"The Migration and Globalization of Schuhplattler Dance: A Sociological Analysis" written by Alexandra Kolb focuses on the "shoe slapping" form of dance known as the schuhplattler (as the title suggests), while the second article I read, "Folk Dances in the German Club" written by Herbert Schueler focuses on German folk dances. While both styles of dance are authentic to German culture, they are very different from each other. I'll discuss those differences in my thesis.
What I've learned about close readings of both of these articles is that while they may be discussing similar topics, the writing style that each author uses is very different. Both of the journals that the articles were published in are peer reviewed journals, however, one article
is written with a more academic or scientific style (Kolb) while the other is much more casual (Schueler).
I've also found that the research methods used in museum studies tends to lean more toward human interaction rather than the scientific trial and/or data set methods. Museum studies methods are more likely to be case studies, interviews, archival research, and interviews.
Bibliography-
Kolb, Alexandra. "The Migration and Globalization of Schuhplattler Dance: A Sociological Analysis." Cultural Sociology 7, no. 1 (2012): 39-55. doi:10.1177/1749975512453658
Schueler, Herbert. "Folk Dances in the German Club." The German Quarterly 11, no. 4 (November 1938): 206-12. Accessed September 24, 2018. doi:10.2307/399999.
I also think it's interesting that articles on similar subjects can have to vastly different tones or styles of writing. It's part of what makes academic writing so diverse and interesting! Of the two approaches to writing, which did you find most effective for the subject matter?
ReplyDeleteFor the purpose of doing research for my thesis, I preferred the more scholarly writing of Kolb's article. Schueler's article was interesting and informative, but his writing style made it more difficult to pick out his main points. Somewhat similar to what you wrote about for your blog post this week.
DeleteJen, would be interested in seeing how you define "casual" for an article's approach - does that mean it's a bit more colloquial, although still peer-reviewed and scholarly? An exception to the list of museum studies approaches you've listed above would be John Falk & Lynn Dierking's which is mixed method and scientific in its roots. Looking forward to your next post!
ReplyDeleteWill you be exploring how dance can be a reflection of culture, and how multiple types of dances come about? It's intriguing how different traditions emerge and change over time. I'm always curious about the origins of these kinds of things.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point about Museum Studies research methods tending to focus more on human interaction over scientific evidence. Do you think this is due to the nature of the field, or would it be possible to incorporate more "scientific" data into a Museum Studies article?
ReplyDeleteSince your thesis is more focused on cultural differences do you believe following a similar format of focusing on the people in the community you're talking about. Would interviewing people from the various groups you know be helpful in developing support for your thesis or is that something that would overcomplicate your topic?
ReplyDeleteThat's actually why I'm narrowing my scope down to just the dance groups (with a main focus on just one). Originally, I had hoped to discuss all of the groups in the Federation of German American Societies (currently eight groups) and what about each of them is authentic, but it turned in to too large of a topic.
DeleteI do plan on interviewing members of the dance groups and any other relevant community members.