Open(ing) Spaces
Posted by susankmiller on October 9, 2007
In our graduate seminar this week, we read a decade-old book by Sullivan and Porter titled Opening Spaces: Writing Technologies and Critical Research Practices. I enjoyed revisiting this text, partly because I found myself questioning (and sometimes remembering) the reactions and responses I had to the text the first time I read it as a graduate student. I remember originally feeling relieved when I read this book–someone was validating my desire to contextualize the research I was doing in a way that reflected the theory I was reading. As I read, I found myself realizing how much research has (and has not) changed since then.
Several of the students in the class commented on how the text introduces ideas and approaches to research that are not all that new anymore. Absolutely true. Yet, I’m struck by how pervasive the divisions between empiricism/theory/practice still are, as well as between qualitative and quantitative research.
And revisiting this text caused me to question some of my own assumptions a bit. For the sake of brevity, I’ll just list a few:
- How much self-reflection is enough? I accept that reflection is an important part of research and practice, but is there a point at which the reflection and the contextualization can begin to get in the way?
- Is there a way to get past the paradox that acknowledging one’s context introduces limitations that affect the interpretive power of data collected?
- In class last week, I asked a question about the perceived agency we assign to technology. If I adopt a position that technology has no (or limited) agency, am I denying the potential impact(s) of the designer of the technology? Or does the agency reside with the designer?
