Both authors chose to look at one case study. In the garbage plate article, the author, Emily Fekete, wanted to prove that "Regional foods are often an integral part of local cultural identity" (Fekete, p.25). Fekete chose to look at the garbage plate of Rochester, NY as an example of how food can be a part of one's cultural identity. In the 'Eavesdropping at the Well' article, the author, Richard Rabinowitz, based his paper and research on an exhibit he put together called Slavery in New York, in order to prove that interpretive media can help fill in the gaps left by archival and museum collections. The similarities end here, with both of them choosing one case study to focus on. The authors' research methods were very different. Fekete sent out a survey to her facebook friends, and then interviewed a few within the pool of friends who actually completed the survey. Her research should have been much more in-depth, and should have covered a wider range of people. Rabinowitz's research methods were very in-depth -- had to be because of the topic of the exhibit. Also, because he was planning an exhibit, which involves a deadline, he had to "find out where the goodies were"(Rabinowitz, p.17) by asking 'scholarly advisers' and checking every citation in scholarly articles about the early history of New York. Contrasting these two articles shows that less is not always more, in the case of Fekete's article, because she makes some big claims without having done enough research to support those claims. Rabinowitz's article is better in that sense.
Monday, September 21, 2015
What I have learned...
Through the readings assigned for this course, I have found that each author employs different methods of research. While most choose to use at least one case study to base their paper and research on, their methods are still quite different. Two of the readings last week -- "'I Know I'm Home When I Have One:' The Cultural Significance of the Garbage Plate of Rochester, NY" and "Eavesdropping at the Well: Interpretive Media in the Slavery of New York Exhibition" -- are good examples of this, and I have learned from them what good, and not so good, research looks like.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thank you for being the first to post your thoughts and taking a critical look at the authors' work. By choosing to compare those particular articles, you really brought out their strengths and weaknesses.
ReplyDeleteMost of us so far have chosen to examine articles separate from one another, so I believe you bring a fresh perspective by comparing and contrasting research methods used within the articles you examined. As Melissa mentioned, by doing this you create more clarity in regards to areas of strengths and weaknesses within these two particular research papers.
ReplyDeleteOf all the readings, I would have to say I did enjoy Fekete's very much in terms of the topic and content provided. I would have to agree with you that there is a lack of depth in her research as well as a lack of professionalism. Her article was definitely not the best in terms of research methodologies, presented evidence, or having a critical eye. On the other hand, Rabinowitz's article was engaging and provoking since it covered his hunt to find artifacts that hardly existed and to interpret the past without the objects associate with it. In terms of our own thesis papers, I think these two articles reflect that all claims we make, big or small, have to be backed by our extensive research and that we should be as professional as possible in our presentation of data and materials.
I came to the same conclusion about Fekete's survey style. It could have been great, but it felt like she just used the easier or most familiar platform she knew, instead of trying to expand it beyond that, something I'm thinking about doing at some point in my research paper.
ReplyDelete