For centuries philosophers have written and debated how to understand the different epistemologies -- that is, theories of knowing how we know things -- that manifest throughout human history. Finally, that problem has been solved by a handy online quiz! (bit.ly/1NOL39e [link fixed!]) Well, maybe not solved exactly, but this epistemology quiz should give us something to discuss in relation to our class's current themes of writing, literatures, and the conversations where you hope to locate your research.
This week's blogging question combines elements of Luker's daisy exercise with a chance to think critically about how an online survey works. The daisy exercise is useful for mapping the subjects that intersect in your research, but the online quiz attempts to map you within a set of defined epistemological categories, using a few multiple-choice questions as its instruments. So, for this week's question, I invite you to take the quiz and answer as honestly as possible. The quiz will then try to peg your epistemology, and it might not be what you expect. I was certainly surprised and intrigued about mine: apparently I'm Jürgen Habermas, or at least I was on the day I took the quiz.
For the blog question, tell us about your results on the quiz and whether they surprised or intrigued you, or whether it worked out to what you expected. Also, tell us about how you might shape your research question and project design to suit your epistemological leanings. For example, do you lean more toward discovery research, or do you want definitively to answer a specific question? Do you want to build something, fix something, discover patterns in data, or find insights through writing? Are you a positivist, a constructivist, or something else?
Or are you tired of online quizzes and funding application pull-down menus that try to put you in a box? (There's an old story about Duke Ellington, who used to get asked by journalists to define "jazz." Supposedly Duke just said that there are only two kinds of music, good and bad, and that he played both kinds!) Another way of approaching this week's blogging assignment, then, could be to critique the quiz itself. It's a type of survey, which is a research method we'll study in the course, and this is a chance to examine how a particular survey works (albeit a survey that may not have been subjected to rigorous design testing, as is usually the case with complex research surveys). What does this survey do well, and how could it be better? Does it have epistemological blind spots of its own? Can you spoof the quiz to get the result you predicted? (I'm still trying to get the quiz to tell me I'm Geddy Lee, but so far no luck. I wonder what would happen if Habermas took the quiz right now... would it tell him he's Habermas?)
None of these are easy questions to answer for many people, experienced or novice researchers alike, and the specific sub-questions I've asked here are just suggestions. I'll be looking more for engagement in a thought process than definitive answers, but both are welcome!
This week's blogging question combines elements of Luker's daisy exercise with a chance to think critically about how an online survey works. The daisy exercise is useful for mapping the subjects that intersect in your research, but the online quiz attempts to map you within a set of defined epistemological categories, using a few multiple-choice questions as its instruments. So, for this week's question, I invite you to take the quiz and answer as honestly as possible. The quiz will then try to peg your epistemology, and it might not be what you expect. I was certainly surprised and intrigued about mine: apparently I'm Jürgen Habermas, or at least I was on the day I took the quiz.
For the blog question, tell us about your results on the quiz and whether they surprised or intrigued you, or whether it worked out to what you expected. Also, tell us about how you might shape your research question and project design to suit your epistemological leanings. For example, do you lean more toward discovery research, or do you want definitively to answer a specific question? Do you want to build something, fix something, discover patterns in data, or find insights through writing? Are you a positivist, a constructivist, or something else?
Or are you tired of online quizzes and funding application pull-down menus that try to put you in a box? (There's an old story about Duke Ellington, who used to get asked by journalists to define "jazz." Supposedly Duke just said that there are only two kinds of music, good and bad, and that he played both kinds!) Another way of approaching this week's blogging assignment, then, could be to critique the quiz itself. It's a type of survey, which is a research method we'll study in the course, and this is a chance to examine how a particular survey works (albeit a survey that may not have been subjected to rigorous design testing, as is usually the case with complex research surveys). What does this survey do well, and how could it be better? Does it have epistemological blind spots of its own? Can you spoof the quiz to get the result you predicted? (I'm still trying to get the quiz to tell me I'm Geddy Lee, but so far no luck. I wonder what would happen if Habermas took the quiz right now... would it tell him he's Habermas?)
None of these are easy questions to answer for many people, experienced or novice researchers alike, and the specific sub-questions I've asked here are just suggestions. I'll be looking more for engagement in a thought process than definitive answers, but both are welcome!
