Because i chose to conduct inside research using my practice as a case study, i sent out an email to the entire company in preparation for conducting activities. I think this really benefited me during the process because people generally showed a real interest and didn't feel out of the loop or unimportant if not selected for direct participation.
I chose to "communicate with the head of each department because they should ideally possess the most expertise and be senior members of staff" (Louch 2016), however after conducting my interviews/observations, i came to discover another role within the company that seems to be a strong point of communication for several departments. Therefore, i am contemplating approaching said person if i feel i can take on another set of activities time wise. Having come across the 'social networking theory' in relation to my inquiry, i feel their position could be an intriguing one in regards to the diagram i plan to draw up.
I chose to conduct interviews and practical demonstrations because "the theatre can be a very intimate and expressive environment." Therefore i felt social scientific research and qualitative methods would have been the most appropriate forms of data collection - "it is what the professionals will understand and expect - we are used to being recorded and asked questions." (Louch 2016). It was interesting for me to see how each person reacted to the process.
Scheduling: Everyone preferred different time slots because of their individual timetables, breaks, days off etc which made it quite difficult to organise and involved lots of re-arranging and adapting as a researcher. Social media and watsapp was a blessing in regards to this and made it so easy to communicate.
Team work: During practical demonstrations, although i was working with the head of departments, other members of their department were naturally involved. This was because i was participating in their day to day activities - it was in a real situation. This meant added ethics forms were required.
Practicality: Because all activities were done at work, i did experience environmental problems such as interruptions from backstage calls, problems with dim lighting, sound etc. These are things, particularly when video recording that i would take into consideration much more should i conduct another inquiry.
Consistency: the location of the activity was different for every person because it was conducted in their specific department and normal surroundings. I think this benefited their approach as they were comfortable and it was also much more convenient for them. I feel it benefited me as a researcher in regards to validity. It definitely pushed me out of my own comfort zone though.
Body language: I chose to audio record and take notes after so the interview would feel more personal. My aim was for it become more conversational in order to address the relationship element of my inquiry. I think this was a great decision because i could use eye contact and smiling as forms of positive communication.
Feedback: It was great because i actually received some personal feedback on my show from departments i never see. In regards to the methods, a few people did find the wording of my questions a bit unclear which may have affected how they answered. It was really hard not to paraphrase it or push them toward my own preconceptions. I tried to avoid this by using pauses after questions as suggested by Adesola. It made them think about the question rather than me rewording it.
Participation: I found that the amount of participation i had during the practical demonstrations varied. This is something i would like to explore in regards to relationships with trust, and skills with difficulty and prerequisites I.e. Was it because of those things that it varied?
Relationships: Generally i tried to conduct the practical demonstration and then follow it with my interview questions.This so it didn't take up too much of my participants time. I found that the approach to the interview varied massively between the people who had done the practical demonstration beforehand and those who hadn't, but also to me as a researcher. A more conversational approach definitely occurred post demonstration because it had helped me to get some background information, build some trust and establish a relationship. It also gave me things i could refer to during the interview which showed that i had listened and taken a real interest. The people doing an interview cold were much more nervous in their approach and much less relaxed. I knew this from their facial expressions, more direct answers and need for reassurance, "it was probably rubbish", "was that OK?" etc.
Observation grid: I had designed an updated observation grid from my module 2 planning. This was for making notes during and post practical demonstration. I found this to be inconvenient to carry around and a hinderance toward my taking part and listening. It was much easier for me to use video/audio recording like with the interviews and make notes after. I also found that there was so much detail and that I had learned so much in a such a short space of time, that the observation grids didn't allow for such in depth note taking. Therefore I stopped using these after my first 2 participants.
Overall I really enjoyed conducting my research activities. I cannot believe how much I have actually learned from the others in my practice. I also cannot believe how quickly my relationships with these people have changed. I was invited to a wedding reception, approached on social evenings out. I have felt more comfortable asking for help or addressing department related concerns, and have also arranged to watch the show from the sound/lighting desk rather than sitting in the audience.
No comments:
Post a Comment