If there's only 10% chance of rain, why am I drenched?
Part of the kind of research I've started to do in communication is something political science never wanted me to touch. I use to find this amazing that in political science we study kings, kingmakers and how those people have made an impact on society. History is a methodology of doing the same thing. People who have no voice are unimportant and we ignore them. Sure, there are little attempts like the Gies' family attempts of finding the significance of history with commonfolk, but even those were told more as periodic pieces of how "people" lived rather than how individuals lived.
This is what I've sought out as a part of my studying in commication. Dr. D pointed it out the other day in class when he explained that "Duane's approach..." is to look at the study that shows 95% of the people thought this and then try to find out why the 5% thought what they did. You see, I think he recognizes in me my belief that those 5% are far more important than the cattle mentality of the masses. Rational choice points that people will do what is most common and most obvious, but in reality, there are people who shake their fists at the system, and they are the ones who influence the future. Not always. Not usually. But enough times that a lone thinker or believer in the impossible is the reason why entire societies have moved into a completely different direction than anyone ever suspected was going to happen. And then we treat that person as one of the "leaders" who chose to travel the route of great names, when in reality the person was anything but.
Right now, my research is focusing on the ability to change the minds of peers in politics through interactive media that is not part of the mainstream. In a survey I have been conducting, I am finding that those who have been within the testing area I have been studying have had the most movement along idealized natures while those who have just entered the arena believe that they are not changeable. I'm seeing something very interesting that no one else is noticing because self-surveys are famous for accepting people at their word. In my self-survey, I'm showing that people are self-reporting no change due to little exposure while those who have had the most exposure either report massive change or don't even realize they've changed. Fortunately, the paper trail I have at my use is capable of showing that change they don't even realize has happened.
So, again, I find myself focusing my research on an area that the rest of science has convinced itself is unimportant. Yet, I have to be honest here. I really believe there's a whole branch of science that people are neglecting. I see it as something much bigger than what I'm doing. I really feel that the explanation of the very base procedures and goals of people can go a long way to explain why those who have been doing the standard for centuries makes a lot more sense.
Stumble It!
This is what I've sought out as a part of my studying in commication. Dr. D pointed it out the other day in class when he explained that "Duane's approach..." is to look at the study that shows 95% of the people thought this and then try to find out why the 5% thought what they did. You see, I think he recognizes in me my belief that those 5% are far more important than the cattle mentality of the masses. Rational choice points that people will do what is most common and most obvious, but in reality, there are people who shake their fists at the system, and they are the ones who influence the future. Not always. Not usually. But enough times that a lone thinker or believer in the impossible is the reason why entire societies have moved into a completely different direction than anyone ever suspected was going to happen. And then we treat that person as one of the "leaders" who chose to travel the route of great names, when in reality the person was anything but.
Right now, my research is focusing on the ability to change the minds of peers in politics through interactive media that is not part of the mainstream. In a survey I have been conducting, I am finding that those who have been within the testing area I have been studying have had the most movement along idealized natures while those who have just entered the arena believe that they are not changeable. I'm seeing something very interesting that no one else is noticing because self-surveys are famous for accepting people at their word. In my self-survey, I'm showing that people are self-reporting no change due to little exposure while those who have had the most exposure either report massive change or don't even realize they've changed. Fortunately, the paper trail I have at my use is capable of showing that change they don't even realize has happened.
So, again, I find myself focusing my research on an area that the rest of science has convinced itself is unimportant. Yet, I have to be honest here. I really believe there's a whole branch of science that people are neglecting. I see it as something much bigger than what I'm doing. I really feel that the explanation of the very base procedures and goals of people can go a long way to explain why those who have been doing the standard for centuries makes a lot more sense.
Stumble It!
posted by Duane @ 12:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home