Research Itself

Hi Fellow Mellon Scholars,

As we are reaching the end of our program, I've been thinking about what situated research means and reflecting on my own experiences with it. The focus of this post is to dissect how the situated research approach applies to the research process itself - and to generate your thoughts on this idea.

As described on the Lewis and Clark site, the situated research approach should ideally blend nature, social relations, and meaning. However, research does not simply involve your topic - it is an entity in and of itself where nature, social relations, and meaning interact to inform a unique series of processes and perspectives. As we are asked to report on our research, I am struck by just how important this aspect of a multi-year, interdisciplinary, situated research project is...and how difficult it is to report on. It seems that thinking about results in terms of p-values and charts is a far too narrow conceptual framework to capture what the real results of engaging in situated research are!

I explored this idea by creating a new concept map. Here, you can see the evolution of my research over the course of four years. (In each installment, I grayed out the boxes that are no longer as active so that the shifting focus is highlighted.) My research began as a thin skeleton of interests and tools, where the social relationships and the physical environment in which it was situated had not yet had time to entwine themselves with my life. By the final c-map in the series, you can see the sprawling expansion of the research and how profoundly it has shaped my connection to Cocobolo Nature Reserve, influenced my interests and experiences, and forged new social relationships.

If you look at your research experience through a dynamic temporal lens - what does it look like? Similar?

Reflecting on the c-map series I'd created, I realized that the form that research really takes is somewhere between the two extremes of personal results (depicted in the series) and of more traditionally situated results (as in our 2008 c-maps). Imagine if a 3-dimensional c-map were possible: personal and situated boxes with the same theme would be connected. In my case, the boxes that appear on both map sets would be "Chagas disease" and "Cocobolo Nature Reserve." This seems to be the essence of situated research: the theme and location in which my research were situated bind my personal experiences with my research results. Ask this question from a temporal perspective and you can again see that Cocobolo Nature Reserve is the constant of my experience.

Just as memories' persistence from one day to the next are what shape our sense of identity and self, it is the persistence of place in all of the concept maps that give my research - and my experience of research - its shape.

I'm really curious to know if you all agree with this conceptualization of the situated research experience:
How does thinking about the processes/perspectives/places involved in your research project change the nature of the discussion about our "results"? How did you give your project meaning and how did it give you meaning? How did your research - and your ways of thinking about research - change over time?