Becker, Howard S. Tricks of the Trade: How to Think About your Research While You're doing It. 1. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1997
Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonne S. Lincoln. Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005
“The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research” provides us with a historical background of where the practice of research originated and what its initial purposes were for. Originally, research was used to produce knowledge about indigenous peoples (Denzin 1) Researchers would observe foreign settings to study culture, customs, and habits of groups (Denzin 2). The article discusses the different phases of research over the last 100 years and shows how the research process has progressed to how we do it today. It also discusses the different phases of the research process. I think the article puts into perspective the importance of our own research. By studying “the other” we open up opportunities for certain groups and we provide the world better understandings of current social issues.
Howard Becker’s book about sociological research is a guide to learning how to think about society, interpret it, and make sense of it. As a student at the “Chicago School” of Sociology, Becker experienced the initial thinking of sociology and chooses to share his expertise and advice with future researchers. He uses the word “trick” to describe a technique which can be used to help explore society. The tricks are meant to help with difficulty, and to act as models which can be imitated when similar problems arise (Becker 4). In my opinion, it is important that we take these tricks to heart because they can only help us when/if we become lost in understanding the social phenomena we study. It is especially important to look back on past research and/or theory to help discover our own topics and interpret our analyses.
The first portion of the book describes tricks that can help us shape our topics and determine the direction of our research. Becker advises us to construct an image about our topic using existing data and theories mixed with our own intuitions and experiences. He goes on to list about a dozen “tricks” of pre-existing general imageries. These “tricks” are not meant to act as theories, but rather as tools and remedies for better understanding our topics. I think that we’ve all already constructed an initial image in our minds about our own topics. Does anyone feel that Becker’s advice has altered their images? Or even persuaded you to think about altering it?
The second part of the book teaches us about sampling. Becker offers advice on data collection. The tricks he offers are meant to help researchers as they encounter problems or to act as tools to prevent such problems from occurring. He constructs a list of rules to help researchers avoid common mistakes. Although I do not have the room to thoroughly discuss any of the tricks he teaches us in this chapter, I thought I’d mention the issue of authenticity since Melanie brought it up on Tuesday. Becker reminds us and warns us that it is extremely difficult to label anything as authentic. He also advises that we never “assume” or use “common sense” to justify anything. Becker offers some light advice such as “everything is possible,” even the rare, and that there is no “pure description” for anything. Overall, he advises that we step away from our instincts and open our minds to unforeseen possibilities.
Concepts are “...generalized statements about whole classes of phenomena...” (Becker 109). They show us “... where to look, what to look for, (and) how to recognize...” (Becker 110). They are statements about facts that can typically be applied anywhere at any point in time. In this chapter, Becker provides us with the tricks for “...using (our) data to create more complex ideas that will help (us) find more problems worth studying and more things about what (we) have studied worth thinking about and incorporating into (our) analysis” (Becker 109). The basic trick Becker teaches us in this chapter is that “...the definition of concepts rest on what the examples they are based on have in common” (Becker 119-20). Once these examples are established, a concept can be created. The knowledge the examples produces is only useful if it can be reapplied (Becker 123). Becker warns us that we must be careful not to apply our example to a concept, but rather a concept to our topic. We can only discover which concept is applicable once we’ve gathered all our information.
The remainder of the book teaches us tricks on how we can take full advantage of the data we collect. Becker insists that there is always more to be learned and that should we want/need to learn more, we should look no further than the data we’ve already collected. The tricks he teaches us in this chapter show us how we can use logic to further extract information from the data we’ve already analysed. Logic, according to Becker, teaches us how to go about “...manipulating what we know according to some set of rules so that the manipulations produce new things” (Becker 146). The chapter teaches us about thinking, and how the thoughts we produce can further our research. There are two specific tricks of logic that Becker teaches in this chapter; finding the major premise, and using truth tables to discover possible combinations.
The first trick involves the typical A=B=C argument. There is a major premise (A=B), a minor premise (B=C) and then a conclusion (A=C). We may have learned this simple logic in elementary school, but Becker warns us about the issues that can arise in making these types of statements. He brings up examples where the minor premises involved stereotypical “facts” about race or religion which ultimately allowed for false conclusions to be made. The A=B=C equation we once knew as a logical explanation for many phenomena is rarely applicable in sociological research. Facts cannot be subjective and we must always be careful of what we deem as true or false. Do you think this model can ever be applicable today in qualitative research?
Becker advises us to design a way to manage our data using specific language and terminology that reflect consistent methods of social research. He lists several different methods of organizing data that can help develop ideas. I don’t have much space to discuss these methods, but hopefully someone else in the class will. Becker believes that logic provides us with possibilities for discovering more information that could otherwise go unnoticed. These tricks can be extremely helpful for us when dealing with own data.
Overall, Becker has extreme faith in the future of research. He believes in the power of a student’s mind and has an overall positive attitude about the results they can accomplish. I think this book speaks directly to us as we are about to embark on our own research journey. I hope that every one of you gained something positive and helpful out of Becker’s advice. I’d love to hear about which tricks are most applicable to your own research.
Having read L.T. Smith’s (1999) “Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples,” I would contend that “studying ‘the other’” doesn’t necessarily open up opportunities for marginalized groups, nor does it necessarily provide the world with a better (to me, “better” is a “more truthful” representation) understanding of contemporary social issues. (I speak of Smith, here, because the Denzin & Lincoln [2005] article drew attention to an oft-quoted passage from her book in the introduction: “the term ‘research’ is inextricably linked to European imperialism and colonialism ... The word itself is probably one of the dirtiest words in the indigenous world’s vocabulary” [1; as cited by Denzin & Lincoln].)
ReplyDeleteThe Denzin & Lincoln (2005) article draws our attention not only to the genealogy of contemporary qualitative [QL] research paradigms, that is, how they came to be, but also to the main differences between quantitative [QN] and QL methodologies. Since QL methodologies, historically, “in many if not all of its forms (observation, participation, interviewing, ethnography),” have “serve[d] as a metaphor for colonial knowledge, for power, and for truth” (1), I am increasingly becoming aware of how my project, though it will be utilizing QL methods or methodologies (i.e. participant observation, and semi-structured, open-ended interviews, as examples), could in fact be interpreted as a colonial project.
Turning to the second reading and Erica’s first questions: I am in agreement with Erica Becker’s book is effective in that it has the capability to both narrow our research topics and make sense of messier concepts or thoughts. Personally, I was most influenced when Becker suggested that researchers concern themselves with the “how” of a social phenomenon as opposed to the “why.” For instance, rather than examining marijuana users, his past research focused on marijuana use as an activity, which seems to be a more ethical approach. “‘How?’ questions, when [Becker] asked them, gave people more leeway, were less constraining,” which invited the subject to “tell a story that included whatever they thought the story ought to include” and hence didn’t demand a “‘right’ answer” (59). Specifically, for my theses, I was planning to ask “why?” one identified as Nicaraguan-mestizo and “why?” one took part in Güegüence dance tradition, however, I have now come to realize that it would clearly be better for me to ask “how?” my subjects came to do these things. Gracias para su tiempo.
The reemerging theme of Becker’s (1998) book is to challenge our views and expectations: to look for the deviant, or non-conforming, data and use this to question existing theories, knowledge and our own preconceived ideas. He states that the tricks described in his book are not meant to make our research easier but to “suggest ways of interfering with the comfortable thought routines that academic life promotes” (Becker, 1998: p.6). This advice, as well as Becker’s (1998) warning to new researchers not to fall into the “seduction” of assuming, unquestionably, previous researchers’ views when doing the literature review resonated with me. These pieces of wisdom are important because in the past I have sought research to prove my hypothesis without being open to divergent thoughts. Reflecting back, I did exactly what Becker warns against, which is why I his tricks, including null hypothesis, will be key to my research process. Trying to disprove what you know is not true in order to see your images in new ways, to make new connections or see new possibilities is something I avoided, but can now see its value. I appreciate Becker’s (1998) insistence on challenging our views and thinking outside the box.
ReplyDeleteLike Max, I too found myself questioning my role as the researcher. I am not clear on how to overcome what Denzin & Lincoln (2005) address as a “representational crisis” and the “legitimation crisis” (p.19). I am hesitant, as a new researcher, to be responsible for interpreting and representing the phenomena of my study. Becker (1998) recommends looking at society as a machine to understand all the interconnections between individuals and society in order to have the most accurate understanding of the phenomena in which we study. However, I do not feel a master’s degree affords the time to do this. I would like to interview more than just the subjects of my research question and to involve more triangulation than interviews and text, but I do not feel I have the time. I was afforded some sense of ease from Denzin & Lincoln (2005) who acknowledge that “qualitative interpretations are constructed” and “there is no single interpretive truth” (p.26). I appreciate the sense of unease that I am left with as I know it will make me reflect continuously throughout the research process and it will make me more thoughtful when interpreting my data.
My final comment is on the way Becker (1998) has written the book. I was surprised to see so many scientific examples and references to mathematics. Denzin & Lincoln’s (2005) chapter gives some insight into his use of mathematical equations, as they state Becker used “quasi-statistics” to describe his findings. However, I question how widely his methods for categorizing data are used; specifically property space analysis and qualitative comparative analysis. Are these more of a positivist approach that would not be used by cultural studies researchers?
Qualitative research encompasses everything from the most scientific methodology to the fluid and narrative approach brought forth by postmodern scholars. According to Lincoln and Denzin, on one side of the spectrum, qualitative research is of the, “broad, interpretive, postexperimental, postmodern, feminist and critical sensibility” while the research approaches that Becker outlines are, rooted in the, “narrowly defined positivist, postpositivist, humanistic, and naturalistic conceptions of human experience and its analysis” (7). It is evident within this week’s posts that this exposure to the range of possibilities within qualitative research has finds us all reflecting on our positions as future researchers and how exactly we are going to dive into these academic endeavours. I feel myself leaning towards postmodern thought as I am becoming increasingly critical of the more modernist approaches that rely on systematic means of organizing, reducing, and generalizing information.
ReplyDeleteBecker shares his tricks of the research trade along with countless self-promoting anecdotes about his research and fondness for divey jazz bars. Becker claims that these tricks show the budding researcher how to define, extract, disregard, reduce, generalize, and theorize information to produce a sense of an objective reality. It could be my cynical tendencies or the fact that I have yet to engage in research and am still unfamiliar with the process, but it seems like the tricks put forth by Becker are simply systematic strategies that enable the researcher to hide or justify his or her biases and preconceptions. How is it that someone can reduce and organize their research to a ‘truth table’ then proceed to decide what categories are more valid than others? Is any social or cultural phenomenon so simple that it can be organized and studied this way?
I like the idea of a fluid narrative, one that enables the research participants to be in direct and candid conversation with the researcher. Everything is put on the table and everything is important because it is all part of the tangled web of the lived experience. I understand that the researcher is still in a privileged position where they must focus on particular aspects of that experience but does that process have to be done in such a way that these experiences simply become the remainder of some mathematical calculation?
In my last bit of the word count, I would like to pose one more question, somewhat unrelated to the rest of my blog but hopefully a little more concise and engaging. Becker discusses the idea of limitlessness of objects of research and states that, “we’d like, in retrospect, to have everything, because all of it will fit the definition and all of it could be made the object of serious study” (74). Do you agree that any and all experiences should be fair game to be studied or is this just evidence of the legacy of colonial thought that entitles researchers to understand and produce knowledge?
Jess, I really appreciated your comments regarding Becker. Aside from the rather pompous and self-aggrandizing tone I found difficult to overlook, his entire discussion of “tricks” made me uneasy. From my reading of Denzin and Lincoln, I believe Becker is a post-positivist. Post-positivists, according to their definition, believe that truth can be approximated through “uncovering as much reality as possible” (p. 11). Theories should be tested and verified wherever possible. While Becker recognizes that researchers are influenced by their own stereotypical knowledge of the world (or their “imagery”), he believes this problem can be diminished using various methods (or “tricks”) that will, it is implied, lead to a truthful account of how the world works. For instance, one of his tricks for understanding all of the various factors involved in a phenomenon is to think of the world as a “machine” with various parts. Each part coincides with a factor that influences the outcome. All that is needed to approximate a “truth” is to uncover as many of these factors as possible. His advice to achieve this? Just keep looking. However, if he believes – as he says he does – that researchers can only see through their eyes (necessarily influenced by their positionality), how does “looking” achieve any sort of objective truth?
ReplyDeleteBecker’s discussion of syllogisms, major and minor premises particularly irked me. He accuses other social scientists (a tone he employs throughout the book) of attempting to critique minor premises instead of the implied major premise. He uses sociologists’ discussion of Jim Crow laws and race relations as an example to “prove” his point. He argues that in attempting to demonstrate that Black people do not smell (a minor premise), researchers overlooked the implied (not explicitly stated) major premise that there should be separate facilities for people who smell “bad.” His “trick” is to find the implied major premise of any assertion and analyze that. I find this particularly problematic, though, as he is valuing (based on his own imagery) one premise over another. Without having read the scholars he is criticizing, I am tempted to defend them. What is wrong with attempting to deconstruct the concept of “race” through critiquing a trait associated with the “Other”? How is this any less important than critiquing the underlying major premise Becker has assumed?
Finally, in his discussion of interpretation, Becker concedes that all description is interpreted to a certain extent. However, he argues that there are different degrees of interpretation, and in gather/collecting data social scientists should work with as little analysis as possible. This is another of his “tricks.” Becker quotes Georges Perec to exemplify a writer who utilizes little interpretation. However, I would argue that by describing someone as walking “rapidly” (without alluding to motivation), Perec is making a relational judgment based on how fast he walks. To the rapid walker, however, this may be a moderate or even slow pace. Even this attempt at objective description is inherently flawed, as it is viewed through subjective eyes. By saying we can be less interpretive (and implicitly more objective) Becker is attempting to create a less value-laden, subjective science. However, by stating a clearly flawed objectivity, is he not creating the insidious power of a supposed (though obviously not) power/value/subjective-free science that Butler explored in her article from last week?
I think I share some of Jess’ and Carolyn’s sentiments when reading Becker’s (1998) piece. Although I enjoyed his (attempted) use of examples--and appreciate that it seems like just last week we were criticizing other scholars for not doing so--I am uncertain how the examples he uses, and his tricks in general, can be put into practice. This is to say that I am still unclear as to how the personal experience--of a scholar, in this case--can be used as evidence. I found myself questioning whether these tricks (imagery, sampling, concepts, and logic)--rather than “methods” or “tactics” like interviews--are really “tricks of the trade” that aid in putting theory into practice as he argues, or merely, an issues that should be kept in mind in general while undertaking a research project (as the subtitle suggests). Becker argues that tricks are “ways of interfering with comfortable thought routines” (p.6) so as to “turn things around, to see things differently” (p.7). So, to take Becker’s use of imagery, he argues that we can create a mental image of a surrounding or group of people by using our existing knowledge to essentially fill in the gaps of our research. Yet, if we are seeking to understand the personal experiences of a group, how does this image construction occur without drawing on dominant and often biased understanding of such a topic? While Becker does account for stereotyping, I am still unclear as to how this “trick” can be put into practice.
ReplyDeleteI also echo Carolyn’s viewpoint on Becker’s (1998) conception of truth. At times, it seemed that Becker’s use of multiple “tricks”, were an attempt to present a more in-depth, and rich understanding of the topic of study. He argues that when using a synecdoche, for example, it shouldn’t “have features that are specific to some subgroup of the whole, which the unwary will take as essential characteristic of the class” (p.70). In this sense, Becker takes a very postmodern approach to his work in that he is challenging dominant understanding. Yet, it also seemed--and perhaps I’m misinterpreting this--that Becker’s tricks are intended to help in uncovering a knowable “truth” rather that multiple understandings of a topic. His discussions of various imagery, “the null hypothesis”, coincidence, society as machine, society as organism, and so forth, are presented in a manner that conveys different ways of getting at a truth, rather than a reflexive positionality that would incorporate different ways to illuminate competing truths: Or, better yet, using the concept of articulation to characterize these social formations within social contexts, as Slack (1996) discussed a few weeks ago.
Finally, I thought Becker’s remarks on using “how” rather than “why” a useful notion. By using how, we get a better understanding of the social processes that shape our understandings and practices, rather than why, which seeks results rather than means. I wonder, however, if these two concepts are mutually exclusive, or if there’s potential to incorporate both the how and the why.
All previous bloggers: your engaging comments really prompted me to think more critically than I had been doing thus far, so thank you for that. I didn’t think of myself as passively swallowing what Becker had to say, but I mostly found his “tricks” insightful and helpful. (That said, his rather gender-specific, privileged academic experiences—including his deification of Hughes—did rub me the wrong way.) Is he making claims for Truth, or is he asking social scientists to practice crystallization (Denizen and Lincoln, 6)? He doesn’t say capital “T” truth is a possible or desirable goal, but so many of you saw it in his work. Nonetheless, upon further reflection, I think maybe I do still find his book mostly useful. I did not interpret him as attempting to approximate objectivity; rather, I read what Melanie describes in the opening sentence of her post.
ReplyDeleteBecker’s tricks often lead to what I’ve learned are common (albeit Eurocentric) cultural studies methods—and in a variety of modes, not just modernist or positivist. The trick “Things are just people acting together” (50), by reminding researchers that objects have no inherent meaning, acts in a postmodern manner by revealing how items are constructed and understood definitionally. Enter the postmodern in the implication that all is text, and in the exposure of power relations that make some definitions widely accepted while others remain unrecognizable.
Another example from the images chapter is the series of tricks around narrative. These lead to what I believe is called “thick description” in cultural studies methods. I’m not sure that using such tricks must necessarily lead to misplaced claims of objectivity. However, Carolyn raised an excellent point about the rapid walker. What I take from this remark is that primarily observational accounts can highlight even the most benign-seeming representative activity in a way that already-heavily interpreted material cannot.
The question becomes for me: when that which is routinely ignored becomes visible through research, is that a good thing or a bad thing? On one hand, there is potential power in being outside of the gaze, in the margins, un-surveilled, if you will. But what about when those who go unmarked and uninterrogated are precisely those who already have, or have access to, the most power?
The difficulty that I have with social science research is the emphasis on studying social “problems.” I remember reading an interesting piece on designing research questions. The writer pointed to the amount of research expended on examining violent acts within Hispanic American communities. Such investigations prompt research questions such as “why are Hispanic people killing each other?” and the answers that emerge concern theories of internalized racism, self-hatred and the like. The writer then pointed out that a far more interesting, and useful, question might be the more general formulation, “why do people perpetrate so many violent acts within their own ethnic/racial groups?” Why do Caucasians tend to kill Caucasians; why do Asians tend to kill Asians, etc., etc. Then the answers will be more about geographic proximity and other factors beyond individual psychology.
Great, I thought, but how do I come up with questions like this? I think maybe Becker’s “tricks” can help?