Question Five

How can qualitative researchers produce work that is meaningful across time, space, and culture?

Question five looks at the fact that any researcher, research subject, or reader of research findings "is situated within a particular locale as well point of view (p. 133)." Most of the chapter focuses on the concept of "global" vs. "local" and suggests that "building reflexivity into one's research design can help situate one's work, internally and externally (p.134)." Of particular importance in the introduction is an explicit explanation of the specific use of the following terms:

-Research: "both the process and product of inquiry";

-Situated: "located in a particular historical, local, and political place";

-Internally and externally: "those factors influencing the design, process, and write-up of the study, as well as those elements that link the specific cultural study to larger contexts of meaning, whether physical, theoretical, or cultural.

-Reflexive processes: "the method of looking recursively and critically at the self in relation to the object, context, and process of inquiry."

Markham goes on to discuss the notion presented in the opening quote by Burawoy (p. 131), basically the idea that any sense of the "global" or macro is actually an aggregate of many "local" or micro agencies or perspectives. Further, "Given the primary strength of qualitative research as studying human social behavior using close, inductive interpretive methods, it is appropriate to strive to approach research in a more global manner" (p. 140). Markham suggests that in trying to make research "global" in its scope, three questions should be continually asked:

1. What does the term "global" mean, anyway?

2. How can qualitative methods by used to address global concerns?

3: How can qualitative researchers produce research that is meaningful and relevant to a global audience?

The section "Operationalizing the term 'Global'" examines the wide variety of definitions and uses for the term "global", suggesting that while no definition is wrong, the researcher must be clear about what he or she means when using the term and should qualify their use of it rather than assuming that the term will automatically be mutually understood.

I think the crux of this chapter is in the section titled, "Global as the manner versus scope of research" (p .139). Markham posits that to use qualitative research on a global scale is to cultivate "global sensibilities" (p. 140), to adopt a critical perspective that constantly seeks to reveal the boundaries of any "situated" inquiry and call into question revealed assumptions. In so doing, the voice of the "local" is able to contribute to the "global" without (ideally) being re-cast through the situated lens of the researcher. If left unexamined (and even when examined) this situatedness influences the methods, directions and presentations of research findings. As Markham suggests, "...our research theories, methods, and interpretations are bounded by particular and situated rationalities (p.134)."

The remainder of the chapter focuses on the idea of reflexivity as a tool for examining the situatedness of ourselves as researchers, of our research subjects, and of our intended audiences. Markham says, "To even begin thinking 'outside the box,' it is necessary to grapple with the notion that, because we live and work within invisible frameworks, we are to a certain extent foreign to ourselves" (p. 141). Markham suggests that reflexivity can be used both analytically during the research phase and rhetorically during the presentation phase, providing a series of questions as "...opportunities for situated reflexivity throughout the research project (p. 142)."

Markham further discusses the value and need for reflexivity by pointing out three "lessons" she learned in the process of research collaboration with a Dominican student, lessons that can be broadly applied to ethnographic and qualitative research.

Lesson 1: Even the simplest descriptive details are filtered through the researchers' localized understandings.

Lesson 2: Our cultural assumptions will influence our interpretation.

Lesson 3: Culturally specific understandings of power and authority influence the interpretive lens.

Continuing to expand on the utility of reflexive inquiry, Markham proceeds to outline a series of questions that can help one situate their research findings within a more global sensibility.

Markham concludes by pointing out that while no research project or product will ever be able to adequately represent all perspectives or avenues, "reflexive analysis of one's own boundaries is an ethically powerful way of identifying for the self and for others those limitations and factors influencing one's research choices. (p. 152)".

RESPONSE 1, Elaine Lally

Lally concisely summarizes and illustrates Markham's arguments by relating her experience as a researcher situated in Australia, addressing 3 specific points (p.156):

The location you do research from is as important to any consideration of the local and the global as the location you do research in

Definitions of "global" may be quite different for people who are differently positioned with respect to mainstream Wester modes, and a focus on globalization, as a process with attendantpolitical and economic structures of privilege, can be more useful than looking at the global in terms of unifying perspectives through comparative research.

Our situatedness gives us a sense of feeling at home in particular places and times, but as researchers we have a responsibility to use research practices that are dialogical and creative and that stretch our comfort zones.

Most of this echoes what Markham has already posited, but there are a couple of things that I think add to the discussion:

The idea of framing research not in terms of "global", but in terms of "globalizing" and "globalization", the former implying a shared and unified whole and the latter stressing the effects of globalization on the local.

The examination of reflexive analysis as a fundamentally creative process. "Through creative activity we combine and recombine symbolic resources in novel way, so that they tell us something we haven't heard before or had only dimly recognized (p. 163)." I think that this is important because if reflexive analysis becomes overly codified or methodized, it may lose its ability to shock one into the kind of "aha" moment where preconceptions and assumptions become readily apparent.

Of particular interest to me was the discussion of heterogeneity among, as Lally says, "people who may be geographically near, but culturally far (p.158)". This really drives home the idea that deep investigation of the local can give great insight into the global. It is easy for me to think about the value of investigating the differences between myself and my location and someone somewhere in East Asia, but not so easy to recognize that the same inquiry is relevant to my neighbors.

Another thing that was helpful was the framing of Markham's dialogic reflexivity as a process of maieutic or socratic inquiry.

RESPONSE 2, Ramesh Srinivasan

Srinivasan's response also focuses heavily on reflexivity, reminding us of the position of power of ethnographic researchers. Stressing the value of participatory forms of research (citing the Tribal Peace project), Srinivasan further argues for the importance of deep local investigation to understand the global aspect of the internet, that it is "...multi-sited, multi-authored, and multiply received and acted upon" (p.166).

Suggesting that "physical space is best understood in terms of its placement within a network" and that "Globalization is [...] best understood by looking at movements within the network (p.167)," Srinivasan urges an examination of the trans-national aspects of a locale to be researched. To balance the local investigation in terms of its place in the larger network, Srinivasan suggests examining the trans-national influences and extensions of and on the local.

Using her own work with the South Asian network as a model, she outlines an approach that "combines globally derived social network surveys with multi-sited local ethnographies (p.169)." By giving the community agency to develop social networking paradigms that are relevant to their situatedness, a more authentic sense of its usefulness within the particular local context is yielded than by simply imposing an existing utility (like Myspace) that likewise emerged from a particular context.

As an extension of this idea Srinivasan presents the idea of "folksonomies" as a possible to answer to the question posed by Turnbull, "How can differing knowledge traditions, differing ways of mapping be enabled to work together without subsumption into one common or universal ontology? (p. 170)"

Srinivasan primarily agrees with Markham, and urges researchers to focus on four particular strategies:

1. Using trans-national methods that allow focus on the movements, flows, and socially distinct uses of information, multi- sited ethnographies, and textual analysis of virtual worlds

2. Considering scalability of results through multi-method triangulation and sense-making

3. Focusing on the networks:glocal social network studies

4. Building collaborative digital spaces for knowledge: focusing on Web 2.0 technologies that integrate diverse knowledge systems and traditions.