08:01:49 Well, should we get started. 08:01:53 Sounds like a good idea. 08:01:57 Welcome, everybody. 08:01:58 I'm to for a Yano sitting here in
Amsterdam, and my colleague on this methods clinic venture Perry short che is over there
in Utah in Salt Lake City. 08:02:11 Welcome to the fourth. 08:02:15 In this series of methods clinics. I was asked to remind everybody that we are
recording, as we have in the past, clinics, and we will upload the recording and a resource
sheet that Perry and I have
pulled together with assistance from our two guests
08:02:39 to the interpretive methodologies and methods web page. 08:02:45 Later today if we can and otherwise
it's the beginning of next week, and Fred Schaefer Are you still there, I could acknowledge
you at this point hi Fred chair. 08:03:00 Chair of the executive committee
of the interpretive methodologies and methods conference group at the American Political
Science Association one of our co sponsors, along with the Women's Caucus and poli
tical
science, which is also at the American political 08:03:15 Science Association. 08:03:17 And we are hosted in this session
at the University of Utah. Thank you, Perry for organizing that thank
you Devin Cantwell, who is a PhD student currently at the University of Utah but about, about
to move over to the University of Ottawa, Devon is serving
08:03:42 as our tech guru. this time. And thanks also to Zachary Stickney who is
also a doctoral student at the University of Utah who's going to be
managing the chat. 08:03:52 This time, and I want to welcome,
then our two co hosts our guests for this session on interviewing. One is dr Nadia brown from Purdue University. Hi Nadia, and the other is professor and rock
Professor Robin Harper, from your college at the City University
08:04:14 of New York. 08:04:15 This is the second of three sessions
and which were taking up methods for generating data. Those of you who've participated before I
don't know if you paid attention to that. 08:04:26
It wasn't something that Perry and
I intended from the start. But as we've been working through the questions
that the first group of 51 registrants sent us at our request to help us manage these
sessions. 08:04:43 Once it became clear that we weren't
going to be 15 or 20 people sitting around a table and chatting seminar style. 08:04:52 We've been using those, and this
organizational logic came from our engagement with those questions so last time we talked
about ethnography that is observing
with whatever degree of participating. 08:05:09 And today we pick up interviewing. 08:05:12 At the end of the session today. I'll have something to say about the next
two clinics. So, before we launch. I want to say something about interviewing
and our approach to it today. 08:05:27 Lots of researchers interview. 08:05:29 But interpretive interviewing is
different in various ways from other approaches. 08:05:35 For me, something that Malcolm Chapman
wrote in a 2001 book chapter captures the spir
it of the differences. This is a passage that Perry and I quoted
in the interpretation and method book in both additions. 08:05:50 Chapman was describing the reactions
of a colleague of his someone trained as an economist, in survey research and comparing
his reactions with his own Chapman having trained as an anthropologist but the two of
them were collaborating on a research project 08:06:08 and Chapman said, quote, I think
my colleague at the time, viewed what the textbooks call unstructured
interviews as
a subset of interviews. 08:06:19 I regarded it as a subset of talking
to people. 08:06:24 So, let's talk to some people. 08:06:27 Very. 08:06:29 Okay, I want to first lay out the
structure of the session so everybody awake is aware of what that is and then I'll introduce
our first two question asked. 08:06:42 So the organization of the session
for today's that we're going to have to 30 minutes segments, then within each segment,
either divorce or I will ask two people to make to ar
ticulate their questions for everyone. 08:07:02 And at that point, then our guests
Robin Harper and Nadia brown will hop in with their takes on the questions. 08:07:16 And after that you'll be a chance
for Zach who is monitoring the chat to bring in some comments or questions from everyone. Before we move on to the second session which
is similarly structured. 08:07:32 Then at the end we'll have 15 minute
breakout rooms so you'll get a chance to meet some people in small groups. And there'll be
a little signal of course
that tells you that we're all coming back together for the farewell and for the information
about 08:07:46 the May and June clinics. 08:07:50 So let me introduce the two question
Oscars and the first one. 08:07:56 And please unmute yourself is cillit
selling your mas and please. 08:08:05 Correct. My name print pronunciation if you need to
be. If you know from the University of basil. So sleep. 08:08:15 Yeah. My question is about the subjectivity of interpretation,
which
is always very much criticized by the audience and readers or, for example in conferences
or, in some in such areas, especially on culturally sensitive issues. 08:08:41 When we make interviews on them. 08:08:49 And, more or less, our political
views are engaged with the subject. 08:08:56 For example, in order to clarify
it. If I go to Turkey I'm from Turkey originally
actually, if I go to Turkey and make a research with the Armenian community on the Armenian
Genocide, for example. 08:09:11 And
let's say that I have five participants
and I'm making interview with them. 08:09:19 And another researcher who has more
nationalistic views is doing the same or similar interview with the same participants. 08:09:31 We will have, of course very different
results. 08:09:37 Regarding, of course, our world we
use. 08:09:50 And it is very much criticized in
the scientific areas, so. And in those cases which are very sensitive
when we're talking about traumas or like genocides. We cannot just put I'
m or show very solid
documents, or pictures. 08:10:04 We are rely on the stories of people. 08:10:10 And of course we have to interpret
them. So how can we make them more quote unquote
sensitive. 08:10:19 So objective. Or, how can we reduce this subjectivity. This is my question. Okay, thank you. 08:10:26 Thank you very much. 08:10:28 So our second question, please unmute
yourself is from unleash was a PhD student at Western University on. 08:10:39 Yes. Yeah. Hi everyone. 08:10:42 Yep. So, thank
you so much for having me, like
to have a chance to pull my question about like IPA. So in my doctoral project impact policy education,
why I have an opportunity to you IPA to conduct data analysis. 08:11:02 So my data. 08:11:04 I include a composed of life policy
document and semi structure with interview with university leaders. So this is my question to what eaten. Can I interpret the meaning of artifacts. 08:11:23 Suresh metaphor, and Policy Object,
so that we can not go too far from the me
aning communicated by the interviewees. 08:11:35 Okay, thank you very much john, did
you want to say a bit more about that question. 08:11:40 Yes. 08:11:41 I want to elaborate a bit more about
my situation. 08:11:46 So, in my first draft of my chapter,
I present a fight in my data analysis. So I submitted to my supervisor, and I knew
the structure of data analysis, like I do a metaphor that are different, but it's been
used in my interview. 08:12:07 And then I also use Policy Object. 08:12:10 Wh
en I submit my fighting chapter
to my supervisor, see keep saying that, like, we need to know more, the meaning of metaphor,
and object. So, I heard a question, and I try to make
it clear, the meaning from what participant want to communicate with me. 08:12:35 But I, she want more from that metaphor,
an object bird. 08:12:41 I cannot go to file from there. What they share with me. 08:12:47 So to one of the mid. We try to communicate their meaning, but we
can meet the requirement of my supervisor
about the meaning of it. Okay. Thank you very much. 08:13:01 So not yet and Robin. 08:13:09 Thank you for for the questions. 08:13:13 It's really interesting problem because
we start with this idea of what it is that this kind of interviewing is supposed to be
doing. 08:13:21 And our essential goal is not to
uncover some kind of truth that's lying outside that's waiting to be found. But to, to look at, at the shape and the understanding
of of the issue itself and. 08:13:42 And so the subjectivi
ty is actually
key to understanding what it is that we're talking about. We're not looking for an objective truth we're
looking really for a subject of understanding, and that we can really use everything that
we have at our disposal 08:13:56 and our who we are, how we look at
issues. 08:14:01 To help us to understand and inform
and also to approach people in the field, that it can be very helpful to, to be whether
you're an insider and outsider. 08:14:17 I'm, you know I am, I'm an outsider
in m
ost of the instances where I interview. 08:14:23 And I think Nadia will probably talk
about although I don't know but about being an insider on a lot of the environments where
she talks to So my research deals with citizenship and naturalization belonging inclusion exclusion
and borders those kinds 08:14:38 of questions, and the places where
I interview generally are in, when I, when I do things and other countries, I'm not a
member of either the dominant group or of the, the immigrant groups th
at I talked to. 08:14:54 So it's a very different kind of
of interviewing this allows me to have some sort of a distance and also allows me to be
let into a conversation because I'm a safe person to talk to. 08:15:08 And I think that that that's usually
a very helpful, kind of thing. 08:15:14 I think that that I should say that
some of the training that I got in how to interview also like informs the kinds of the
ways that I asked questions in these environments to get the broadest possible resp
onse. 08:15:30 So, when I was still in graduate
school we didn't have any program and interviewing in in political science so I went to the one
place where they did have it which was in clinical psychology and I begged my way in. 08:15:45 And they, and I studied with Peter
Frankel and he said, the thing you have to do is to try to figure out where the parameters
are how large the spaces, and that through asking these extremely broad questions at
the very beginning, you can then set up 08:16:00 a
parameter and then figure out what
the dimensions are of the, of the issue that's at hand. 08:16:10 And. And so every like interview begins with a
question that something like when you think of the word citizenships I'm talking about
citizenship. What do you think about the word citizenship
what comes to mind, and then asking somebody can you tell me
08:16:23 a positive story about citizenship, and then can you tell me a negative story
about citizenship, and then situated it within this it begi
ns like a frame of thinking of
how we should look at these kinds of issues. 08:16:38 And, yeah, so I think that that's
that's one way of dealing with this. 08:16:48 In terms of, of finding out how of
starting to explore the, the extent that the keeping it close I'm sorry, of keeping the
idea closer to where the participants are by figuring out what the full breadth of the
issue is across multiple interviews. 08:17:09 And that gives you like a lot of
space to think. 08:17:14 And,
08:17:30 yeah, I
'm so good idea. 08:17:23 So many things to carry indoor or
inviting Robin I to participate in sports clinic, many things could Devin and Zach for
being a tech support this is the new normal of zoom, but it doesn't mean that it's easy,
so I'm hundred percent appreciative of all 08:17:47 of the hard work that's gone into
putting these together. And also thank you to all of you who have
shown up at various time zones, middle of the night very early in the morning. 08:17:49 And so I hope that our a
nswers to
your questions will spark something in your in your mind or also validate some of the
things that you have been doing. 08:17:59 So take the answer to the first question
for me is the work that I do objectivity is never the goal. And so once I rid myself of this is objective
for this, this goal in mind. 08:18:13 I feel like I'm able to do the work
that I want to do the things that I think will make a difference, not only in academia,
but kind of scholarship that I'm trying to speak back
to, or against, but also in the
lives of the people that I'm trying to really 08:18:29 showcase their narratives. 08:18:32 And, you know, I want to be honest
that it took me a very long time, to be able to say this, not within a quiet small voice
but in a very loud proud. I am not seeking to write scholarship and
that is generalizable or that is objective, like no, we all
08:18:50 are subjective beings, the study of truth like Robin said right there's multiple
sides to truth it's the small t tr
uth that we're all trying to get to. 08:19:00 And if we as researchers are real
about this I think that our general our general scholarship will be better so Yes, speaking
to positivist Do you think that if you control for enough things then you'll be able to understand,
you know, the X that you're, 08:19:16 you're trying to uncover. 08:19:18 So I think once you as an interpretive
is to own this, and you are able to, to think produce the kind of scholarship that will
make you proud, and particul
arly the people that you're talking with it, proud because
you're showcasing their stories, their 08:19:36 narratives their experiences, their
worldview, which is oftentimes contrary to the dominant view, and you want to show up
with sympathy with care and with empathy. 08:19:49 Right. So I do research on black women political
elites, and to a lesser extent, math citizens. And as the black woman, myself, I wanted to
speak back to this whole in the literature, right that said that there was no th
ere there
to study black women 08:20:06 because they all booked the same
way. But what I want to show is that they have
different political calculus to determine how we get to that vote. And so that requires subjectivity, right,
that requires talking to folks to understand the differences the
08:20:20 nuances, the dynamism right how I'm making these kind of political calculations. And so in order to do that I had to be upfront
about my position ality that as a black woman talking to other black
women. 08:20:31 I'm able to, you know, uncover things
or things are said to me that allows me to uncover things in the in the scholarship that
probably would not have been said to another researcher with a different social background
or identity. 08:20:47 And in a lot of ways like back to
this, this question saline about how do you work with the trauma or empathize with the
trauma, I think, as well from my point as an insider. 08:21:00 This is things that are readily read
on the sleep right so a
s we speak right now we have, you know, black and brown communities
in the United States in particular are right in the midst of the Derek Chauvin trial shop
and trial where he is a police officer 08:21:14 You know, black and brown communities
in the United States in particular are right in the midst of the Derek Chauvin trial shop
and trial where he is a police officer that murdered. 08:21:16 George Floyd last yesterday Chicago
came out with the video of the killing of a 13 year old boy, Adam T
oledo, there's been
numerous my black and brown children, men and women, men have been killed. 08:21:31 And as a black woman doing this kind
of research, the legislators that I speak to the candidates for office, share things
with me and this trauma is on their sleeve right it's, they're wearing it around a carrying
it with them as all people marginalized 08:21:45 groups right or people that are dealing
with over policing and violence. And so the trauma isn't something that I have
to dig for try
to present I think our How to coax out of people, in some ways, it's
the presence of living in this community and understanding
08:22:01 the the wrongness and the emotions because what people see in their, their day
to day lives. And so what my goal to do then is to prevent
present this in a very in a way that brings you manage to this group, because the dominant
force right but the dominant 08:22:18 discourse frames violence to black
and brown bodies as something that was inevitable or is some
thing that should not raise an eyebrow
right so for example, last night on fox news the murder of Adam Toledo a 13 year old boys
compared to. 08:22:38 What's the guy's name is Zack. 08:22:40 The guy who went to Minnesota, and
the 17 year old boy who traveled from Illinois to Minnesota to to hurt protesters and killed
killed one and. 08:22:52 And so it's like oh a child. Thank you, Calvin Burke yes thank you so Kyle
remembered is framed as you know in one way, as someone who was a patriot who sta
nding
up for American values in life. 08:23:03 And the way of life and then there's
a 13 year old boy who was murdered with his hands up and nothing in his arms right in
the following police quarters. 08:23:13 and then the mainstream culture demonizes
this 13 year old boy. And so when I'm talking to elected officials
and other other black women, it's making playing, these are two different things right and really
showcasing the narratives of empathy that better
08:23:25 place for certain group a
ren't afforded to the other. And so this work is empathizing with the trauma,
but also using my skills as a political scientist to make sense of what's going on to make it
plain that that there are more than just hip hypothetical. 08:23:41 You know how we're thinking about
violence and bodies and deserving who deserves justice and who doesn't. But that there are real live consequences,
and I want to be able to make that plane. 08:23:52 So, the answer so the to respond
to these question about met
aphor and artifacts. I'll give an example from my dissertation
research that turned into the book sisters in the state house that I still. 08:24:07 It's one of those moments where you're
doing you know you're you're interviewing a participant, and you want to go back and
do something different. 08:24:16 You want to say something different
you want to like they're like, Ah man, I lost this moment. But so I'm talking to a black woman and elderly
black woman state legislator about same sex marriage
and this is in 2009 so it's before. 08:24:31 In our kind of our cultural American
cultural shift and how we're thinking about queer relationships and same sex marriage,
really, you know, sidebar like. 08:24:39 Another example of hetero patriarchy
right just like mapped on to clear bodies. It's made from institutions. But anyway, this legislator. 08:24:47 I asked her about how she's going
to vote on this bill. What are your thoughts on this bill. 08:24:52 And she holds up her Bible, and looks
me
in the eye, like as what seemed like forever but probably was only like two or three seconds,
and then puts the Bible down, and then says Next question. 08:25:05 And so what that meant to me as a
metaphor right this artifact of holding up the Bible says, first of all, that she had
on her desk in the state house right so she's holding up this Bible to say to me, as a black
woman she thinks that I understand 08:25:23 the popular, or at the time, I guess,
popular interpretations of homosexuality a
nd clearness as given to us from the six main
passages in in the Bible products in the black Protestant tradition, and I did. 08:25:40 Right, so that's why I was like okay,
I want to move on to the next question, but I wish or that Rob and I were talking about
this earlier I should have asked her you know what particular part in the Bible are you
referring to right I maybe should have 08:25:51 pushed back on this, but again, at
that time I was just like, Oh, I want to answer I want to keep the c
onversation going. So I want. But what I do and write in the book is I,
I really try to explain how this artifact of the Bible. 08:26:08 You know what this means why she
feels like she doesn't have to answer the question and that her answer you know verbally
answer the question but her answer to the question is reified in her holding up the
Bible, and also right as an insider she's doing
08:26:20 me as an insider right she's not thinking of me as something other than a black
Christian I could ha
ve been, you know, a practicing Muslim I could have been an atheist I could
be right, you know, a Catholic I could be all sorts of other religions right
08:26:33 but she's reading on to me that I'm familiar with the black church and black biblical
teachings of homosexuality. 08:26:42 And it's not even, you know, asking
or pushing back on some of these things. So I think like the role of us, to interpret
these artifacts as metaphors, is to try to think about how the person or the group that
is in
troducing this artifact right what meaning 08:26:59 does it hold for them. How does it operate for them as a political
political heuristic or a shortcut that might not need the full kind of investigation and
was like this woman did not talk to me about how she was going to hold on the bill. 08:27:14 As you can probably guess she voted
against same sex marriage, but right it was all the lights relate to me by holding up
the Bible. 08:27:23 So I'll stop there for a second set
questions, I guess. 0
8:27:26 Perry I would like to say something. Sure. We've got a few minutes, I believe. 08:27:32 Okay. 08:27:33 And I apologize I usually use a headset
but the the mic stopped working on it. I wanted to speak to on Lee's question specifically
one to say to other people that on referred to IPA, which is shorthand for interpretive
policy analysis, which is a whole 08:27:57 subset, shall we say, of interpretive
approaches it's specific to those doing Policy Studies and wanting to analyze public poli
cies. 08:28:09 Your question is very interesting
I appreciate your adding the greater context because it brought the question to life in
a clearer way than what we had originally understood it to be, when one does whether
it's in the context of policy analysis or some
08:28:28 other form of analysis, there is a balance to be made between what my professor
Don shown used to call, keeping your hands dirty with the data. 08:28:44 And contextualize and whether it's
a metaphor or some kind of Policy
Object, or some other artifact that we're seeking
to analyze, putting that analysis in a broader context. 08:28:57 Now I don't know the specifics of
what you're writing or what your professor is asking for. 08:29:03 But there's a question to be asked
as to whether this metaphor is a metaphor, only for the person you have interviewed,
or I should say rather, it appears only in that interview. 08:29:20 In which case, one might consider
it particular to this individual or whether you find the metap
hor, in other interviews,
or in written documents or in let's say radio or TV broadcasts and other words. 08:29:36 Is it a characteristic of the policy
issue itself. 08:29:42 And then you need to decide if it's
only something that shows up in his interview. 08:29:47 Is it central to your analysis of
the issue as a whole. 08:29:53 So for example, if we take Nadia
story about the woman holding up the Congresswoman holding up the Bible. 08:30:02 to understand that draws on a wide
range of other 08:
30:11 sense making that was available to
Nadia, and to the person she was talking to. So, it's on that basis that Nadia can say
this, Congresswoman was projecting onto her a particular religious identity, but you could
hold up that Bible and reference other 08:30:30 kinds of religions as well and other
interpretations and whatnot. You didn't say but I'm inferring is that this
wasn't just particular to this one exchange, but it had bearing on the whole question of
homosexuality and so on and so f
orth. 08:30:51 That you were you Nadia were asking
about in your research project. So that's one question on is the metaphor
that you have encountered part of a much do you encounter it elsewhere, or is it only
particular to that one interview, in which case you have
08:31:12 some decisions to make about it centrality to your analysis. 08:31:18 And I would say the same thing, the
same point holds for other artifacts, whether they're objects or parts of speech or etc
etc whatever one can look at.
08:31:31 Then you've got the question of how
much, how far as you put it in your own question. How far can you go beyond the meanings communicated
by the interviewees. 08:31:43 Here's where it also is important
to know whether it is just something articulated by this one individual or whether you find
it elsewhere. Because if you find it elsewhere, then you
have the ability to bring all of these different interpretations together
08:31:59 and make your analysis more robust. 08:32:05 And I shoul
d stop there. 08:32:07 Yeah, I'll just add building on what
Dora has said in terms of not going too far as Fred Schaefer has written about building
on gears. Most interpretive is are going to contrast
the experience near understandings of the people that they're interviewing
08:32:30 with experience distant, or the scholarly, so you can have that nice contrast between
how most people are thinking and understanding in the group of people that you're interviewing
with the scholarly concepts and Li
teratures that are of most interest
08:32:52 to you so one of the things that you hear across both Nadia and Robin is this
notion of taking the interviews and putting them in context. And that context is both the broader field,
I think, as, as Robin was emphasizing right that she was taught. 08:33:15 What are the broadest contours of
that, but also the scholarly literature that that you're addressing. 08:33:23 Someone asked the chat about resources
for interpretive policy analysis, we will add t
hose to the resource sheet that will
be sending out after this session is over. 08:33:35 Oh and Robin you are going to chime
in here, please. Yeah, I am one of the things also in figuring
out how far it is is to think about how the artifact or about the metaphor is, is the
issue at hand is like other similar kinds of relationships and similar
08:33:55 kinds of circumstances. So, for instance, I'll go back to my own example
of studying citizenship is thinking about what other kinds of relationshi
ps, what other
kinds of instances are like the naturalization ceremony. 08:34:09 When do we bring people into I connection. So it could be something I'm thinking about
at a at a marriage or at a 08:34:21 Greek life, a sorority or fraternity,
and an American college situation and thinking about how you join people together. 08:34:31 About a religious conversion even
about change about joining a sports team and sports teams as a whole. So all of these kinds of things are questions
about joining an
d belonging and really thinking about what those parameters are and helping
you, then, 08:34:45 to, to understand what the shape
is and what the questions are in this very in a larger sense of what it is to to join
a new community. 08:34:59 Can we check in, Perry you mentioned
Fred Shaffer before if Fred is still there. Can we check in and see. Fred if you've got something to add to this
conversation. 08:35:09 Yeah, it's a really interesting conversation
and, and I really appreciate the thoughtf
ulness with, with which although you have answered
it. 08:35:18 The, the, the one distinction which
I think might be helpful to draw is between subjective understandings and inter subjective
understandings I think that's really swirling around here in the background. 08:35:30 Great. And, you know, and and often at least in the
kind of interviewing that I do and in certain other kinds of interviewing. What we're really after is really trying to
figure out what the interests objective understandin
gs are. 08:35:47 And I think there's a really, it's
a different kind of confirmation process if you like, there's there's a different kind
of relationship to, let's call it something like truth. 08:36:01 You know, for interest subjective
you can really ask the question, you know, is what I'm hearing, specific to this individual
Am I am I listening to an idiosyncratic speaker, or is this an expression of something that's
interest subjectively shared and 08:36:18 when can be right or wrong about
t
hat question right is this is this is this objective versus subjective. 08:36:39 So I think different kinds of interviewing
have different kinds of relationships to this question, you know, is it true. And so, I, I think it makes sense in talking
about interpretive interviewing, to actually distinguish between different, I think there
08:36:59 different kinds of interpretive interviewing and and what counts is confirmation, what
kind of relationship that the interview has to truth small t truth.
It will be different for each of these different
kinds of interviewing. 08:37:06 Is there something more that you
could say briefly about how you see these different kinds of interviewing. 08:37:13 Yeah. So for instance, the kind of interviewing
that I do right which I call ordinary language, interviewing. 08:37:21 I'm interested in understanding the
concepts the shared concepts, through which by which people understand and navigate the
world, and. 08:37:33 And so, when somebody shares with
me,
or uses a term of interest in a way that seems to indicate what they understand the
term to mean I'll develop our work up. 08:37:49 What I think the term means right
okay okay i think i have it. And then I will conduct another set of confirmatory
interviews where I'll ask another set of people, whether you know whether the distinctions
I'm drawing sound right I'll give them an example
08:38:07 and if I'm right up I really understand, you know the meaning of the term. They should answer in a way
that I've predicted,
and you know as a template and to give you an example of what that kind of confirmation
question might look like and this one I'll 08:38:22 draw from from john Austin. In his book how to do things with words I
believe it's and. 08:38:33 so all right so let's imagine you
and I are sitting on the porch of my house. And we're looking out in a field. 08:38:44 And, and, and, you and I, each have
a donkey, and they're out grazing in the field. 08:38:51 And then, all of a sudden I
develop
this strong dislike of my donkey. 08:39:00 And, and I take out my, my gun. 08:39:05 Austin often uses these kinds of
examples that he really needs somebody needs to write a psycho analysis of him. But anyway, so I take out my gun. 08:39:15 And, and I shoot at my donkey. 08:39:20 And between the second that I, the
moment that I pull the trigger and and the and the bullet arrives. 08:39:26 Your donkey moves in front of my
donkey. 08:39:32 And your donkey drops down dead. 08:39:36 Did I sh
oot your donkey by accident,
or by mistake. 08:39:44 Right. So just think about that question you know
you could put your answer in the chat. 08:39:50 And now let me play, let's rewind
the situation right. 08:39:54 You and I are sitting on the porch
or two donkeys are out grazing in the field. And
08:40:01 again, I developed a strong, you know, urge to kill my donkey. So I take out my gun, and I shoot and I and
I fire. 08:40:12 And as you know, we walk up to the
donkeys, and then as we get close
r, I see that was actually your donkey, that I that
I shot, not mine. 08:40:25 Did I shoot your donkey by accident,
or by mistake. 08:40:31 All right. And again, If I've understood the distinction
between accident and mistake. 08:40:39 I should be able to predict how you
how you answer right so in. In the second case right when I thought I
was shooting my donkey but in fact I showed it. 08:40:49 I shot it your donkey right I miss
took. 08:40:52 Right. Your donkey for my talk to when it got close
r
I could recognize that mistake. 08:40:57 But the other one right it was an
accident. I, you know, after I pulled the trigger your
donkey moved in front of me. Right. And so, so that kind of answer you know I
can ask that kind of question and I, if I understand the, the use of the terms correctly. 08:41:15 I should be able to to predict what
somebody answers it so I can either confirm or disconnect from my understandings. 08:41:26 Can I check something with you and
then we need to move on to th
e next segment. 08:41:32 You're saying, if you understand,
and knowing you and your research I think what you mean is if you understand how those
terms are meant in a particular context. 08:41:46 Yes, yes absolutely right and right
here right and that's really. Another really important point is, is that
context always matters right now in interpretive research in general, and in the use of language
right it's absolutely essential to designate 08:42:06 the context. Yeah. 08:42:07 Thanks for those
contributions Fred
and Robin and Nadia, Fred I gotta say the example for me was a little bit too close. Given the circumstances in the united the
events in the United States. 08:42:23 Off the last couple of days or 24
hours in particular and before that, everything that Nadia referenced earlier. 08:42:33 But it is vivid and I feel badly
for the donkey's. 08:42:40 Moving on to the second segment then
we have again two questions. But there's a difference here are actually
two differences, the fir
st question was put by Lauren moto moto and I think she says she's
a PhD student at john Jay College at the City University
08:42:58 of New York, who in the end couldn't join us but she gave us permission to put
her question on the table. And the question is, what are some strategies
for recruitment of hard to reach and vulnerable populations. 08:43:14 We have a second question from Condon
torque on his assistant professor at Camden I'm going to butcher the name of the university
so would you pl
ease unmute yourself and tell me how to pronounce it. 08:43:27 And then pose your question for. I'm an assistant professor and national political
scientists but I work on food so I'm an ad gastronomy and the arts program at a university
in Istanbul, and in my name, huh. 08:43:44 My name, huh. Yeah, that's actually. 08:43:47 And my name is actually john gone
so see. 08:43:53 It's completely Sorry, it's completely
fine I actually go with see everyone calls me see so it's completely fine. 08:44:00
Um, my question is actually coming
from speaking with farmers, and it has to do with figuring out whether someone is lying. 08:44:10 And the intention here is not to
get to the objective truth of things. But understand that a lie is a lie. 08:44:18 The question is, how do you handle
lying in the interviews, particularly when going to the sites and interviewing other
sort of verification, or using other methods to do triangulation is not possible. 08:44:32 And I'll give an example to make
things
slightly clearer. 08:44:37 In the golden days before pandemic. I would go to the farms and talk to farmers,
about, especially if they're smallholders, you know, other situation is, how does the
business essentially or what are some of the problems that they're having accessing
08:44:57 Because I am in Istanbul largest city in Turkey, and we actually have a significant
farm population around the city, but they have significant market access problems. 08:45:08 So I would essentially ask them quest
ions,
figuring out what their market access problems are. And it would eventually boil down to them
telling me you know in various ways, how they don't have access. 08:45:25 But then, and then we'll usually
talk about you know how they don't have animals for example or how their plot is too small
so they're not generating enough income. 08:45:33 But then you know walking around
the farm. Suddenly, I would see animals, or I would
smell animals, and, You know there will be some awkward silences ar
e like everybody looking
at each other. 08:45:45 We are trying to figure out what's
going to be next. And I will just make a small note. And this is important to me and I'm not trying
to correct him he's telling me that lie for a reason and that reason itself is why I'm
in the field. 08:45:57 That's what matters to me I don't
care if he has cows, sheep or chickens or, I don't know what I would donkey donkeys. 08:46:05 Exactly. 08:46:07 But knowing that why was important
to me because then when I
am later on going to my notes, you know, I would say okay so
even if it was Monday have animals, they cannot still make ends meet, and look for alternative
sources of income etc etc so that 08:46:24 would become a data point for me. 08:46:27 become a data point for me. And now I have to do. 08:46:30 Zoom interviews, which is just horrible. 08:46:34 And I have to take everyone at their
word. And that's the end of discussion. 08:46:40 I can go to the farms, I can smell
anything, and actually take
them healthy and I can smell things but I'm at the cows or
the sheep and etc. So I'm trying to really figure it out and
I'm in the middle of research. 08:46:53 Right now imagine the middle of field
work I was doing interviews like two hours ago. 08:46:57 I need to figure out how to solve
this very practical problem, because I don't know if they're lying or not, I don't, I don't
even, I don't know if they're lying or not. 08:47:06 So, what do I do. 08:47:07 Thank you. I'm sorry for taking so muc
h time. 08:47:11 And thank you also for the collaboration
because, again, that helps us understand. 08:47:16 Perry did you want to say something
before we turn to Robin. Yes. So, when we got these questions we looked
at some of the words in the questions recruitment verification triangulation. 08:47:34 Um. And part of what I just wanted to bring up
before we get to the substance is a distinguish to distinguish between ordinary language words
and kind of methodological terms of art. 08:47:50 So,
there are certain words that
are perfectly good words in your everyday language recruitment sampling hypothesis. 08:48:01 But divorce and I were very careful
in interpretive research design. A to note that there are other methodological
terms that you can use or develop that are more in keeping with an interpretive ontological
and epistemological sensibility. 08:48:22 So instead of talking about sampling. Talk about selection, instead of topic, talking
about reliability and validity and verifica
tion talk about trustworthiness. 08:48:35 So if you look at Leanne food geez
third chapter. 08:48:40 It's entitled selecting finding and
approaching interviewees rather than the word recruitment, and it's not that there's anything
wrong with the word recruitment, or hypothesis as ordinary language terms but that when you're
writing up for an article 08:48:59 or a book or in methodological discussions
hypothesis usually signals that you're doing hypothesis testing work more positivist work. So yo
u know if you think about Sherlock Holmes
yes he had used the word hypothesis, but he didn't do formal hypothesis
08:49:18 testing. 08:49:20 So, when you formulate questions,
or talking in interpretive this manner you're trying to use a different vocabulary, different
terms of art that will signal. 08:49:35 Your interpretive is different approach
so that people aren't their brains aren't captured in their thinking about statistics. 08:49:43 So that's kind of a, an aside, and
if we want to get to
the substance, Robin and not yet. 08:49:55 So I'm gonna, I want to actually
piggyback on to what you're talking about, which is also not just changing the vocabulary
that we're using but changing the imagination of what an interview is. 08:50:09 And I want us to leave this idea
to and more the interview from the, the one hour that we've said in our IRB applications
that we're going to spend with people and think of it much, much more broadly, and the
interview, I think begins from the moment 08
:50:26 you start thinking about what am
i planning to do, what am I trying to find out. 08:50:33 And this helps with the ability to
attract people by rethinking it. So in the first part of this you have kind
of this like, I'm going to call like a Working Draft interview where you're really talking
to yourself to develop the kind of questionnaire 08:50:46 that you're going to use out in the
field, which will be absolutely useless after your first couple of discussions with people
of really unders
tanding how this semi structured open ended questionnaire and these conversations
will flow, because one of 08:51:03 the key things that's going to happen
when you're out in the field is that, as you know, is that you really have to be a really
good listener, and really engage with the people who are there so it's not so much the
questions even that you're asking. 08:51:17 But the answers, and the questions,
the answers they're supplying in the questions they're asking you, and how you then ques
tion
your own data. So, you begin with this first like. 08:51:28 Working Draft interview and then
you start these like contact interviews of figuring out how, who knows, anybody, and
I mean anybody in the place that you're going to and try to figure out how you can get contacts
both beforehand before you ever leave. 08:51:43 And then once you get there, and
anybody can be can be helpful. And I don't want to use the word useful, I
want to say helpful in trying to engage you in these conversations
that are going on within
research. 08:51:59 When you. 08:52:01 Then once you get to the place, you
have to use whatever. 08:52:08 Whatever you have any kind of contacts
that you have. I will tell you I've done a lot of field work
with bringing my children along, not out of choice, but out of lack of childcare and,
and I have shamelessly use them to introduce me to people in the
08:52:25 field, so they would go to a local school for instance and now I had access to
the administrators the teacher
s, the security guards, the, the, the support staff, the cleaning
people, everybody there, and they would say to be, what are you doing you lady
08:52:41 I was trying to explain, and then ask them you know Do you know anybody who
might be willing to let me give a talk at their place. And you should assume that everybody has,
you know connections to something, and the least likely person may be the person
08:52:57 who introduces you to an opportunity. 08:53:01 I also, you know, took a very old
fa
shioned view when I was doing, researching in Germany and they had like a list, a book
like a guide of all the different kinds of immigrant organizations that existed in Berlin,
and I started it and went to Z. 08:53:20 And I'm going to say something that,
you know, I'm very old fashioned I believe face to face when it's possible not in pandemic
time is absolutely the best, but you can write you can text you can, Instagram, you can use
everything that you have to try 08:53:35 to meet people and m
ake connections
through these things, but in these interviews. When I first when I explained to the people
and I asked them, even for, like, an elite interview and talk to them about like the
process of engaging and everything else. 08:53:49 And then said, Oh, you know, could
I perhaps you know, make a talk at some meeting that they had. Or else, a lot of the times that people would
say well that's really interesting what you're doing. 08:54:01 Maybe we could set something up and
you could be he
re on a regular basis, and then this was kind of amazing that like every
say Thursday I would be there and anybody who walked into the organization could then
meet with me, and people would see people 08:54:15 going into a room and they'd come
out and they'd say, What are you doing, and then they would tell them and then the other
person said well that's kind of interesting or I want to do that too. 08:54:25 And that's also because people thought
that they were being heard. 08:54:30 And so by pr
oviding this opportunity
to be heard and this opportunity to speak both things that I was really able to offer
something, and that something to people who, at least for a lot of my interview partners,
nobody, nobody listens to them, or they 08:54:49 can't tell the truth to somebody
because it would be too painful to tell somebody back home. What's really going on, so they could tell
me. 08:54:59 And so I really, you know, wanted
to create an environment where they could tell me things. 08:55:06
And I think also for some of the
people who came to talk to me the opportunity of connecting with others was also because
a lot of them were working at levels, very different than the socio economic level that
they worked at home and socio educational 08:55:20 level, excuse me, then they had at
home. So this was an opportunity for them to participate
in a professional activity where in the new life. 08:55:30 They weren't working as a professional
at all. And so they could get really engaged into
it. 08:55:36 And so they felt like they were participating
in something that reminded them of where they were. And these people then would also be very interested
in trying to connect me to other people. 08:55:48 And I really have to say the number
of times that somebody said something like, I've been waiting my whole life for someone
to ask these questions, or. 08:55:59 And again I returned to this idea
of being an outsider they would say why is it that an American has to come here to ask
me t
hese questions why didn't somebody from here, ask. 08:56:11 And it gave like a really nice way
to do that. 08:56:15 Okay, so you've, you know, really
at this point like your interview you've already had multiple kinds of like content interviews
context interviews, all of these other interviews that aren't like the interview. 08:56:27 And then I would say as a political
scientists, you know, so like you're engaging in these questions while you're having the
official interview. 08:56:39 And, and,
and using them, even that
opportunity to ask people about, you know, other places, other ways that you could talk
to people, to, to, to develop like your list and not really asking I'm, I have a lot of
trouble with snowballing because it seems 08:56:56 kind of uncomfortable to ask people
to name their friends and give their phone numbers, but I asked very, you know, I asked
openly you know if you have someone who could contact me to, you know, let them know and
sometimes people have even called
from 08:57:11 the interview room. 08:57:15 And, which is really kind of interesting
and saying like you got to do this, this thing is really crazy. So, I'm in a good way. Crazy. So that's been been very positive. 08:57:26 And then the final interview that
comes in my mind before you begin on any coding is after your interview has concluded, it's
with yourself. And that you really have to take the time
to do your field notes and this goes back I think to the training that
08:57:40 I got an interv
iewing that this is an absolutely critical part to set aside the
time to really interview yourself about what just happened, what do I think of it, what
kind of questions Do I have what went right what went wrong. 08:57:58 And, and all and really be brutally
honest about the experience, and then raise lots of questions about what needs to be changed. So if we stop thinking about the interview
as this one hour, and more about this gigantic process. 08:58:15 It helps us really to think about
other
ways and places to connect us to different people. And I think we show the people the respect
for their time for their thoughts. 08:58:30 You know it. 08:58:36 This is really the. 08:58:36 And this is, this is the way that
that you made the interviewing really that you connect with new people and you make the
interviewing count. 08:58:48 So I'll answer from a different perspective
and again my, My focus is usually on political elites. So my recruitment strategies and tactics are
different, as w
ell as covert challenges to doing this work are also somewhat different. 08:59:07 So, what's worked for me in the past
is recruitment through, I do all the things you're supposed to do from IRB right and as
Robin said IRB is not the end all be all it's really the university's way to protect the
university from anything that can go 08:59:23 back and not really looking out for
the people that you're trying to speak. 08:59:30 But so I do all of that. 08:59:30 I find the, the, the more fruitful
and
really in depth, interviews, actually come from me and the project being introduced
by members of that community. 08:59:41 So, my first book project I was introduced
by the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. And that just opens the floodgates, so just
go real quick. I was, you know, I did all again I did all
the letters the emails about phone calls, nothing. 09:00:01 And so I go to the statehouse and
I'm sitting outside of one of the legislators doors and one of her staffers comes out and
says you know what are you here for, I tell her about the project. 09:00:13 And she brings me in the legislator,
to take one look at me and the whole thing by my hand and says, Come on baby I takes
me downstairs to the caucus rooms and we're having a caucus meeting, and she has me stand
up and says, tell about yourself. 09:00:27 Tell them your name, help the baby. She's here to do research on us. She's one of us help her. And so what's right on to me at that point
right, is that I'm a young blac
k woman who and I'm not taking the term, you know, baby
as a derogatory term, but 09:00:42 one of like the sign of endearment
fact is older black woman is trying to look out for me in the kind of connective kin ways
that black folks used to talk with one another. 09:00:54 And so that helps the baby out, you
know that five minute introduction of her. No, hold in my hand and walk me down into
into the caucus room was really what set off my interviews and because I got that one endorsement,
it real
ly opened up the door to 09:01:10 so many others. Since then, I've been able to have similar
endorsements. So I worked with the black woman's pack political
action committee of Texas. It was able to do the first ever focus groups
of black woman elected official like ever period, hands
09:01:25 And that was because of the organization. So I would, I would share that, you know,
try multiple ways to get access to participants. What relationships and it was headed in the
in the chat relationships is
really key. 09:01:39 And if you're trying to get into
a group of people that like political elites are sometimes untrusting of researchers because,
and it's been told to me multiple times that, because our work, you know, academic work
is so slow to be disseminated. 09:01:57 So they might have talked to you
three years ago and the book comes out, right, you know, three years later, so they have
no idea what's happened to the kind of interviews that they've given, they don't see any tangible
tan
gible outcomes, and so they're 09:02:10 concerned right. On the other hand, what they're mostly used
to is talking to reporters who are going to write up something quick maybe take a sound
bite from what they said, perhaps, out of context or to do some kind of work within
the journalistic, 09:02:24 you know, whatever that journalist
wants to angle they want to push and it might not have been what the legislators sending
this particularly happens to black folks to women to queer folks to immigran
ts right legislators
who are outside of the dominant 09:02:37 norm, and they are more reluctant
to speak, so I had to do a lot of work to say I'm not a reporter, or I'm not going to
use this work and academic sense like you've experienced with reporters. 09:02:49 So having those relationships with
the first international Black Caucus and then the black woman's pack of Texas, and then
others has really helped so like Robin, the snowball sampling for me has been been key,
do you know a friend, can
you recommend 09:03:03 anyone that I talk with. And at some point where they've already seen
my you know be your legislator will interview with me. They've ignored it, but getting that personal. 09:03:12 Oh, I spoke with Nadia, you know
she was, you know, this wasn't what we think it is that has gone such such a long way. 09:03:21 And then for the, for the lying. 09:03:24 Yeah, so that's also, I think, as
all of us on this call can it can attest to this has happened before. 09:03:32 And in one
of my circumstances I
was talking to a legislator and I just happened to know his cousin, and I didn't connect them
at all, but when I told the cousin, that I had one of my most disappointing interviews
and this was maybe six months later after 09:03:48 I have the interview, he called his
cousin. 09:03:52 Talk to her again right like that's
not you know she she's not gonna do anything bad but he gave me the legislator gave me
one of the shortest interviews I've ever had was thinking about like 1
0 minutes, and it
was a very non answer answer to all of the 09:04:16 I asked. And then, when my friend from from college
so oh yeah that's my cousin and we had another topic Oh man, you should lead with this. I don't know your family for your related
to I can't make these connections. 09:04:20 You're related to I can't make these
connections. But right it goes to the example of saying,
you know, the ways that particularly marginalized communities, feel like they don't want to
talk and then once
they get to that kind of introduction or feel
09:04:34 more comfortable, the floodgates open right and then, and then his interview
wasn't necessarily very generative for the project that I was working on, but it was
illuminating that you know just how guarded he was. 09:04:45 And so the the ways that I got around
that was listening to the silences. So why didn't mean want to tell me something
right and so it's kind of going back to your to your question seeing right so it looks
like the triang
ulation of like Why are you lying. 09:05:00 And what comes out of this and and
the other participants that I've talked to that haven't told me the full truth. 09:05:06 And I've been legislators right they
were protecting their legislative identity they're thinking about reelection are thinking
about I don't want to say something that might be misconstrued some way my constituents might
be upset. 09:05:17 I'm asking about policy questions
that they might not have made a full decision on yet or th
ey don't want to come public with
right so I'm thinking about the pragmatic ways in which lying might be good for them. 09:05:28 And oftentimes, I'm able to triangulate
this again like doing research on elites with how they voted what they said to newspaper
reporters or what they posted on their own social media page, who they're receiving campaign
donations from right who are 09:05:44 people that they have situated themselves
with with inside of the legislature rate so are they closest to this
group over here today
sponsored bills of this people over here and how are they willing right so these are all
kind of ways I'm able to kind 09:05:56 of figure out what I think the motivation
behind the y is. But again, it's just what I think the motivation
behind the lie is and that's backwards first question of subjectivity right like, I don't
know they're not telling us but I'm trying to use multiple
09:06:09 sources of data to figure out why. 09:06:12 And then so last it to these little
chal
lenges of interviewing so I like you right I was doing interviews trying to collect research
during zoo. And it's been particularly challenging for
for some regular issues like tech problems right people have spotty
09:06:28 Wi Fi or the tech isn't working right all of those things that like we're all over
familiar with. 09:06:34 But then also, I found some, some
newer interesting challenges when participants, don't have what call in and talk about issues
around race and gender, but don't see me
right like they don't see me as a black person,
and then so I've had an interview 09:06:51 with the legislator who sponsored
the crown act and New Jersey and the product is a bill against that, that forbids hair
based discrimination, and it's targeted to people with Afro textured hair. 09:07:03 Well I have Afro textured hair right
so a lot of things like I get, but the, whatever that I spoke with didn't know I was black
and to the very end of the conversation right and that so she's explaining
to me. 09:07:17 You know her position on the crowd
act, but a very kind of hands off, like, you know, she's not really talking as much about
racial discrimination, as she is talking about the employment discrimination is a byproduct
of racial discrimination. 09:07:29 And then at the end of the interview
she, She asks have I heard of this children's book about embracing your natural hair. And I said, Yes, right. I have three little kids you read this book. 09:07:44 And she was like, Oh, right. It
's like, Yes, I get it right like you didn't
have to lift early. I think the interview would have been much
different because in the other interviews that I conducted with legislators around this
bill, it was, it was the
09:08:12 kid things. And it was a very, very different kind of
conversation. And so, so what I had to be really serious
about is the challenges of doing work with people who are already guarded right and how
technology makes this much more difficult. 09:08:28 And one of the thin
gs that I wish
I you know my prayers that aren't disciplined gets real is that when when you know earth
to point out opens up or we pretend that coven isn't a thing anymore. 09:08:37 How does this impact people like
us who do research through interactions with people and zoom as a poor proxy for telephone
is really poor proxy there's other things that, you know, we have been like real we've
planned on Plan C plan D, and an implant 09:08:56 app we've been in, you know, we found
ways to work aroun
d, we found new innovative things like, you know, what is the picture
that you want to put up, what is the story that you're telling here right. 09:09:05 Having access into people's homes
and seeing what they have behind them right like there's other ways that we have made
zoom useful for us but I think, you know, supplement replace that face to face. 09:09:14 So what does this mean for our research
going forward what we're all books look like five years from now, what were you know what
were ou
r conferences, look like when we're talking about. 09:09:22 I'm not able to go into the field
and do research, and particularly, you know I think about this, folks who are unsafe or
folks that are on house folks that have insecurity economic insecurity or physical insecurity
issues. 09:09:38 So talking to people about experiencing
domestic violence or or sexual abuse and trauma, can't be done via zoom sometimes if you're
living in the home with someone who's committing these acts against you, an
d you're having
to talk about these things with 09:09:55 them they're right so this question
of like lying or not being as transparent becomes very very real. I think we're going to have to think really
systematically about how we ask these questions and how we can leverage. 09:10:08 You know, leverage technology as
a way to help us, but there are, you know, there are great. I mean, I find it to be Debbie Downer I think
there are such great challenges that I want our discipline to really think a
bout particularly
as we're thinking 09:10:21 through how our graduate students
going to you know graduate with a dissertation projects going to look like what a promotion
and tenure packets going to look like, what will funding applications look like when we're
applying for grants to do this kind 09:10:32 of work and someone says oh just
get on zoom, You don't need to travel all the way to x.
09:10:37 y&z, do you pay participants, you know, to talk with you. When all they have to do is log on al
l they
have to do is log on to them, right. I think things are some of the questions that
I think we're going to have to have to deal with. 09:10:53 But on the flip side right there
are some advantages of bringing folks together in places that you would never have ability
to talk to if it were not for zoom it's also got rid of this very a ballistic, you know,
everyone can hear everyone can see there's 09:11:06 no need for transcription right that's
the only time that zoom does some of this work
that is been more equalizing in some
other places. So I'll stop there, but I think we've just
kind of the pandemic has exacerbated some challenges but it's all perhaps
09:11:22 opened up a Pandora's box but perhaps there's also some, some opportunities for
us as interpreted this in there. 09:11:29 Thanks so much, Nadia. 09:11:48 Nadia. Yeah, I turned on, let me just say that I
think your question, suggests a need to revisit what it means to tell a lie. Yeah. 09:11:46 Because that posits the exis
tence
of a, quote unquote, objective reality. That is true. 09:11:57 And in science and our kind of science
and I mean social sciences. 09:12:02 What does it mean to move away from
that presumption. 09:12:08 And then how does that change the
meaning of a lie, or does it shift instead our attention to asking the question, why
is someone lying What is the significance of this quote unquote lie. 09:12:24 And on that if you're not familiar
with it, Liam Fuji published an article in 2010 called shade
s of truth and lies, which
is where that's where she started with, because she said my education, taught me that if someone
lies to me. 09:12:42 I have to throw out that interview. 09:12:45 Because it's not scientific. 09:12:48 And so she does a very good job there
an excellent job of challenging all of those presuppositions. Also, I would say, and I'm making this very
short because we're out of time and need to move on. 09:13:00 But in the second methods clinic,
the one that took up covert and
social media, part of the discussion there was on precisely
this question of if you can't be there yourself. 09:13:15 You lose this other dimension that
you and Nadia and and Robin and others have been talking about. So it might be worth going back to that transcript,
and not the transcript I'm sorry the recording of that session and giving the listen to that
part of 09:13:32 it. 09:13:33 Okay. Perry. Yes, I'm so Devin I think who will have time
for about 10 minutes of a breakout room so when yo
u're in your breakout room, introduce
yourself and your research interests nobody's assigned to monitor this and you'll get a
time notice when 09:13:54 we're about ready to come back, all
together and hear about the next session so this is a little bit of an effort to meet
some people in the interpretive a circle. 09:14:06 Devin Can you assign us to breakout
rooms. 09:14:12 Yeah. Yes, it should be open, though, and actually
getting something on their screen, prompting you to move to a room. 09:2
6:03 Looks looks like we had more time
than we thought. 09:26:34 Welcome back. 09:26:36 I hope you found those meetings,
and snippets of conversations helpful. 09:26:43 I'll come back to that point in a
minute. Our next clinic is going to be on May 21. 09:26:51 What I add that will be the fifth
one, what I started at the beginning of today's session to say is that today's was the second
of three methods for generating data. 09:27:04 And that this was an accidental structure
that emerged as Perry
and I were figuring out how to organize these sessions. 09:27:13 So what's the third mode of generating
data we don't have an easy enough name for that. 09:27:19 The first one we can talk about as
a observing with whatever degree of participating. That was last month. Today we have talking to people, which includes
interviewing. 09:27:32 And the third one is what is perhaps
best described as a close reading. 09:27:41 And the question is, what are we
reading. 09:27:43 So are working title for ne
xt month's
clinic is documents and beyond. 09:27:51 But we want to try to burst the bounds
beyond documents so so much of Political Science focuses on the written word or the spoken
word. 09:28:02 And so we tend to treat documents
as objects, but there's so much more in the material world, like Nadia is Bible. 09:28:12 Or like, like Chandan well Fred's
donkeys and champions, animals, and so on and so forth. So we're going to try to burst those bounds,
and make it a wide ranging discussion, and w
e're delighted that Michelle vital from the
University of Basel who's been 09:28:37 serving as our chat group for the
last three clinics is going to join Perry and me. We're also going to change the format of this
next one, and instead of rest on questions we're going to treat it as a conversation,
and see where we go so we hope you 09:28:53 will join us for that one. And then a heads up for clinic number six
which will be on June 25. 09:29:00 As I also said at the beginning and
just alluded to,
now we have the vision at the beginning that we would be gathering up
to 25 people, and we could all sort of sit around this visual tea or virtual table, and
see each other and talk to each other and 09:29:17 share issues and research and so
forth. So Perry and I were quite blown away when
so many people. 09:29:25 Several hundred in fact signed up
for sessions. And what we want to do in the sixth clinic
is tried to create a setting that will get us closer to that original vision of the clinics.
09:29:41 So we're trying to set up a structure
that will enable fewer people to gather together, all of these will happen at the same time. 09:29:50 It's a little bit too detailed to
narrate right now. But as soon as we work out the final details. 09:30:00 We will let you know what we're planning,
And so please stay tuned. And we hope that you will join us for that
one as well. 09:30:09 Thanks again to Nadia and to Robin
for sharing their experiences to Fred Schaefer who chimed in at a key mome
nt to everyone
else who has joined us, and in particular Zach thank you for managing the chat and Devin
for managing the technology for us. 09:30:30 We will be emailing out a recording
of the session, and a transcript of the chat, along with a resource sheet that has some
additional materials that you might find of interest. 09:30:44 So thank you to everybody. 09:30:47 Have a wonderful weekend, wonderful
day and till next time, next time. Thanks, everyone. Thank you. Thank you.
Comments