Monday, April 9, 2012

Characterizing and contrasting research methodologies

To start class today, I’d like you to take a few minutes and reflect on how Liebow and Knecht & Martinez designed and conducted their respective studies. First, characterize the methodology of each study: How did each set of scholars set out to study their topic in a systematic way? How did their methodologies respond and work to answer their research question? Then, reflect on the insights that their methods made available. What kind of knowledge did each methodology generate about its topic? What are the limitations of each study?

11 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Liebow performs a quasi-participant observation; though he is not actually homeless, he does interact directly with the women so his study is certainly not non-participant observation. He spends enough time volunteering in several shelters that he gets to know the women there quite well and they trust him enough to share their stories with him. He was systematic about performing interviews with the women and asking similar types of questions. However, he comes up with such a surplus of information that he cannot even include or analyze all of it in his finished work. This methodology provides knowledge of personal anecdotes and experiences. It can also point to possible trends among a specific subset of the homeless population (women who live in female-only shelters) by analyzing for common themes within individuals’ stories.

    Knecht’s and Martinez’s study is quantitative analysis through surveys. The authors identified a group of volunteers and tracked changes in opinions of homelessness before and after interaction with homeless families and individuals. The survey methodology is great at analyzing correlations between variables such as political viewpoints and perception of homelessness. It is generalizable, meaning that if someone were to replicate the experiment elsewhere in a similar situation they would probably get the same types of results. Thus, the findings are more applicable to broad sections of society at large. This research method is great at discovering the verity of contact theory because it takes advantage of a situation where two different groups of individuals have contact. Then, it can see whether attitudes about the people and/or policy stance changes as a result of this contact by comparing respondents’ pre- and post-contact responses.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Liebow's strategy was centered on a more field experience, self immersion approach to the issue of homeless. He immersed himself in the homeless culture, interacting and establishing relationships with numerous homeless women. Knecht & Martinez implemented a more quantitative approach in analyzing people's attitudes towards the homeless. They administered surveys to a group of volunteers before and after working with homeless individuals.

    Liebow's work helped him personally connect with a homeless population. By documenting his experiences, Liebow hoped to provide a resource that would help other people gain some insight into the world of homelessness. Liebow's work is obviously more biased because he must have had some sort of personal interest in the topic and he reported on his own experiences. Knecht & Martinez on the other hand went for the more objective approach and simply reported the results of surveys and analyzed these results for significance.

    Liebow's study provided the reader with a sense of what it's like for a woman to be homeless. This could only be accomplished effectively if someone immersed themselves in this culture, as he did. Knecht & Martinez's research provides us with more general knowledge centered around overbearing attitudes and assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Liebow conducted a study as more of an observer study. He would go around Washington D.C. and observe the homeless. He would talk to some of the homeless people too and try and get a sense of where they were coming from. He would go into homeless shelters and be an observer. THis worked for Liebow because the "researcher is the research instrument". He was able to have a first hand account and for him he was happy. This limitations of this is that Liebow got really peronal, a little too personal with duel.
    Knecht and Martines had an experimental study. They had participates look actual homeless people in the eye. They surveyed the population about issues that often go unspoken. From the experiments they were able to conclude data and pass it on. The limitations of this is that there data is only so big and lack of space.
    Each of these methodologies worked for the authors. I think it's up to the reader to decide their individual feelings about the studies. I liked that way Knecht and Martines went about a very humanistic approach and forced people to have to really face an issue that most people aren't comfortable talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The major difference between the methodologies used by Liebow and Knecht and Martinez is that Liebow puts himself in the problem by becoming friends with homeless women at a shelter while Knecht and Martinez use the opinions and experiences of others to analyze biases regarding the homeless. The results of these studies were very different. Liebow’s results from establishing relationships with homeless women in order to understand the complex struggles that they face in battling the cycle of homelessness were much more qualitative. The women he got to know shared their personal emotions with him in a way that invited him into a much deeper understanding of homelessness than can be gained from a few short hours at a career fair like the subject of Knecht and Martinez’s study. I think Knecht and Martinez would agree that they were not truly able to answer their research question of “does exposure to homeless people help to dissuade people from accepting popular stereotypes of the homeless?” While the few people that did fill out the post volunteering survey, they did say that their opinions changed. However, they did not establish the kind of relationship with homeless people that would have been necessary to truly understand the complexity of homelessness.

    Firstly, the Liebow study generated unique knowledge about the struggle of living as a homeless woman. Many of his discoveries were unexpected, like the women’s complaint that one of the worst parts of being homeless is having nothing to occupy one’s time during the day. I was also personally surprised that so many women went to such great lengths to protect their personal belongings, including paying much more than the value of the items to keep them in storage over long periods of time.

    The Knecht and Martinez study had a very different focus than the Liebow study, and therefore had very different results and insights. They discovered that belief in homeless stereotypes was not as widespread as they had believed and that it would take more than a single volunteer experience to completely alter a person’s perception of the homeless and help them to understand the real problem of homelessness.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The methodology of Knecht and Martinez’s study differed significantly from that of Liebow’s. Liebow characterizes his study as participant observer, in which the researcher attempts to immerse him or herself in the lives of those being studied. The other study, however, is a field experiment that involved participants in an event answering survey questions before and after the event. Thus, they were not directly observed by the researcher, nor was the researcher among them. Liebow appeared to simply desire a broad understanding of the lives of homeless women, while Knecht and Martinez sought to answer specific questions regarding the attitudes of the participants toward the homeless before and after the event. From the portions of the book available to us, it seemed that Liebow garnered significant knowledge about the group of homeless women he observed, both through interviews and simple observation/participation in group activities. However, they are clearly limits to the extent to which a man with his own life can participate in the lives of the homeless women. Knecht and Martinez found that people’s opinions regarding the homeless generally improved after attending the one-day event; even with this, not all of the participants completed the follow-up survey, which could have been problematic in evaluating the results.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Both studies even though Liebow varied from Knecht and Martinez on the scholarly side of things, with Knecht and Martinez making their published article more technical in the sense of layout and diction, their goal was to evoke empathy. Liebow used more qualitative research method to gain a more personal insight into what these women were going through and feeling on a day to day basis, and how their homelessness really affected them in ways the public was not use to seeing. This achieved the goal of evoking empathy through a way that was most touching versus just numbers. Knecht and Martinez took a more quantitative approach when it came to how people connect to the homeless once they can get some interpersonal communication with them. What both sides show very effectively is that most people who are housed have incorrect preconceived notions about homelessness and these studies show that evoking empathy whether it’s through connecting with homeless or just learning their story can change a lot of people’s views. The limitations of each is with Liebow you lack the solid figures, and with Knecht and Martinez you lack the personal side of homelessness.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Liebow worked with individuals to study their experiences in a more specific way by observing rather than quantifying. He used a variety of anecdotes to describe the characters that he wrote about so that the reader could feel more empathetic towards them. Knowing the little things about a character helps the reader to feel more connected. Liebow tried to answer difficult questions about homeless women by trying to participate in their lives as much as he could, by shadowing them throughout a normal day.

    Knecht on the other hand was more separated from his research. He used surveys to collect data about his subjects rather than collecting interesting stories or anecdotes. He wanted to find out if having personal contact with the homeless affected their opinions about homeless people. The results of survey showed variation - that people's opinions on the causes of homelessness had changed but that their view on governmental policy was similar. Knecht likely used this methodology because you can't quantify someone's opinion without something written on paper.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The research study title “Humanizing the Homeless” was conducted by Project Homeless Connect. On April 20, 2007 Denver held its first PHC at the Ritchie Center. At this even homeless people could go to certain booths which provide information of jobs, health service, housing etc. The even itself drew in about 525 homeless people and 755 volunteers thus beginning the experiment. Prior to the event The volunteers were sent a survey via email to fill out. This survey asked the participants to discuss their attitudes toward the homeless. After the event, the volunteers were sent another survey. This was intended to compare how the volunteers views about homeless people changed after being in close proximity with homeless. Al though they found what they predicted, they volunteers felt more sympathy toward the homeless after the event, their views of policy still remained stagnant.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The study performed by Liebow and Knecht and Martinez are both very different in their approaches to the study and to the way that their results are presented and interpreted. When it came to Liebow his study focused on an observational methods in which he followed the women around and lived their lives in order to see things from their eyes. Throughout the process he tries to keep a general theme in his questions but in the end they are largely scattered and without a real coherent theme. Because of this his results are largely comprised of his individual views on these women and the stories that they have told him. In the end his study provides a great frame of qualitative reference. Rather then attaching a number and statistic to these women he paints a story of their lives. This makes the story more persuasive in some areas as it improves the voice and the call to action that the story focuses on. Instead of looking at numbers and saying, "someone should fix that," the reader is emotionally attached and thus feels a greater call to action.

    Knecht and Martinez took a very different path from Liebow in that they chose to frame their study around the quantitative data collected from a set population using a set system and series of questions. In the end this data paints a clear picture about the results in seeing the exposure theory come to pass. But rather then having a real human side to it, this study simply presents the numbers and leaves the reader to make their own call to action. While a quantitative study may lack in its persuasive nature it excels in the removal of bias and overall fairness on the matter. Liebow was incredibly involved with these women and overtime became incredibly biased towards them, often failing to see things from another point of view. As the Knecht, Martinez, study goes there is no point of view built in so the data, outside of several expressed limitations, is free of bias and leaves the decision largely up to the reader.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Although both the articles by Liebow and Knecht and Martinez work at achieving a similar goal in representing homelessness in a new and humanized way, they do so utilizing very different methods. Liebow takes a more qualitative approach to his research methodology. He does this by gaining is information from more individualized stories, supported by larger facts surrounding the issue. He also includes information about himself and his experiences within his research. Knecht and Martinez approach the issue in a more quantitative fashion. This involved conducting a more precise experiment in order to figure out how the perception of homelessness changes after having an individualized experience in a homeless shelter. They did this by conducting before and after serveys. Through Liebow’s research and analysis, the audience is able to see homelessness on an individual bases impacting individual people. This works towards humanizing homelessness by telling compelling stories. Knecht and Martinez work by explaining a larger trend of understanding homelessness on a different level once seen through a closer lens, and using that as reasoning to make a conclusion about homeless stereotypes.

    ReplyDelete