Research & Invention Discussion Hub

Facilitators

Dr. Jeff Bennett, Vanderbilt University (Thursday, September 9, 1:30 – 2:30 pm CST)

Dr. Fernando Sanchez, St. Thomas University (Friday, September 10, 1:00 -2:00 pm CST)

Notetakers

Shanna Cameron, University of Memphis

Amanda Rose Pratt, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Hub Description

RHM has been hallmarked by research innovation when it comes to the kinds of projects we develop, the questions our research asks, and the kind of insights and interventions our studies generate. Despite an increasing commitment to method/ological transparency in RHM research, the backstage work of research often becomes invisible in our publications. That is, the process of identifying a fruitful research site or topic, manifesting productive questions, and building a rich study are challenging practices that have a direct impact on the kinds of findings RHM generates. Thus, this hub is dedicated to embracing and developing the research invention process by giving space for RHM researchers to discuss best practices, challenges, and questions that arise at the intersection of research and (re-)invention.

Generative questions

  • How do RHM researchers develop research questions and projects that allow us to tackle pressing complex topics and issues? 
  • What methods, theories, or methodologies should we be drawing on or building within RHM to successfully conduct research and generate knowledge? 
  • What resources and support might RHM scholars need to effectively and ethically conduct meaningful research? 
  • How can we continue to advance RHM’s anti-racist and social justice commitments as we invent research projects, ask research questions, and conduct our research? 
  • How might our field’s foundational and past research prepare us to move forward as a field? What can we build on and take with us as we pursue new research avenues? 
  • How might we build support networks for our community as RHM researchers and scholars? How might we become a more welcoming and safe, and brave community for diverse perspectives and projects?

Discussion Hub Synthesis

Keywords: personal experience, online spaces, positionality, interdisciplinarity, review processes, mentorship, community

Main Takeaways

  • Often, RHM research begins with personal experience and connections to the work
  • RHM draws on diverse methods and methodologies that are responsive to our questions and projects; the kinds of objects/phenomena that we study are also diverse (e.g. documents, interpersonal interactions, technologies). 
  • RHM research is often interdisciplinary, which means our work can often speak to multiple scholarly communities but can also lead to challenges when it comes to developing projects and identifying disciplinary-specific contributions. 
  • The process of identifying a fruitful research site or topic, manifesting productive questions, and building a rich study are challenging practices that have a direct impact on the kinds of findings RHM generates
  • Find mentors/community in the field to bounce ideas off, write with, share feedback, etc. Use RHM groups and spaces like Flux and the Symposium to find people doing similar work and/or who can be your support network. 
  • We can all work to cite and amplify more diverse scholarship — it may require us to read in new circles, areas of the field, or even interdisciplinary communities, but it is key to enacting our social justice commitments and will make our work better. 
  • Key areas for consideration: research in online spaces, positionality, mentorship

Developing New Projects & New Writing 

  • Find research that inspires you — what kinds of questions did they ask? What kind of methods/methodologies were used? What about this work inspires or motivates you? How might you build similar work on topics or questions that interest you? 
  • Find published work that inspires you — What about the writing strikes you as valuable? Can you find a way to formulate something in your own voice?

Kairos & Constraints 

  • Projects should be responsive to previous work — this can be through extension, identifying points of contention, or charting new paths that can be traced in someone to ongoing conversations 
  • Academic review processes are a part of our invention work with research including IRB processes, grant reviews, peer-review during publishing. We often talk about our work as independent but these processes influence the kinds of work we can do (in productive and sometimes challenging ways). 
  • Seeking mentorship and asking for informal conversations with journal editors can be very helpful in crafting projects and publications that accomplish our own scholarly interests/goals and have traction in larger disciplinary conversations 

Research in Online Spaces

  • Be transparent about your presence and positionality, as well as the risks and benefits of your research and what the outcomes of your research might be (publications, interventions, etc.). Our goal should be to protect participants. 
  • IRB may approve research practices that require additional care, especially in online spaces. For example, in a recent article in RHM by Caitlyn Jarvis (see links below), she chose to not only anonymize participants but change wording in posts (while maintaining the original meaning) to help protect participants and prevent others from finding the original posts. 
  • We should note that in some online spaces, people may go back and remove a post at a later date — how should we navigate this as researchers? 

Key Resources