Cultures of Inquiry

Problems and Concerns:

To develop a phenomenological understanding of any person, object, or idea, there seems to be a need to separate context or environment from the description. Bentz and Shapiro offer examples in questions such as "what is anxiety" or "what is a tree" (p. 100; 97) that distinguish what is meant, yet these words may have different meanings or representations in different contexts, hence changing the definition in each circumstance.

Its focus on the consciousness makes it difficult to ascertain any absolutes on definition as it will be limited by the processes and skills available to the subject (Bentz & Shapiro, p. 102).

Assumptions:

It seems we must assume the subject is genuine and honest in his or her testimonials. The focus upon the consciousness demands trust from the subject which in turn demands a strong yet objective presence of the researcher.
We must also presume the researcher is observant enough to detect even minute changes or expressions or intentions that are delivered by the subject perhaps unknowingly.

Research-subject relationship:

As a scholar engaging in phenomenological research, empathy is at the core of the researcher-subject relationship (Bentz and Shapiro, 1998, p. 102). Gaining the trust and confidence of the subject would be important to gain genuine testimonial. The researcher should recognize the importance of self-awareness to maximize the experience with the subject and minimize impact upon the subject’s telling of the experience.

Personal reaction:

Phenomenology strikes me as a complex yet valuable perspective on discovering knowledge and understanding experiences. It can be a cognitively demanding method as it requires carefulness of the researcher in order to get at the crux of the subject or object of interest. The unraveling of the complexities speaks to the importance of context, a valuable aspect of phenomenology. This research approach recognizes the impact of context and consciousness upon the subject or object, which is in part why there are varied forms of analysis such as through ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Bentz and Shapiro succinctly reflect that “in this sense, [phenomenology] is not a research procedure but a means of cocreation that makes public and manageable the lived experience” (p. 100).

Problems and concerns:

While quantitative and behavioural inquiry are very useful in describing larger patterns and visualizing trends, it is often limited by only what can be measured. The methodology and outcomes may be affected by the ease in which an aspect may be detected which may in turn change the intent of the research. The scoring in the results may not be completely representative as humans are not uniform organisms that think or behave consistently across the board.
This form of research can also focus on a specific relationship which can lead to ignoring larger events in action. While looking for patterns in the data, it is possible that the trends can in fact be disingenuous because of the artificial and highly structured setting of the research (Bentz and Shapiro, 1998, p. 122). This in turn may lead to a process of dehumanization where interactions are but responses to stimuli (p. 125).

Assumptions:

An underlying assumption in quantitative and behavioural inquiry regards the importance of salient features, which are aspects that can be measured, as being meaningful and relevant to thoughts and feelings. There is also an implication that once large patterns or trends are discovered, these ideas can be applied to other groups or persons which would bring about similar responses.

Reseracher-subject relationship:

The researcher is generally impersonal as the intention is to be as objective as possible. Any intervention on the part of the researcher may affect the outcomes and perhaps even the perception of the outcomes.

Personal reaction:

The empirical and objective aspects of inquiry are appealing in their capacity with certain forms of research. However, in social science, the findings from quantitative and behaviour research may not hold well in different contexts. It may be that this form of inquiry could act well as a starting point for further examination using other more idiographic forms of investigation.

Problems and Concerns:

History is often framed by those in possession of power who are likely to put themselves in the best light. These frameworks colour our perspectives and understandings which can be difficult to point out and address. It is valuable to understand history as a viewpoint rather than a distinct and completed event (Bentz and Shapiro, 1998, p.136). The plurality of the past is another concern as it may be misleading to look to one or two primary characters who guide the narrative rather than an assortment of actions altogether contributing to events and changes of interest.

Assumptions:

Upon examining history, we are greatly subject to using lenses available to us in the present. As such, when we consider documents and texts from the past, we must extend our understanding to imagine what circumstances and intentions motivate such objects.

Researcher-subject relationship:

The researcher must be able to be deeply interested in the subject or object of inquiry yet appear objective and detached to minimize any bias produced from the researcher’s overt interests.

Personal reflection:

A remarkable aspect of comparative-historical inquiry is its focus on the individual. By comparing contexts, a singular idea can be followed and its impacts can be more clearly seen. This form of inquiry recognizes the effect of the present upon the past: “our continually new experience of that modern world affects our understanding of its origin” (Bentz and Shapiro, 1998, p. 138). This reflexive aspect allows for complex explanations and can give rich understandings on a particular subject.