Sunday, October 31, 2010

Knight on Reflective Inquiry, Image-Based Research Techniques

Knight's short discussion about reflective inquiry was interesting to me as a former literature student. I know that Knight, along with most of our other readings, are coming from the field of social sciences specifically, but it is interesting to me to think about the great extent to which certain fields within the arts, like English , are largely performed through what might be called reflective analysis (except in most undergrad courses where the ease of teaching fledgeling scholars some form of "new criticism" results in little to no secondary reading).

It would be interesting to take a close look at how funding affects the ways in which producing brand-new findings in the art vs the sciences. Sciences usually require a large budget, and stakeholders want to see where their money is going. Having original findings to justify a budget would be preferable in this case.

Finally, I also felt that Knight's treatment of image-based research was scant; considering that my research area is heavily concerned with using digital images as scholarly aids, I was excited when I saw the heading, but was quickly disappointed to read nothing that was relevant to my interests. All in all, considering how popular image-based research such as visualization techniques is getting, I expected much more coverage in this area.


  1. I thought Knight's coverage of all of discourse analysis was scant! I wanted a bit more under every subject heading. The boxed information took up a lot of space, so you got even less "Knight" than you assumed you were getting in the 11 pages or so devoted to "discourse analysis."

    I'm wondering why this is. Is it because discourse analysis considered easier, more obvious, self-explanatory, less important? Maybe I'm including readings from other classes in this highly scientific number that I am about to throw out, but it feels like I've read 957 pages on ethnography at this point. I'm curious about the reasons for the scant coverage in Knight and nonexistent coverage in Luker.

  2. Oops, looks like I unwittingly repeated a lot of what Sara wrote in the course blog - I had not read it before I wrote my post, but it looks like I should have!