Creative Research Methods - Transformative adn Indigenous research (part 3 of 3)

Dr Helen Kara, NCRM visiting fellow, in the third (of three) part of the ‘Creative Research Methods’ NCRM online course.
This video is part of the online learning resources from the National Centre for Research Methods (NCRM). To access the supporting materials (presentation slides, datasets, recommended reading, links to related publications and resources) visit www.ncrm.ac.uk...

[@JohnCahillChapel]

Thanks for these insights. Very informative ... much to extrapolate on. I found it necessary, recently, to make a note to researchers in general. It might make some sense to you especially in the context of "transformative" methods of research (I think they all are in their own way, but sometimes we don't want to be transformed by researchers) : "Your major does not represent my life, my wishes, my needs or my hopes." It seems to be very difficult for a researcher in any particular field who is focused a particular project to understand that "your damned major is not a panacea for me". I understand that one (perhaps) needs to be enthusiastic, though I think "engaged" is a better state, and I am not wanting to dampen anyone's joy, however, I have found that by understanding one's small place realistically in the human enterprise, that small contribution finds a more useful and enduring place than it otherwise would. You distinguish between research methods in which ethics (etc) seems to apply more than in other research methods. I agree that this happens, and I am not strong on ethics (preferring holistic insight); I note however, that there is an assumption e.g., that anything that can be developed will be developed, especially where it can be considered near ethically neutral or where ethics is not considered particularly relevant. Tech innovation suffers from the illusion of ethical neutrality and narcissism and yet the field likes to talk about how it will reshape the world (of human interaction etc). That has massive ethical implications. I also note that academia seems to be less and less colloquial more and more clubby in its language, its languages, its concerns and its sense of status. Clubbiness now also means that many researchers and designers are designing for researchers and designers, i.e., for the clubs themselves. They are economies unto themselves, but as Prof. Berlinski notes, they forget that they are beholden to the hoi-poloi. I note also that there are too man junkets available in these "clubs" i.e., in researcher / innovator fields. There being little need to travel, they travel. BTW, I bought myself a scone with jam and cream at a popular fast food "what to call it?" The scone was delivered in a newly designed box. New colours for that brand, perforated front access, fold down sides - very designed... designedly designed! I have a photograph. I could not divide the scone or put jam and cream on it without getting crumbs all over the table. I am sure the designer loves it, and it is pretty. From around 2014, I evaluated my local branch of that "cafe" chain. They had installed digital ordering touch screens. Customers trips to four different points to complete reception of the order went up from two to nine, more when the burger took longer than the coffee to make! There are any morals to that story... Perhaps the most bothersome right now is that many research movements are now big enough to forget they are not commissioned to create my culture; they feel we depend on them. Innovations would be better informed if they were imagined with guidelines that accounted for what the ordinary local considers important, even sacred. We are the market. Design for us. Innovation should not be consider or managed as imposition, without regard to my eating habits. I read today of a couple who turned off their Google home thingo because they felt it might be getting too smart for them. I recall the 2016 Accenture survey which concluded that people are getting bored with innovations on smart devices. All academia and all researcher/innovators need to ask, "What does it mean to be human? What does it mean in England, in China, in Ethiopia, in Tasmania? What is our potential (un-augmented) in and of ourselves? How are we diminished intrinsic human significance with this innovation? Should the future be designed based on the means of the past?" Many guidelines and new directions are implied in such questions. e.g., in that regard, symbiosis is a popular word in technical R & D but antibiosis hardly gets a mention. BTW the word for antibiosis is "parasitism" in biology. I think that's a apt in too many cases. Thanks again for posting these videos. They helped me to see quite a few connections... another one being that "particle physics" is not the king of sciences... another... the reminder that research is not confined to matter but also include imagination, emotion, symbol, art(s), human satisfactions, spirit.

[@ziqingyang4439]

really helpful!!

[@gentleactions]

Thank you for these really informative videos!

[@ramdasgangurde2878]

Thank you mam