Processing thoughts from Wednesday's conversation with Ruth, for my own remembrance later. Probably won't make sense to others, and that's fine.
Translational work is important, especially if I'm doing unconventional things. Sometimes it helps to do the orthodox first, to not spend so much energy pushing for newness. Abstract artists tend to have extensive realist art training -- the "traditional" fundamentals -- before they move into doing abstract art. In qualitative research, the parallel for me is between interpretative and postmodern work.
Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" caused riots on first hearing; ears needed to get used to it. I'm no Stravinsky, but I do believe I'm not doing the type of work I want to do... as well as I need to be doing it.
I want to demonstrate that I can research in ways that articulate and further understanding, as well as critique and deconstruct it. Additionally, I should reconstruct the understanding (at least partially, while talking about why reconstruction may be problematic) after deconstructing it... for this specific project, readers need to leave knowing "what have we learned from this?"
I'm struggling in this balance, and I'm trying to push most of my energy into continuing to walk forward, not ponder down philosophical rabbit holes. Part of the challenge is that some of the rabbit holes are the forward I've defined. Someday I'll look back on this and it'll be clearer. Close, ship, and go.
Someday I'll look back on this and it'll be clearer. Right now I'm still pulling language into things I've been doing for the past few years -- which is ironic, because part of what I found in my data is the art and act of putting language onto things in retrospect.
I'm struggling in this ba