations in the brain and learning strategies to help tutor my students. A Computer Science major may choose to participate in the video creations, thereby already creating a different case than me.
ReplyDeleteThe other factor is “the grounded particularities of the site,” which could either be our preconceived expectations, or literally particularities of the school, such as OMI being a military institute. As such, we assume the school with be slightly more strict and to most likely maintain some sort of military orderliness. This would automatically make us take note of the fact that they have formations and keep health journals. This is exactly the type of particularity we can associate with a military school.