Mon 21 Aug 2006
About six weeks ago I was talking to this really smart guy from some top-notch university about all things media, religion and culture, and thought I was doing well impressing him with my research and the reasons I want to do it. He then asked me, “So, what’s your conceptual framework?”
Because I’m that good at impressing people and talking from the hip, I faked a surprised look and called out “Look over there!”, pointing over his shoulder. As he turned I hid behind the nearest bush, panting away to myself in shock and fear. God, I’m good.
So, anyway, I’ve been asking myself, “Wtf is a conceptual framework?!” After about four books expounding great new steps in researching religion online, scratching my head and playing Internet Checkers, I think I kinda know wtf it is, and what mine might be. Well, at least the beginnings of it. Could be the start of one of the chapters, I don’t know. Hopefully my supervisor will help out.
But for now it’s here for all of you, to help, like you’ve nothing better to do.
I think if I were reading this I’d probably say to me, “Hey Paul, you’ve made some clever inferences here but clearly you need to some more reading. By the way, have I told you before how cool and funny you are? Here, have fifty bucks.”
August 21st, 2006 at 10:43
Ah, the conceptual framework question. I too have suffered a similar traumatic experience. Not sure if I’ll ever recover, but you live and learn.
What I find really interesting (and often funny) is talking to other PhD students in other faculties about my work. You can see some of the ones thinking,
“So, you sit in a room for 3-4 years, reading books and thinking, while you write 100,000 words on what you thought!?! About God!?! Where’s the lab work? Where’s the aim, methodology, results and conclusion framework in it’s nice tidy package? Where are the graphs, tables and diagrams? Where’s the science?”
And then some of them seem to be thinking,
“God, if I had to write 100,000 words on my thoughts, rather than just produce screeds of data and graphs, and write up why we did things the way we did, and how it turned out, I’d go mad.” Which may indeed be the case in my own situation
Certainly, the idea of constantly writing and editing for 3-4 years doesn’t seem to feature. More like 6 months of intense writing at the end.
(Having done a not insignificant amount of postgrad scientific research myself, I think that in some ways the arts approach is harder in terms of the writing. Sometimes I miss the experimentation though. Nothing like a failed experiment to build character.)
August 21st, 2006 at 12:19
“So, what’s your conceptual framework?”
If someone asked me that, I would probably struggle not to laugh, or wonder if they were a robot with fake human skin…
… what you’ve written is a really good pass at a “conceptual framework.” The key issues are what are the big debates in the field you’re working on an how to plan to do your research. That dictates your required reading and your methodology.
Reading what You have written I found myself asking, what is meant by words like “mission,” “church,” “discourse,” “authority.” Also, how will the discourses be tracked and what are the problems with trying to track discourses.
Anyway, you’ve got an interesting blog, I’ve just started reading it and look forward to reading lots more.
August 21st, 2006 at 12:22
Yeah, my sister has a PhD in mollecular biology, and the case was pretty much the same – two years or so spewing out reams of numbers and figures, and then a whole lot of writing at the end.
Though I think I’d go mad with boredom if I were in that position – nothing but submitting tests and writing down figures all day for years. that’s pretty much why I quit science in grade ten, just got tired of writing without thinking.
Though there aint no happy medium here.
August 21st, 2006 at 12:32
Hey Fernando,
Nice to hear that you’re reading the site. I’ve been following yours for a while, and I’m thinking about including it in my research sample (though the fact that you’re now expat makes it a little troublesome at the mo’).
What you’ve found yourself asking are exactly my key questions – given that they’re all components of the communal “emerging church” identity – but are talked about and considered in quite different ways online than in real world expressions of the movement.
I dont’ see too many issues at present in tracking the discourses – apart from the size of the sample and the number of posts on any given argument. Definitely tagging and trackbacking are a help, though they bring with them their own questions and confusions. It means I will have to do my own “tagging” of bloggers’ posts, and do a kind of taxonomy of discourses, making my own categories and hoping they fit into a framework for discussion about identity.
August 22nd, 2006 at 16:52
Sounds like you have your framework; in time you’ll have more references to quote. One of things about the conceptual framework question your academic cork-sniffing friend was asking has to do with marking yourself in every problem area in your research, not just the top line problems. That said I wouldn’t worry too much about it now, just get the plan right.
There’s a big can of worms in terms of tracking discourses; how does you categorising shape the data/evidence. That’s one of the big issues in “tagging” technology at the moment. Just check out del.icio.us and see the way different people tag the same sites, with different tags. I suspect as soon as you start getting some results from sampling sites, you’ll be well into that problem!
BTW, I’m glad you have thought to include my blog. The wider the sample the more interesting, but that may come at a cost in terms of the number of explanatory stories you have to tell for each blog you include.
August 22nd, 2006 at 21:46
Thanks for your support.
Yeah, those worms-in-a-can are what I was referring to when I mentioned their own “questions and confusions”. I’m predicting that I might be doing some comprison work between my own taxonomy of arguments with the “folksonomies” that bloggers do when they tag. I’m wondering if there’s a growing consensus on how emerging church bloggers tag certain posts or arguments. I’m wondering what effect tagging posts in certain ways affect how auhtority is structured (even through technorati and other programs).
Digging into these problems is a fairly far-off project for me, so they’re more intriguing than troublesome right now. Would love to talk more with you about it when it does get “big” for me.