But anyway, my personal recollection from the class seemed more like the philosophical theory on methodology, rather than teaching us actual research methods. The whole notion was really convoluted and complex. I could not understand a lot from this class, and I could not make any connections between it and my practice.
I did learn that once upon a time Art and Design schools were separate from universities. When the number of Post-Graduate students in Art and Design increased, it became necessary to develop frameworks for research methods and structured criteria for those students.
I tried to summarized what the lecturer taught. Methodology is a way to bring measure to the countless ways of approaching a project/research. There are two roots of methodology:
1. Quantitative--- statistic analysis, ensures mathematical certainty. E.g., surveying a large amount of people concerning a project, and finding the average response.
2. Qualitative--- in-depth analysis, framework for how meaning emerges. E.g., choose only 3 respondents and have discussions with all of them to arrive at meaningful conclusion.
Afterwards the lecture became very confusing. Unknown words like Epistemology, Phenomenology, and Ontology began emerging with very vague definitions in no context began giving me headaches. What I did understand from all this, is that philosophical thinkers questioned the very existence of one's being, and their connection/relationship with the world. There were then many different forms of thinking or methodology, which were based on different notions and beliefs of understanding the world, or attempting to understand the world. I could not explain why these are all necessary. Realism and Rationalism seemed to be based on the idea that the "one true world" can be measured and tested with built models (mathematical). And Relativism and Constructivism implied multiple competing worlds subjective to the researcher's culture (the "lifeworld" of the researcher). Many of the explanations given by the lecturer sounded incomplete; he liked to start a topic and then trail off to something different without concluding the previous.
I went over the notes I wrote down yesterday, and I read the pdf document on the class again. Yet I still cannot make out what the lecturer was trying to convey. Am I too ignorant to understand these complex theories? Am I supposed to take a stance with a group of philosophers? I have no clue. Perhaps when I can actually interpret these theories, I will decided whether or not if I am a realist or rationalist.
Something to lighten up the mood. Playful fights between friends.
No comments:
Post a Comment