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.

           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.