[Air-l] Community "Critical Mass"?

[Alex Halavais]

actually... no, it doesn't.  what it answers is the abstraction or
> representation of that question that you can create into quantifiable
> terms...



This suggests (whether or not you intend it to) that there is some sort of
question that could be asked in terms not biased by the tools that are
anticipated to be employed to answer. There are no "pure questions." Those
who prefer to work with qualitative methods are likely to generate questions
that are tractable qualitatively, those who prefer quantitative methods are
likely to think of questions for which quantification makes good sense, and
those who tend to prefer analytical methods (I'm using the term in tension
with "empirical methods") are likely to ask questions that lend themselves
to analytical processes.

This isn't just a "where you stand depends on where you sit" sort of
argument; I think it's worth recognizing the weaknesses in any approach, and
particularly the dangers of endorsing methodological orthodoxy. It's
valuable recognizing that methodological heterodoxy (or "triangulation" or
what-have-you) is more than just a way to keep multiple scholarly audiences
happy; it's a way of detecting and counterbalancing leaky questions and
answers no matter your approach.

Alex


--
//
// This email is
// [ ] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded.
// [X] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing.
//
// Alexander C. Halavais
// Social Architect
// http://alex.halavais.net
//