Cultural Studies - Combining Methodologies (Response Paper)

COMBINING METHODOLOGIES IN CULTURAL STUDIES
A Response Paper

On Doing Research in Cultural Studies book, we could see how the author clearly states that the cultural studies' methodological project is structured by an interest in the interplay between lived experience, text or discourses, and social context. However, through recent historical developments, these areas or perspectives need various or other alternative methodological approaches.
Furthermore, the author provides historical background on cultural studies issue. The Mead-controversy which is explained by the author is mainly about how Freeman debates Mead's research and some great differences between their research ideas. According to the author, Mead and Freeman have different paradigmatic orientations which caused their greatest strife. Not showing which one writes a 'better' research, the author aims to point out that the debate illuminates the 'truth' about Samoa, which is complicated. I agree with the author because the two researchers are different individuals, viewed from their backgrounds, ideologies, or subjects they studied.
It is stated by the author that the positivist notion of science grounds the Mead controversy, meaning that it has goal to produce valid results or nothing less than 'the truth'. (Saukko, 2003, p. 18) Nevertheless, the truthfulness in positivist methodology reveals the problems from Mead and Freeman. In this situation, I agree that the old notion of validity seems no longer feasible. The author then presents how the multiple validities may have more advantages, instead of the older notions of 'validity'.
Three different validities are suggested in the book, namely, Dialogic Validity, Deconstructive Validity, and Contextual Validity. I would like to quote the definitions from the Conclusions part, since I find them briefer and clearer than the previous explanations on the book. First, Dialogic Validity evaluates research in terms of "how well it remains true to the lifeworlds of the people being studied." (Saukko, 2003, p. 34) Second, Deconstructive Validity evaluates research in terms of "how thoroughly it is aware of the social discourses and tropes that mediate our understanding of reality and frame our research." (Saukko, 2003, p. 34) Third, Contextual Validity measures the validity of research in terms of "how well it manages to locate the phenomena." (Saukko, 2003, p. 34) I believe that the author is consistent with the idea which suggests "abandoning singular validity, does not entail a state of 'lawlessness' in research, but that they each set forth specific guidelines, rules, and criteria for good research." (Saukko, 2003, p. 23)
The author's explanations of combining methodologies such as Triangulation, Prisms, Material Semiotic, and Dialogue are merely focused on the realities or facts, whether they are fixed, fluid, or interactive. In my opinion, it would be better for the author to give more examples about the advantages or the disadvantages of applying each methodology according to scholars' needs in conducting a research.




Ludmila Martha/156332014