Johnson, R., Chambers, D., Raghuram, P., Tincknell, E. (Eds) (2006). The practice of cultural studies (1-103). London: Sage.
Slack, J. (1996). The theory and method of articulation in cultural studies. In D. Morley and K. Chen (Eds.), Stuart Hall: Critical dialogues in cultural studies (112-127). London: Routledge.
King, Samantha. (2005). Methodological contingencies in sports studies. In D. Andrews, D. Mason, & M. Silk (Eds.), Qualitative Methods in Sport Studies. Oxford: Berg
Brundson, C., Johnson, C., Moseley, R. & Wheatley, H. (2001). Factual entertainment on British television: The Midlands TV Research Group’s ‘8-9 Project’. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 4-9.
It is not surprising that since cultural studies draws on diverse subject areas it would also draw on a variety of methods and methodologies for conducting its research. This week the focus of the readings is on the methods, methodologies and theories employed in cultural studies research. Through the readings it became evident that research in cultural studies is very different from the scientific, empirically focused research that I am familiar with. As such, I have discovered many aspects of cultural studies research that I am excited to learn and apply, for example: it addresses power, it avoids reductionism, and it is reflexive. However, I am still confused and questioning the application of cultural studies research “methods”.
I will start my discussion on a positive note, discussing two key themes that appeared throughout the readings; that of power and positionality and reflexivity of the researcher. We learn in cultural studies to consider how power and positionality as a researcher influence our work. However, I only ever thought of my position and the power I bring within the context of interviewing my participants. I did not think about the existence of power throughout the different “moments” of research. I will use the cultural circuit (Johnson et al., 2006) as a guide to explore power at the different stages of producing research. As previously mentioned, a power relationship exists when interviewing participants at the “everyday life phase”, at the production phase, power exists in the interpretation of the data and choosing what to include, deciding on the sources/references and then at the text phase there is power in deciding what to write (Johnson et al., 2006). I introduce the topic of power as it is key component of reflexivity. Reflexivity is described as “knowing thyself” or self-awareness (Johnson et al., 2006) and it is essential to cultural studies research. Reflexivity is an on-going dialogue that not only involves thinking about ourselves, our biases, our expectations, our thoughts and feelings and our work within the research, but also how we feel in the world around us and being ready and willing to make changes. However, as Johnson et al. (2006) state, reflexivity is not a confessional so it makes me wonder, how much reflexivity do we include in our research? How do we know what is enough, or too much?
Johnson et al. (2006) discuss “truth claims” and state that in cultural studies three methodologies are used to legitimize the claims that are made in research, empirical (such as field work), interpretative (hermeneutics) and critical (praxis). These theoretical approaches as well as the approach “concept-led” are represented in a schematic on page 97. According to Johnson et al. (2006) cultural studies draws from all of these approaches, but does it favour some approaches over others? Does a study lose credibility if it relies more on one approach than another? It seems that cultural studies favours theory over practice and abstraction over empirical analysis. I am aware that cultural studies is fluid and believes that dyads should not exist and that empirical and abstract theories or analysis are both necessary, but would a practice-based, field study, still be considered part of cultural studies?
I grapple with the idea that cultural studies has no single or concrete means of methodology and that methods can be theories and vice versa. According to Johnson et al. (2006) the word “research practice” is favoured over methods or methodologies for cultural studies as they feel it better describes the active process of cultural studies research. Slack (1996) states that methods become a process that need to be adapted as we progress through research, so does this mean we are continually re-evaluating and changing the methods throughout our research projects? If methods are so undefined, what are the determining factors that allow research to be part of cultural studies? As long as research involves power, emancipation, context, hegemony etc., is it considered part of cultural studies?
Finally, I am almost out of space but did not feel I could end the blog without addressing articulation. Through articulation, I have gained greater insight into how a concept can be both a theory and a method. As theory, articulation is used to describe social formations and as a methodological framework, it provides strategies for doing cultural studies. Articulation is the process involved in the joining of parts, it provides a way of creating links between concepts that may not normally be joined or that may be seen as mutually exclusive (Slack, 1996, King, 2005). I realize from King’s (2005) article that articulation is a key method used by cultural studies researchers when looking at sport because it provides the social, economic and political context. Although not addressing sport, the Brunsdon et al. (2001) article was very helpful as it gave concrete examples of articulation in the research practice of textual analysis. The article shows how tensions that are normally mutually exclusive exist. In the Jamie Oliver example, there are “competing discourses of masculinity” (39). My understanding of this competing discourse is that Jamie Oliver is a man in his own kitchen cooking on television, and these elements at one time did not all come together. I don’t have room to expand, so I apologize for my rather crude explanation, but if you are uninspired to address my comments or questions, perhaps you’d like to elaborate on Brunson et al.’s (2001) use of articulation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Johnson et al (2006) (and Melanie) are certainly correct in pointing out that ‘research practice’ is a better term to describe the ways in which scholars engage in cultural studies research. It is apparent that, regardless of the theories or methods employed within a cultural study project, there is certainly a practice that one must take up in order to ensure that the research produced is contextualized; mindful of the political, economic, and social zeitgeist that the object of study in situated in. This of course is in addition to the researcher having to situate herself within not only the social climate, but her experiences, biases, and familiarity with multiple theories. This business of situating oneself is an active process requiring constant reflexivity of the researcher’s positionality as well as articulation, the connection of multiple ideas, theories, and subjects. Melanie, within your post you ask when enough is enough? When, as researchers are we engaging in enough reflexivity and articulation, and how can we tell when we have contextualized enough to consider our work worthy of being deemed a cultural study? I would argue and I think many cultural studies scholars would agree that there are no definite answers to these questions. I think Johnson specifically would reply to these questions with, ‘just keep reading’!
ReplyDeleteAs students engaged in cultural study, we are fortunate as Johnson et al suggests, to not only have endless texts but peers and professors to help us understand our topics of interest as well as our position within those topics (67). It is through such discussion that we are able to analyze the lived experience and be critical of hegemony. My concern though is not about what happens within our department or within our field. I wonder how cultural studies is received in larger academic and social contexts.
McDonald, as stated by King (2005) suggests that, “to identify and critically analyze dominant power relations can help create the possibility for transformation, but it is not the same as ‘securing practical changes” (33). I wonder how cultural studies research negotiates its place within the dominant societal structures that it is critical of. I ask this as I reflect on my own research project that will hopefully uncover the lived experience of adolescents with chronic illness, how they resist medical power and assume authority over their subjugated bodies. How is that going to pass through ethics? Who is going to fund such a radical project? What medical or educational institution is going to consider these results in their daily practices? Who is going to identify with my findings, find them to be emancipating, and use them to enact change?
I thought about this last question as I read the Brunsdon et al article. Despite acknowledging the gender/public service/consumption problems that the researchers are critical of, I will still watch Jamie Oliver because I like cooking shows and take them at face value. If I myself, a budding cultural studies student, can be so complacent and resistant to critical thought, who then is all of our mindfully contextualized, reflexive, and articulated research for?
Mel – great job! Many of your questions have “inspired” me, so I will seek to address some of your ideas through the (albeit constantly evolving) theoretical framework I have constructed that has been informed by my readings in this class specifically.
ReplyDeleteYou ask how much reflexivity we should include, and how do we know what is enough. While I agree with Jess that there is no fixed answer to these questions, I argue that the reflexivity Johnson et al. (2006) promote is not so much a question of quantity but of quality. While reflexivity can be made implicit or explicit throughout the various research moments and a culminating text, it should be present in all. As the authors state, reflexivity is not a mere confessional in which we outline our social positioning and autobiography at the beginning of a project; rather, it is present as a constant dialogue between ourselves and the social/spatial/temporal/cultural world and between ourselves and our objects/subjects of study. Reflexivity is also fundamental in understanding why we choose our topics of study, and how others behave self-reflexively in the presence of us, the researchers (p. 56). Thus, my understanding is that self-reflexivity should always be present in a cultural studies project. I am interested in hearing what other people gleaned from this week’s articles in terms of the quality of reflexivity.
Mel, you also asked if a practice-based field study could be part of cultural studies. I would emphatically say yes! As Johnson et al. argue, theory and practice, abstraction and empiricism are not mutually exclusive and are all present in varying degrees in a cultural studies project. A primarily empirical field study should be informed by theory and, dialectically, contribute to the evolution of this theory; this is the “praxis” component of cultural studies. Therefore, I believe that as long as a researcher makes his or her reflexivity known, identifies power relationships inherent in the project, and addresses the negotiation/dialectic between the object of the study and the context, then this qualifies as cultural studies. Indeed, Michael Mann (1986, in King, 2005) argues that empirical research is necessary for understanding the articulation between social forces and the consequent meanings in people’s lives. Due to the nature of cultural studies as a historically/culturally contingent praxis, it is necessary to constantly engage empirically with the subjects and objects of our study.
Jess, I particularly liked your discussion (or rather questioning) of the political engagement of cultural studies. Although I would hesitate to call you resistant to critical thought, I think your “complacency” would make an excellent object/subject of a cultural study! In the spirit of this “discipline,” I would challenge you to utilize a self-reflexive questioning to glean what would mobilize a budding cultural studies student, informed by your position/”knowledge”/constantly-evolving theories, to engage more with critical thought. And how does this knowledge of you (as a subject and object of study) change or inform your understanding of cultural studies, specifically in its ability to be political? I do find the notion of cultural studies-as-political fairly abstract, so I would be very interested in someone concretizing this for me!
I think this week’s readings--and this discussion--are useful in exploring some issues that are often taken for granted in the social sciences. Mel, you raise the question of “how much reflexivity is too much”, and while Carolyn touched on this issue, I would like to elaborate a little, although perhaps in a rather round-about way.
ReplyDeleteAs Johnson et al. (2006) discuss, the inter-disciplinary nature of cultural studies allows us to approach our work through a practice that accounts for the politics, ethics, and power dynamics of research rather than purely from a positivist or theoretical approach. For me, this is the draw of cultural studies. Although I always found myself in agreeance with many aspects of Marxist theory I was dissuaded by the focus on theory over praxis and saw the economic determinist approach to be overly reductionist. While I had never conceptualized it in these terms, I think the notion of articulation as addressed by Johnson et al. (2006) and Slack (1996) fill in some of the gaps between cultural studies and more reductionist approaches like Marxism. Slack (1996) urges us to think of articulation as a way of characterizing social formations within their particular contexts: through contextual analysis reductionism and essentialism can be avoided. To return to the issue Mel raised, articulation, in conjunction with what Johnson et al. (2006) call “mapping the field”--the laying out of theoretical frameworks or approaches around a particular topic--are essential tools of cultural studies that allow the subjectivity, or lived experience, of the “object of study” to be explored. This is a central paradigm of cultural studies as it allows for interventionist aims by moving away from conventional positivist approaches in which the researcher sets out for a particular truth to be found. As Haraway reminds us, knowledge is partial. As such, reflexivity and positionality are ongoing processes in cultural studies so as to uncover many partial, competing truths. I don’t think this should be seen as a limitation but rather an asset that allows for the mapping of competing truths within a given context.
This brings me to the issue that Jess raises when she asks how cultural studies practioners negotiate their place within dominant structures that they are seeking to critique. Again, I think that this is where cultural studies draws it greatest strength. As King (2005) argues, to constitute cultural studies, the analysis must be considered in terms of its competitive, reinforcing, and determining relations with other forces. Thus, and the practice of cultural studies forces practitioners to position themselves within the dominant structures they critiques. This is evidenced in the emergence of the field of study itself as much of the research emerging from the Birmingham school it its early days focused on the British working classes that Williams, Thompson, and Hoggart were part of. Similar positionalities can be found in feminist theories, queer theory, and post-colonial theory to name three. These issues require more discussion, but alas, I am out of space.
Learning about Cultural Studies, which, according to Johnson et al. (2006), has been greatly influenced by Marxist and feminist theories, I have learned that we, mi speak of straight white males here, need to be thinking not only re-‘flexively’ but also respectfully in how we un/consciously choose to communicate our words. This is true, in my opin-ñ/ion, not just en mi writing but also in mi speech or everyday verbal communication. Contemporary discourse on the body suggests that (the) [human] body is (some)thing, sometimes, when it is really a someone. Writing this notion of the objectified body onto the social body that has been objectified (See Conboy, et al.[1997] Writing on the Body: Female Embodiment and Feminist Theory, a self-proclaimed "gender and culture reader") in gross anatomy, as Pronger exemplifies, then, means that it is easier for us to perform unethical everyday behaviours: racism, sexism, as well as all the other more obvious – ism’s, which can be a nuisance for marginalized people(s). This notion is something that Pronger, a U of T phys. ed. grad, and former gross anatomy student, calls a “technological habitus” (see Pronger’s 1995 Lesson of Gross Anatomy in Quest 47[4], p. 48) I felt a need to mention this to readers as it narrates or communicates where my understanding of (the) body was first influenced. Pronger argues that when we teach about (the) body, we neglect the body, please think abstractly here, a sociocultural history, m-y/our history or a broader context for our lives. This is something that Johnson, et al. also alluded to in this week’s article (p. 50). “‘Realiability,’ ‘validity’ and ‘representativeness,’” they said, “‘Cultural studies conventions are looser – or perhaps just more implicit.” As such, normalizing other languages, or “unnormal” (English) academic words, if necessary, such as “mi,” which is a Spanish word I plan to use in not only my speech but also my writing in order to speak more actively, as well as help narrow the gap in dialogues between English / and \ el Español.
ReplyDeleteComparatively speaking, I noticed that the King (2005) article, as informative as it is, neglects to break down the wall for some gender non-conforming individuals, mainly intersexuals, transsexuals, and transgendered peoples, as it only discussed him/her (p.21, as one example. Neither the King article, nor previous others can be chastised for improper phonetics, though, because published papers are, even still, likely subjected to or “normalized” by patriarchal academic policies, embedded at or embodied within most, if not all, post-secondary institutions. Moreover, genealogically speaking, the notion of "hir," which originated in aboriginal feminist and queer theory, back in 2005, was nowhere near being considered “normal” in most disciplines. Finishing up my words, then, although I am planning to use a “spanglish” technique in my thesis writing and speech, there will obviously be issues of [not only] power [but also “post”/colonization?] that need to be addressed in preparing for my own Nicaraguan research object. Thanks for reading.
Thank you everyone for your very thoughtful responses. Carolyn, you state that the area of "cultural studies-as-political" remains somewhat abstract for you and I feel the same way. Johnson et al. (2006) state research is a political activity and that praxis is "aimed at the social betterment or emancipation"(51). And I question, does cultural studies research on its own affect change? Or are many cultural studies reasearchers also political activists, sharing their findings with social/cultural groups or organizations who help "fight for the cause"? I am not questioning the importance of cultural studies research and the potential it has for informing change, but in this neo-liberal society, can research on its own really lead to "social betterment" (51)?
ReplyDeleteMel, I think you raise a very important point. My belief (hope) is that cultural studies does effect change by challenging dominant knowledge, presenting counter-narratives, and affording voice to marginalized populations. I think you're right in proposing that many academics are politically active, and also have the opportunity to reach a wider audience through their teachings. However, I think (hope) that scholarship is worthwhile on its own in that it contributes to a growing body of knowledge that, over-time, gets taken up in different capacities to challenge hegemonies. Johnson et al (2001) draw upon Gramsci work to show that hegemony operates not by getting everyone to believe the same thing, but rather by promoting the belief that there is no alternative. Cultural studies can present an alternative.
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of the course I kept questioning the difference between Sociology and Cultural Studies. From a basic understanding, they seemed to encompass relatively similar purposes. As I read more about how cultural studies is conducted, I finally realize how the two differ and how my own experience as an undergraduate sociology student has left me relatively narrow-minded on what it means to study social phenomena.
ReplyDeleteJohnson’s book displays the foundation of cultural studies as being based on the notion that no single theory or method can be used to demonstrate or explain cultural patterns. He uses the term “methodological combinations” to explain how cultural studies are conducted. The concept of mixing methods is very new to me. In my undergraduate degree I did several projects which required me to choose a methodology, study a social phenomenon, analyze my data, and fit my results into an outdated theory on social trends. I was rarely required to think outside the box and was persuaded to be simple and concise with everything I wrote about. I was trained to stick to specific guidelines and never to stray from what was being asked of me.
I found myself in a rut two weeks ago when my Qualitative Methods professor asked me to come up with a research question that could be answered with data from both interviews and observations. I initially thought it would be impossible to study something from two distinctly different angles; however, after learning about cultural studies methods, I’ve started to see the benefit in using different methodologies to study one idea. As Johnson notes, each methodology has its own limitations. I’m beginning to see how it could be nearly impossible to explain anything using just one method. I wonder if my research results would have been vastly different in my undergraduate degree had I learnt to approach my topics in the manners that cultural studies would approach them.
When I first read the word “articulation” in Slack’s article, the initial image in my mind was of two bones being “connected” by articular cartilage. I think that this image metaphorically represents cultural studies; the joining of two (or more) methods to explain culture (which both Johnson and Slack demonstrate in their writings). Slick explains articulation as “...as a way of characterizing a social formation without falling into the twin traps of reductionism and essentialism.” Essentialism is practically the only method I applied in my undergraduate degree. I was taught to find the one description to explain what I wanted to study. Cultural studies allows the researcher to borrow techniques and combine them (Slick). Not only does cultural studies combine methods, but it uses a mixture of different disciplines and theories. The word “unity” is essential in both the articulation conducted in cultural studies and in the connection between two bones. Bones cannot function without articulation, just as culture cannot be conceptualized without the combination of different methods and/or theories. I think that learning about cultural studies has widened my perception on what it means to study the world. I look forward to learning about the different methodologies that I will be able to apply to my own project.
First of all, I’d like to apologize for an error I made in last week’s blog: I inadvertently reversed the terms “text” and “work” when discussing Barthes’s formulation of the two. To be clear, texts are dynamic; a work is a finished product.
ReplyDeleteI would like to comment on self-reflexivity. As Carolyn and Robbie indicate, self-reflexivity is not (only) a confessional opportunity, which, sadly, often turns into the empty autobiographical disclaimers that characterize the introductions of so many essays. Self-reflexivity is (also) a mode whereby researchers remain aware of their values and motivations, and they ensure that these manifest in their writing. This (more recognizably academic?) activity might be likened to when Fredric Jameson (1981), in referring to literature, urges us to recognize “formal processes as sedimented content in their own right” (The Political Unconscious: Narrative As a Socially Symbolic Act). In other words, the beliefs of writers and the cultural conditions they respond to are embedded in their methods: this is as true of cultural critics as it is of other writers.
I was happy to have in our readings an article of cultural criticism (“Factual Entertainment”), to observe in action the claims made elsewhere about methodologies. First, it was refreshing to encounter a multi-vocal text. This method of collaboration doesn’t demand the losses of compromise that joint authorship often imposes. Furthermore, the introduction notes how their approach of looking at a television time slot in its entirety allows the group to avoid “sever[ing]” an “object of study . . . from its broadcast environment” (30); what I find intriguing is that their collaborative approach allows them to locate their own arguments within an interpretive community, thus avoiding a disconnect between subjectivity and intellectual environment. It is a way of positioning.
Rachel Moseley examines leisure programming “in relation to notions of public service broadcasting” (32) as well as in relation to former iterations of similar shows. With relationality (this ought to be a word) featuring so prominently in Sammi’s article, this approach is not surprising. Perhaps more subtle, however, is Moseley’s deployment of articulation. For instance, she highlights the function of cookery shows—to encourage healthy eating—and garden shows—to exhibit domestic spaces—and ties these aims to dominant British values, showing, via careful articulation, how these apparently fluffy programmes relate to notions of “the national good” (34).
As another example of cultural studies at work, Charlotte Brunsdon’s contribution is worth mentioning. She uses a more conspicuous historical approach than Moseley, revealing a “journey in which the BBC has differently striven to address the nation as it finds it” (53). What I notice, however, is that this longitudinal view also accentuates how the practice of cultural studies itself is contingent upon the concerns and the tools of the times. She recognizes how the values and agendas of their group in the 1970s—including a determining commitment to Althusserian theory—drove their research. However, when she moves to her contemporary critique of power dynamics in the home makeover shows, Brunsdon does not explicitly examine what cultural and academic conditions allow her to perform this analysis. She never alerts the reader to what I have noticed she accomplishes via temporal analysis (i.e., positioning cultural studies itself).
So I’ll end with a question that is perhaps the opposite of “when is self-reflexivity too much”: when is self-reflexivity so implicit that it is perhaps not enough?