WEBVTT Kind: captions; language: en-us NOTE Confidence: 80% (HIGH) 00:00:09.600 --> 00:00:18.400 Can you see the screen? Perfect. Okay, so, welcome everybody. I'm very happy to be here in person. 00:00:18.400 --> 00:00:27.300 And first of all, I would like to thank you all for accepting this challenge, which is a strange new 00:00:27.300 --> 00:00:38.900 form of making a course. The problems of being half of the time from zoom and half of the time in 00:00:38.900 --> 00:00:39.500 presence. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:00:39.500 --> 00:00:53.100 So we are definitely kind of pioneers in these difficult times. I hope you 00:00:53.100 --> 00:01:00.450 you started to familiarize yourself with the new course structure and I hope you had also some fun in doing 00:01:00.450 --> 00:01:09.500 like this. Let me just explain you how it's going to work. Okay, you had the material beforehand, NOTE Confidence: 89% (HIGH) 00:01:09.500 --> 00:01:19.700 you had some tasks to do and today in the lecture we will have two different 00:01:19.700 --> 00:01:29.300 moments: The first 45 minutes, I will, first of all, try to answer your questions and make little 00:01:29.300 --> 00:01:36.500 bit of reflections together about the topic of the day. While in the second half of the lecture, 00:01:36.500 --> 00:01:40.000 we will try to do some hands-on activity. NOTE Confidence: 67% (MEDIUM) 00:01:40.000 --> 00:01:49.000 Possibly working in small groups, five or six people in each group depending on how many 00:01:49.000 --> 00:01:57.600 people are here and in classroom and zoom. Today, the activity will be very smooth and 00:01:57.600 --> 00:02:06.600 easy for starting lecture. In the next lectures, we will have some more active stuff to do. 00:02:06.600 --> 00:02:09.449 Okay, but the idea is that NOTE Confidence: 72% (MEDIUM) 00:02:09.449 --> 00:02:16.200 -especially when it comes to qualitative methods, that are not NOTE Confidence: 86% (HIGH) 00:02:16.200 --> 00:02:24.300 really standardized and in which the researcher is in an important part of the method itself-, the idea 00:02:24.300 --> 00:02:34.700 is that you try to do things. I try to structure these activity starting from a very simple 00:02:34.700 --> 00:02:42.300 observation. The fact that, for instance, sometimes you arrive to the master thesis 00:02:42.300 --> 00:02:46.000 without having done one single interview, real interview. NOTE Confidence: 83% (HIGH) 00:02:46.000 --> 00:02:50.800 And then you have to do your master thesis and maybe you have to interview people and you never 00:02:50.800 --> 00:02:58.600 practiced it. This happens everywhere, every University I have been working. 00:02:58.600 --> 00:03:06.100 So, the idea is that we start with familiarizing ourselfes with the methods that maybe you want to use 00:03:06.100 --> 00:03:16.200 Okay, so every lecture will be split into halfs. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:03:16.200 --> 00:03:24.400 If you don't have any questions about this, everything is clear, I move on. I hope you could follow the 00:03:24.400 --> 00:03:34.800 material online. I had to play a little bit with canvas and of course, I will try to improve in the 00:03:34.800 --> 00:03:40.700 next lectures. But basically the idea is very simple that you click next and you find what you have 00:03:40.700 --> 00:03:46.149 to do. Okay, but I will also try to make some other NOTE Confidence: 72% (MEDIUM) 00:03:46.149 --> 00:03:56.250 visualization available. So today, I hope you enjoyed reading the first chapter of the handbook. 00:03:56.250 --> 00:04:04.150 I choose this book, which is not really new as you can see, 00:04:04.150 --> 00:04:12.600 but the way it presents the qualitative methods is very challenging 00:04:12.600 --> 00:04:16.100 and interesting. So the book and the debate it presents is still very active. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:04:16.100 --> 00:04:26.800 So what I try to do is, I collected your questions and reflections from 00:04:26.800 --> 00:04:33.650 the forum, by the way, please try not to post on the morning of the lecture because I 00:04:33.650 --> 00:04:44.500 don't have time to read the answer. So try not to do that. Post it at least one day before and I will try to collect 00:04:44.500 --> 00:04:46.150 and grouping your questions NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:04:46.150 --> 00:04:55.049 to identify the main points. Of course I can probably never answer all the questions 00:04:55.049 --> 00:05:02.200 here. So the idea is that the Forum discussions go on along the course, as maybe you 00:05:02.200 --> 00:05:12.500 have new ideas, new thoughts. I can provide some materials, sometimes for to meet your curiosity. 00:05:12.500 --> 00:05:16.049 Okay, so I group questions NOTE Confidence: 72% (MEDIUM) 00:05:16.049 --> 00:05:26.700 in these topics because also we have a limited time to do this. So I will try to go 00:05:26.700 --> 00:05:37.350 through my reflections or thoughts about what you asked and hope to find some answers. Of course, 00:05:37.350 --> 00:05:45.200 this is still interactive. So if you have some some other thoughts while I'm talking, please just 00:05:45.200 --> 00:05:46.300 jump in, okay? NOTE Confidence: 87% (HIGH) 00:05:46.300 --> 00:05:53.799 I know it's difficult to do interactive stuff in these settings. Nevertheless, let's try. NOTE Confidence: 82% (HIGH) 00:05:53.799 --> 00:06:02.000 So the first question, which is something I was expecting... That's a 00:06:02.000 --> 00:06:13.850 very important question: ''The difference between methodology and methods''. In some books probably, 00:06:13.850 --> 00:06:23.100 you will find no difference. Methodology are is methods. This is why in 00:06:23.100 --> 00:06:24.049 social sciences, NOTE Confidence: 86% (HIGH) 00:06:24.049 --> 00:06:35.500 you basically have two approaches. One is the idea that methodologies are just standard procedures 00:06:35.500 --> 00:06:44.700 you apply to a phenomenon, so it's a toolbox. If you need a screwdriver, you use a test. If you need 00:06:44.700 --> 00:06:52.800 a hammer, you use an EEG and so on. According to NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:06:52.800 --> 00:06:56.800 the experimental design that you have. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:06:57.200 --> 00:07:08.800 While another view is a bit more complex and saying that methods themself are just are of course 00:07:08.800 --> 00:07:20.700 tools, but a tool itself is useless if you don't know how to use it and if you don't have an 00:07:20.700 --> 00:07:26.650 idea of why are you using it. So I would say that NOTE Confidence: 85% (HIGH) 00:07:26.650 --> 00:07:35.400 the difference is that, of course, methods are techniques. We apply methods to solve 00:07:35.400 --> 00:07:44.000 problems. So methods are not only something you will be using in research or in science, when we need 00:07:44.000 --> 00:07:53.200 to solve a problem, like ''how do I get to university from home by tram?'' I will use a 00:07:53.200 --> 00:07:56.150 method. It can be a very empirical and NOTE Confidence: 76% (HIGH) 00:07:56.150 --> 00:08:03.100 subjective method. Like ''Oh today is sunny, so I will not take the tram and I will walk, 00:08:03.100 --> 00:08:10.300 because I like to work on sun.'' that's completely subjective. Or it can be a very objective method, 00:08:10.300 --> 00:08:22.200 like using Google Maps, that calculates perfectly the time and distance, you have to walk or to 00:08:22.200 --> 00:08:26.100 go by public transportation and provides NOTE Confidence: 90% (HIGH) 00:08:26.100 --> 00:08:37.299 two different alternatives you can choose from. But our methods are for to solve the problem. So the 00:08:37.299 --> 00:08:43.100 difference is that the focus is no longer on the method we use, NOTE Confidence: 79% (HIGH) 00:08:43.100 --> 00:08:51.800 but on the problem. So here we start to see that there is no method in itself, which is 00:08:51.800 --> 00:08:58.850 independent from the problem we want to solve. Now the question I would like you to think about 00:08:58.850 --> 00:09:01.200 in our field is: NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:09:01.200 --> 00:09:06.150 What is the problem? What is the phenomenon NOTE Confidence: 81% (HIGH) 00:09:06.150 --> 00:09:15.700 we are interested in? I would say, is human life, human Experience, human suffering, human relating 00:09:15.700 --> 00:09:22.800 to other humans, human learning. And again, NOTE Confidence: 82% (HIGH) 00:09:23.100 --> 00:09:32.400 the question is, how do we see these problems? So when you see that, we have method, we 00:09:32.400 --> 00:09:41.450 have problems but we have also, our ideas about what is human learning, what is human suffering, 00:09:41.450 --> 00:09:48.600 what is inclusion. So you see, do you remember the methodological cycle? You see how methods are 00:09:48.600 --> 00:09:53.700 always related to the phenomenon. Always related to the assumption that we have. NOTE Confidence: 90% (HIGH) 00:09:53.700 --> 00:10:03.100 So the idea is that methods are tools to solve problems, but they are 00:10:03.100 --> 00:10:11.650 meaningless unless we have a complete idea of how we want to produce knowledge and generalizable 00:10:11.650 --> 00:10:18.650 knowledge. So we try to use some ways, common ways NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:10:18.650 --> 00:10:29.100 to produce generalizable knowledge about something, which is I think by definition fairly unique. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:10:29.300 --> 00:10:38.500 So human Experience is unique. My experience is never like exactly like your experience. And my 00:10:38.500 --> 00:10:50.900 experience when I was 10 years old is never the same of my experience when I was 11, 12, my 00:10:50.900 --> 00:10:53.099 first school day... NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:10:53.099 --> 00:11:02.950 My first school day is special because it's my first. The second one, by definition will be not 00:11:02.950 --> 00:11:10.650 like the first school day. So the question I would like to reflect upon is how we can have methods 00:11:10.650 --> 00:11:21.600 to understand fairly changing unique, always developing form of human experience. That's the real 00:11:21.600 --> 00:11:23.500 question. Okay, so, NOTE Confidence: 88% (HIGH) 00:11:23.500 --> 00:11:32.050 these kind of questions are part of methodology and it makes no sense just to take one method NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:11:32.050 --> 00:11:39.900 if you don't link it to these other questions. So that would be my take on the different 00:11:39.900 --> 00:11:47.200 take on methodology and methods. If you want a definition, the methodology is the system, the 00:11:47.200 --> 00:11:54.900 Ensemble of elements through which we produce generalizable knowledge. Methods are a part of this 00:11:54.900 --> 00:11:56.250 methodology. NOTE Confidence: 77% (HIGH) 00:11:56.250 --> 00:12:03.450 Theories are another part. If you don't use them together NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:12:03.450 --> 00:12:14.500 İt makes no sense to use a method itself. Okay, that was my first answer. Any question, comments -also 00:12:14.500 --> 00:12:22.400 from home- ? You can write it from chat. Okay, we have a lot to discuss, 00:12:22.400 --> 00:12:27.000 so moving on. Other question: positivism. NOTE Confidence: 84% (HIGH) 00:12:27.700 --> 00:12:38.100 We probably had someone else talking about this. 00:12:38.100 --> 00:12:46.100 So I just want to to stress a couple of points. Okay, the idea of 00:12:46.100 --> 00:12:54.950 positivistic science, is the idea that there is only one reality one truth, and if we use the right way, 00:12:56.500 --> 00:13:11.050 We can inductively discover this truth. So you see how there are a lot of simple 00:13:11.050 --> 00:13:19.599 definitions. But if we just start asking ourselves, what is truth? NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:13:19.599 --> 00:13:30.500 Well, we are really entering a very difficult field. So the idea of positivism, is the idea that we can 00:13:32.100 --> 00:13:42.500 build any hypothesis empirically, verify this hypothesis and especially predict and control the 00:13:42.500 --> 00:13:47.400 reality, if our hypothesis is correct. NOTE Confidence: 75% (MEDIUM) 00:13:48.700 --> 00:14:01.600 Now again, what is the difference? What is the question in social sciences? Okay, if you take a stone NOTE Confidence: 85% (HIGH) 00:14:01.600 --> 00:14:04.500 and you analyze the stone NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:14:04.500 --> 00:14:07.300 somehow chemically, NOTE Confidence: 86% (HIGH) 00:14:07.300 --> 00:14:10.450 the stone cannot lie. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:14:10.450 --> 00:14:20.400 We can make a wrong measuring but the stone cannot decide to lie to us. NOTE Confidence: 85% (HIGH) 00:14:20.400 --> 00:14:23.450 Human beings lie, NOTE Confidence: 88% (HIGH) 00:14:23.450 --> 00:14:37.500 human beings have will, human beings may think ''why she's asking me this? ''. So again, human life 00:14:37.500 --> 00:14:47.300 and human experience is a fairly special object of study. So we cannot simply take the positivistic 00:14:47.300 --> 00:14:54.400 view which is of course, as being generated in the field of natural sciences NOTE Confidence: 78% (HIGH) 00:14:54.400 --> 00:14:58.800 translated into social sciences. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:14:58.800 --> 00:15:07.700 But beside that, there is also another very important point and today we are discovering 00:15:07.700 --> 00:15:16.900 the terrible limitation of this point. Even a stone is not passive. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:15:18.100 --> 00:15:26.800 For instance, positivism was built on the idea that there was a subject and object relationship. So 00:15:26.800 --> 00:15:34.400 human beings are the subject of knowledge. They simply relate to an object, which is passive like a 00:15:34.400 --> 00:15:39.250 stone or like a river or like a forest. NOTE Confidence: 88% (HIGH) 00:15:39.250 --> 00:15:43.500 And we can know, control and dominate NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:15:43.500 --> 00:15:52.150 this object and predict the future behavior of this object if we use the right method. NOTE Confidence: 79% (HIGH) 00:15:52.150 --> 00:16:01.500 Today, we know that we cannot even control or predict anything in nature. Why? Because first 00:16:01.500 --> 00:16:08.050 of all, we discovered that we are part of this nature. So, the subject object relationship 00:16:08.050 --> 00:16:16.650 is not active-passive. We are part of what we are studying and this is even more true NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:16:16.650 --> 00:16:19.800 when it comes to human beings. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:16:20.400 --> 00:16:28.300 As human beings, we are part of relationship with other human beings and even if you are doing 00:16:28.300 --> 00:16:36.800 an FMRI to a person, that's a relationship. That's not a active subject and passive object 00:16:36.800 --> 00:16:45.900 situation. So this fundamentalshift in the way we relate subject 00:16:45.900 --> 00:16:51.050 and object from knowledge makes positivistic approach is NOTE Confidence: 86% (HIGH) 00:16:51.050 --> 00:17:07.050 completely inconsistent. But as we will see, it is an ideological problem. Because 00:17:07.050 --> 00:17:16.900 the idea of positivism lays on, I don't want you to do the history of prisons now, but it lays 00:17:16.900 --> 00:17:20.849 on a very specific word view. NOTE Confidence: 89% (HIGH) 00:17:20.849 --> 00:17:31.900 So, the idea that there is a subject which is active, intrapreneurial, able to control and to 00:17:31.900 --> 00:17:41.600 predict, so it has power. And there is an object, which is powerless. When it comes to social 00:17:41.600 --> 00:17:51.450 sciences, this is called extractivism. So the idea that, I as a researcher, for examle go NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:17:51.450 --> 00:18:00.800 to a school, I just go there and extract ''mine''. Have you ever heard the expression 00:18:00.800 --> 00:18:09.500 ''data mining'' ? That's exactly the metaphor, that we go there and pick the knowledge we need. 00:18:09.500 --> 00:18:12.400 and we come back home. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:18:12.500 --> 00:18:21.150 As we will se, this is a criticism, which is really keen to the colonizing critisizm. 00:18:21.150 --> 00:18:28.100 So, what did the colonizer country do? They just went there and pick the resources of the 00:18:28.100 --> 00:18:35.800 colonized countries and left the colonized countries in problems. So the idea, the 00:18:35.800 --> 00:18:43.300 extractivistic approach is that, the researcher is just someone who is exploiting his NOTE Confidence: 86% (HIGH) 00:18:43.300 --> 00:18:53.900 participants. And when it comes to marginal or vulnerable subjects, this is even more problematic. 00:18:53.900 --> 00:19:04.000 Because if, if you as a researcher, come to me, I am privileged, university professor of a rich 00:19:04.000 --> 00:19:13.100 country. So I have some resources to oppose or to contrast your attempt NOTE Confidence: 89% (HIGH) 00:19:13.100 --> 00:19:22.000 to colonize my knowledge or to extract my knowledge. But imagine a subject which has not 00:19:22.000 --> 00:19:29.800 such a power, is in a vulnerable condition or is in a very unique condition of poverty, or doesn't have 00:19:29.800 --> 00:19:39.199 enough cultural resources to understand what I'm trying to do. So that will be 00:19:39.199 --> 00:19:41.150 fairly unethical relationship. NOTE Confidence: 81% (HIGH) 00:19:41.150 --> 00:19:49.900 So you see, the idea of positivism is based on a subject-object 00:19:49.900 --> 00:19:57.400 relationship, which is today very very problematic. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:19:57.500 --> 00:20:00.650 Okay, let's move on. NOTE Confidence: 82% (HIGH) 00:20:00.650 --> 00:20:09.700 Okay, another question, very interesting question, which is ''strong objectivity''. Of course, 00:20:09.700 --> 00:20:22.100 the the idea of strong objectivity sounds kind of strange one, because... 00:20:22.100 --> 00:20:30.850 Sandra Harding has created, do you know what .... (unheard) is? It's when you NOTE Confidence: 83% (HIGH) 00:20:30.850 --> 00:20:44.700 put together two terms that are that are apparently opposite like warm-cold. So she says, somehow 00:20:44.700 --> 00:20:52.000 that strong objectivity is when you really consider subjectivities. NOTE Confidence: 84% (HIGH) 00:20:56.600 --> 00:21:07.900 And again, it goes back to the idea of truth. Do we really have one single truth? Or truth and 00:21:07.900 --> 00:21:15.900 knowledge depends on the perspective of the subject? So for instance, NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:21:17.200 --> 00:21:24.850 I can see your faces but who is sitting up there? NOTE Confidence: 84% (HIGH) 00:21:24.850 --> 00:21:27.699 I can see only your notepads. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:21:27.699 --> 00:21:33.050 Now, are we talking about the same reality or not? NOTE Confidence: 89% (HIGH) 00:21:33.050 --> 00:21:44.500 This different perspective is giving us different views, so we miss consider the perspective of 00:21:44.500 --> 00:21:49.550 who's sitting there and say, only my perspective is the right one. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:21:49.550 --> 00:21:59.300 Because I am in the position of a professor, or we shall say instead maybe I see things 00:21:59.300 --> 00:22:07.000 in a certain way. She sees things in a different way. So maybe if we combine our 00:22:07.000 --> 00:22:13.200 perspectives, we can come to a better understanding of the phenomenon, because we take it from 00:22:13.200 --> 00:22:15.500 different perspectives. NOTE Confidence: 83% (HIGH) 00:22:15.700 --> 00:22:23.800 The first thing you learn when you start University is that there are qualitative and 00:22:23.800 --> 00:22:26.000 quantitative methods. NOTE Confidence: 83% (HIGH) 00:22:26.200 --> 00:22:34.600 And like Star Wars, the dark side and the bright side, and the force. So, quantitative methods are 00:22:34.600 --> 00:22:43.700 ''the force''. Qualitative methods are the dark side, and you have to choose from the very beginning. And 00:22:43.700 --> 00:22:51.700 actually, it is also the way researchers see themselves. So people like me are the one who 00:22:51.700 --> 00:22:55.699 joined the dark side. What instead NOTE Confidence: 84% (HIGH) 00:22:55.699 --> 00:22:59.700 if we are not talking about opposite NOTE Confidence: 77% (HIGH) 00:22:59.700 --> 00:23:07.750 ways but just complementary ways, so we are looking to a phenomenon from different perspectives. NOTE Confidence: 83% (HIGH) 00:23:07.750 --> 00:23:16.100 And if we put them together, if we put them in dialogue, maybe we can get a better understanding of 00:23:16.100 --> 00:23:27.400 the phenomenon. So, and this is actually, this implies a big shift, because as I said in the 00:23:27.400 --> 00:23:35.300 positivistic perspective, there is one subject who is the one who knows, and has power and is 00:23:35.300 --> 00:23:38.550 active, and there is the object who is passive. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:23:38.550 --> 00:23:48.000 Here, we are kind of reversing the perspective and say both are the subject and object of 00:23:48.000 --> 00:23:49.800 knowledge at the same time. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:23:50.000 --> 00:23:56.000 When you interview someone, you are being interviewed. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:23:58.200 --> 00:24:06.500 When you observe someone, you are being observed in return. The difference is that there is some 00:24:06.500 --> 00:24:15.000 kind of social structure that gives you more power than the other one. So the observation of 00:24:15.000 --> 00:24:23.000 the participant has less voice or less power than yours but not because of the knowledge process in 00:24:23.000 --> 00:24:26.800 itself, but because of the social status that you have. NOTE Confidence: 89% (HIGH) 00:24:28.000 --> 00:24:37.650 So hermenuetics considers this different standpoints. Yes, and no. NOTE Confidence: 84% (HIGH) 00:24:37.650 --> 00:24:43.600 It depends on how you understand hermeneutics. NOTE Confidence: 81% (HIGH) 00:24:43.600 --> 00:24:49.250 So, hermeneutical process can be a very individual process. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:24:49.250 --> 00:24:57.100 So for instance, I take your diary and I start reading it and I proceeded in 00:24:57.100 --> 00:25:05.000 my interpretation, that's one way. But there is also a dialogical are hermeneutical process. So I 00:25:05.000 --> 00:25:12.000 constantly go back to you and say, ''did I understand correctly? '' Is this exactly what you meant? '' And then 00:25:12.000 --> 00:25:15.700 the other person says, ''no, not exactly. NOTE Confidence: 88% (HIGH) 00:25:15.700 --> 00:25:24.800 I meant this, this and this... '' and while telling you she's also reflecting and understanding better, 00:25:24.800 --> 00:25:32.000 improving our own interpretation. And I can reply. So that's interpretation, that's 00:25:32.000 --> 00:25:39.500 how I interpret your interpretation. So it becomes kind of a spiral, dialogical spiral of 00:25:39.500 --> 00:25:43.100 interpretations, in which you consider. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:25:43.100 --> 00:25:50.300 all the perspectives and all the viewpoints. This is when we have two people, imagine when 00:25:50.300 --> 00:25:56.100 you have more people and more perspectives. So you can see how this process can become very, very 00:25:56.100 --> 00:26:04.800 complex. In this case they hermeneutical process is trying to achieve a form of 00:26:04.800 --> 00:26:06.650 strong objectivity. NOTE Confidence: 77% (HIGH) 00:26:06.650 --> 00:26:15.400 This is complex because it's a way of thinking, for instance if I 00:26:15.400 --> 00:26:22.900 want to study children with some kind of a learning problem, NOTE Confidence: 83% (HIGH) 00:26:23.200 --> 00:26:29.100 I as a researcher go to school and interview and make a kind of testing to these 00:26:29.100 --> 00:26:30.250 children. NOTE Confidence: 84% (HIGH) 00:26:30.250 --> 00:26:38.200 And then I do my hypothesis and do my analysis and I write something down. That's the extractivist 00:26:38.200 --> 00:26:43.600 approach. You go there, you pick your data, come back home and do something with the data, build 00:26:43.600 --> 00:26:45.550 something with the data. NOTE Confidence: 85% (HIGH) 00:26:45.550 --> 00:26:55.200 A different way of thinking is, ''Who is really involved in this? Who are the stakeholders? Who 00:26:55.200 --> 00:26:58.250 are the people that knows something? '' NOTE Confidence: 86% (HIGH) 00:26:58.250 --> 00:27:01.100 Clearly the children. NOTE Confidence: 84% (HIGH) 00:27:02.100 --> 00:27:11.650 Actually, the researcher is the ignorant person, because we want to know something that we don't know 00:27:11.650 --> 00:27:19.100 yet, our participants know something that we don't know. So actually the person who has the 00:27:19.100 --> 00:27:23.200 knowledge is the participant, is not the researcher NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:27:24.600 --> 00:27:38.300 in he beginning. So the strong objectivity is related to the idea of always considering all the 00:27:38.300 --> 00:27:43.150 people involved, all the the interests NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:27:43.150 --> 00:27:51.900 involved and how we can truly give voice and truly involve the participants. The idea is that we don't 00:27:51.900 --> 00:28:00.100 do research on people, we do research with people. We produce knowledge together. NOTE Confidence: 80% (HIGH) 00:28:00.400 --> 00:28:12.400 So, that's a very interesting question and I tried to make it even a bit more complicated. NOTE Confidence: 78% (HIGH) 00:28:12.400 --> 00:28:23.400 Okay, there is a wonderful sociologist and philosopher, from Brazil, Rio de Janeiro. 00:28:23.400 --> 00:28:35.900 He is called de Souza Santos. He is writing a lot of fascinating books about 00:28:35.900 --> 00:28:42.900 epistemological diversity. So what is the idea? The point is NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:28:42.900 --> 00:28:52.300 not that research is dominated by males. If you remember in the chapter, it mentions of 00:28:52.300 --> 00:28:55.400 liberal feminism. NOTE Confidence: 84% (HIGH) 00:28:55.800 --> 00:29:03.400 Again, the idea of liberal feminism is to solve the problem of gender inequality, you just need 00:29:03.400 --> 00:29:15.949 to hire more women basically, or to have kind of 50/50 distribution. The point is, problem is not just 00:29:15.949 --> 00:29:24.400 because of gender differences, but it's because there is a way 00:29:25.250 --> 00:29:36.950 way of thinking, which makes impossible or not acceptable NOTE Confidence: 82% (HIGH) 00:29:36.950 --> 00:29:47.500 to have different perspectives. Let's say, in the countries 00:29:47.500 --> 00:29:56.900 of global North... I will use this term ''Global North'' and ''Global South'', because I don't want you to 00:29:56.900 --> 00:30:00.900 use the term ''developing countries'' ever. 00:30:07.900 --> 00:30:15.200 Because making distinction of developed and developing countries, it's 00:30:15.200 --> 00:30:23.900 exactly a way of naturalizing that subject-object relationship. So there are people who are already 00:30:23.900 --> 00:30:25.300 developed, NOTE Confidence: 77% (HIGH) 00:30:25.300 --> 00:30:32.400 they already are at the top and there are other people who are struggling to develop like us. So 00:30:32.400 --> 00:30:41.300 don't never use this. I usually use the term ''Global South'' and ''Global North'', because 00:30:41.300 --> 00:30:49.900 there is a kind of partial geographical overlapping between. For instance inequalities, economic 00:30:49.900 --> 00:30:51.850 inequalities and NOTE Confidence: 83% (HIGH) 00:30:51.850 --> 00:30:59.250 geographical distribution, of course because the north of Europe and North America are traditionally 00:30:59.250 --> 00:31:06.100 the colonizing countries. So when I refer to Global North and Global South, this is why. So the 00:31:06.100 --> 00:31:17.000 idea is that the Global North has a system of knowledge that systematically underestimate NOTE Confidence: 79% (HIGH) 00:31:17.000 --> 00:31:25.400 different, diverse forms of knowledge. So how does it look, this system of knowledge that 00:31:25.400 --> 00:31:32.500 creates oppresion? It's, of course, based on patriarchy. So, here you have to gender power 00:31:32.500 --> 00:31:39.750 differences. So by definition, male is power and female is passive. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:31:39.750 --> 00:31:50.800 And this is regardless of if you are a man, or a woman, or whatever gender you are, 00:31:50.800 --> 00:32:05.400 is because we implicitly attribute power to kind of male looking teachers. The second is, of 00:32:05.400 --> 00:32:09.699 course, colonialism. Again, is based on the idea that there are natural NOTE Confidence: 70% (MEDIUM) 00:32:09.699 --> 00:32:12.300 differences of power. NOTE Confidence: 87% (HIGH) 00:32:12.300 --> 00:32:24.200 So, some races or some ethnicities, or some cultures are inferior to others. And the third one is 00:32:24.200 --> 00:32:32.400 capitalism, which again, is based on the naturalization of power differences. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:32:32.400 --> 00:32:42.850 For instance, who is better in competition is also better as a human being. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:32:42.850 --> 00:32:54.350 So all these forms when combined together, they produce a lot of problems in research. Why? Because, 00:32:54.350 --> 00:33:05.500 for instance, they imply that there are some people who know better than others. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:33:05.500 --> 00:33:16.300 For instance, let me give you an example in Brazil. In Brazil, there are 00:33:16.300 --> 00:33:25.050 important indigenous communities. Imagine that you have one University, NOTE Confidence: 83% (HIGH) 00:33:25.050 --> 00:33:32.199 studying the Amazon forest, and you have some indigenous communities NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:33:32.199 --> 00:33:43.800 that live in the Amazon forest since for thousands of years. Who knows better the amazon forest? NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:33:47.300 --> 00:33:50.650 They know in different ways. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:33:50.650 --> 00:33:59.100 Nevertheless, when you have to make some political decision about what to do with the 00:33:59.100 --> 00:34:04.600 Amazon forest, you will not listen to the indigenous communities, the government will listen to the 00:34:04.600 --> 00:34:06.300 university. NOTE Confidence: 86% (HIGH) 00:34:07.800 --> 00:34:16.900 So this is a naturalization of, what is a good knowledge and what is a bad knowledge? NOTE Confidence: 87% (HIGH) 00:34:20.500 --> 00:34:32.000 I'm pretty sure that you have heard people saying men are better in math 00:34:32.000 --> 00:34:40.500 and science, while women are more skilled in social relationship and empathy, right? NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:34:42.699 --> 00:34:52.199 And in our society, what's more important? What's more valued, mathematics, or social 00:34:52.199 --> 00:34:54.850 caring and listening others? NOTE Confidence: 87% (HIGH) 00:34:54.850 --> 00:35:02.700 What is more scientific? Capitalism is about numbers and figures, it's not about social relationships. 00:35:02.700 --> 00:35:10.800 So you see how this is another naturalization of an asymmetry. And we don't really pay 00:35:10.800 --> 00:35:20.100 attention to all these things. Have you ever watched a Tv series called ''The Chair'' ? 00:35:20.100 --> 00:35:25.100 Maybe this is kind of like advertising and I should not do it NOTE Confidence: 70% (MEDIUM) 00:35:25.100 --> 00:35:30.000 but it's very interesting. There is a Netflix series called ''The Chair'' NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:35:30.400 --> 00:35:39.150 Watch it. It tells you exactly what are we doing in university, it's really wonderful. NOTE Confidence: 80% (HIGH) 00:35:42.600 --> 00:35:50.800 It's a very short series, six episodes and episodes are 30 minutes long. 00:35:50.800 --> 00:35:54.600 The figurative university is located in America. NOTE Confidence: 89% (HIGH) 00:35:55.600 --> 00:36:06.649 The series is talking exactly about all this stuff. So, okay... 00:36:06.649 --> 00:36:12.900 The last point I want to make is very important. Is that, 00:36:12.900 --> 00:36:20.000 as we say, the naturalization of gender differences, inequalities, naturalization of inequalities 00:36:20.000 --> 00:36:25.800 between cultures, they support each other. The third point NOTE Confidence: 90% (HIGH) 00:36:25.800 --> 00:36:34.900 critical point is capitalism. Capitalism is based on the idea of economic efficacy or 00:36:34.900 --> 00:36:36.600 efficiency. NOTE Confidence: 89% (HIGH) 00:36:36.600 --> 00:36:45.200 And what is the method of economic efficiency? It is standardization. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:36:46.900 --> 00:36:56.800 The Nordic countries invented containers. Lego box, lego bricks. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:36:56.800 --> 00:37:06.100 What is containers? Containers are an extremely efficient form of standardization NOTE Confidence: 90% (HIGH) 00:37:06.400 --> 00:37:16.750 Capitalism works toward he reduction of differences the reduction of diversity. Because diversity 00:37:16.750 --> 00:37:19.750 is not economically efficient. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:37:19.750 --> 00:37:28.750 To be economically, efficient according to capitalism, agriculture must be standardized. NOTE Confidence: 77% (HIGH) 00:37:28.750 --> 00:37:37.649 So, we will have only one kind of apple, which is very efficient to be produced, one kind of 00:37:37.649 --> 00:37:46.900 ananas, one kind of salad. Because you can produce it on a large scale with the same seed, 00:37:46.900 --> 00:37:51.200 same procedure, same machines. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:37:51.200 --> 00:37:56.399 But capitalism is also reducing anthropo diversity. NOTE Confidence: 81% (HIGH) 00:37:56.399 --> 00:38:05.600 We all learn the same stuff, in same standartized way, with the same assessments. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:38:05.600 --> 00:38:13.600 This is actually not a completely deliberate choice, because this is the logic of 00:38:13.600 --> 00:38:20.250 capitalism. Reducing diversity and having standardization to make it more efficient. NOTE Confidence: 84% (HIGH) 00:38:20.250 --> 00:38:27.800 So, if you combine all these elements together, you have exactly the problem of killing diversity. 00:38:27.800 --> 00:38:40.500 We are killing diversity, at the level of nature, at the level of human customs, also at the level of our 00:38:40.500 --> 00:38:42.500 psychological life. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:38:42.500 --> 00:38:47.750 The multiplication of pathologies, NOTE Confidence: 89% (HIGH) 00:38:47.750 --> 00:38:53.600 the growing volume of the DSM NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:38:54.800 --> 00:39:05.600 is actually telling us that we have a problem with diversity. We are moving diversity 00:39:05.600 --> 00:39:11.050 the side of pathology. Diversity is a pathologhy for capitalism. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:39:11.050 --> 00:39:15.850 But we know that is exactly the opposite, diversity is life. NOTE Confidence: 90% (HIGH) 00:39:15.850 --> 00:39:27.300 Natural life tends to diversification. So, if we kill diversity, we kill life itself. Okay, let us 00:39:27.300 --> 00:39:37.300 continue with ''objectivity''. Actually, this is related to what I was talking about. Can you 00:39:37.300 --> 00:39:39.500 measure objectivity? NOTE Confidence: 89% (HIGH) 00:39:39.500 --> 00:39:48.200 Again, if the idea of objectivity is based on the subject-object relationship that we have in 00:39:48.200 --> 00:39:51.000 positivism, of course you can. NOTE Confidence: 77% (HIGH) 00:39:51.700 --> 00:40:02.000 If instead, we problematize this, then we have a lot of stuff to think about. For 00:40:02.000 --> 00:40:08.600 instance, how do you consider objectivity? It has three 00:40:08.600 --> 00:40:17.800 dimensions, you probably already had a lecture in this; reliability, validity and bias. 00:40:17.800 --> 00:40:19.650 Okay, reliability; NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:40:19.650 --> 00:40:26.300 If your measurement is constant over trials, NOTE Confidence: 74% (MEDIUM) 00:40:26.600 --> 00:40:37.300 apparently is correct. But if I assume that human experience is never constant, NOTE Confidence: 90% (HIGH) 00:40:39.400 --> 00:40:48.950 we have a problem here. Because if my test is always getting the same result while I am changing... NOTE Confidence: 81% (HIGH) 00:40:48.950 --> 00:40:56.000 Well, the test may be reliable for something but not for detecting my experience. It should be 00:40:56.000 --> 00:40:57.800 different. NOTE Confidence: 81% (HIGH) 00:40:57.800 --> 00:41:08.200 Validity; For this, I have the example 00:41:08.200 --> 00:41:14.000 of the intelligence. What is the definition of intelligence? NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:41:14.500 --> 00:41:20.300 Basically it's what is measured by an intelligence test. NOTE Confidence: 83% (HIGH) 00:41:20.500 --> 00:41:25.200 We don't have one single definition of intelligence, NOTE Confidence: 87% (HIGH) 00:41:25.200 --> 00:41:32.900 but the common agreement is that if you use an intelligence test, then you are measuring 00:41:32.900 --> 00:41:43.000 intelligence. Seems completely logical, it's truism. Again, are we sure that when 00:41:43.000 --> 00:41:51.100 we are using any method, the method is not actually producing what is meant to produce, rather 00:41:51.100 --> 00:41:55.700 than capture the actual human experience? Well, when was the last NOTE Confidence: 73% (MEDIUM) 00:41:55.700 --> 00:42:06.150 time you had a pen and paper test? Did you ever had one? 00:42:06.150 --> 00:42:15.200 Now just imagine, it was really a boring test. It's asking questions like: 00:42:15.200 --> 00:42:20.700 How many times per week do you feel like blah, blah, blah? And there are 100 00:42:20.700 --> 00:42:25.649 questions like this. Then you start thinking ''Oh, what the hell is this? NOTE Confidence: 86% (HIGH) 00:42:25.649 --> 00:42:31.750 I just want to go out, I don't want to answer this test. '' But while thinking this, you're 00:42:31.750 --> 00:42:36.600 continuing to answer. Okay? NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:42:36.800 --> 00:42:41.700 So now, what is the test actually capturing? NOTE Confidence: 81% (HIGH) 00:42:41.800 --> 00:42:46.700 Of course not your real experience in that moment. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:42:49.800 --> 00:42:56.900 So the test is meant to capture what is meant to capture regardless of what you are experiencing 00:42:56.900 --> 00:43:11.600 in the moment. So the third aspect is of course, is accurateness or bias. As there was another 00:43:11.600 --> 00:43:20.100 question about bias, I will jump to that. We avoid biases. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:43:24.500 --> 00:43:31.300 My counter question is, why should we avoid biases? NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:43:33.500 --> 00:43:40.800 How can we turn biases into a source of new knowledge? NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:43:40.800 --> 00:43:47.900 Do you remember the are hermanuetic approach? I constantly confront my interpretation to your 00:43:47.900 --> 00:43:52.750 interpretation. So I acknowledge my biases to you. NOTE Confidence: 80% (HIGH) 00:43:54.850 --> 00:43:58.700 And through this acknowledge, NOTE Confidence: 80% (HIGH) 00:43:58.700 --> 00:44:05.200 I somehow gain more knowledge also about my biases. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:44:05.500 --> 00:44:11.450 It sounds strange because this criteria NOTE Confidence: 88% (HIGH) 00:44:11.450 --> 00:44:16.100 is meant for material instruments. NOTE Confidence: 76% (HIGH) 00:44:16.100 --> 00:44:22.700 So these criteria are meant for objects, not for people. NOTE Confidence: 82% (HIGH) 00:44:23.500 --> 00:44:34.900 So, of course, if a thermometer is not reliable, it's useless. Of course. NOTE Confidence: 82% (HIGH) 00:44:35.600 --> 00:44:43.700 But that's a tool, that's an object, it's not a person. While qualitative research is about people, is 00:44:43.700 --> 00:44:58.600 about persons. So when it comes to using our biases, and of course, the other biases, we assume 00:44:58.600 --> 00:45:00.500 that we are biased. NOTE Confidence: 90% (HIGH) 00:45:00.500 --> 00:45:09.700 But again, that's not a limitation. That's life. So we are acknowledgeing and we start 00:45:09.700 --> 00:45:19.200 thinking how this enters into our research and into the relationship with 00:45:19.200 --> 00:45:24.900 our participants. When we start thinking this, that's called reflexivity in research. NOTE Confidence: 66% (MEDIUM) 00:45:24.900 --> 00:45:33.400 And that's it for today. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:45:33.600 --> 00:45:44.550 So before the break, I will tell you about the activity we are going to do. 00:45:44.550 --> 00:45:54.300 Today is very simple, it is very easy, relaxing. 00:45:54.300 --> 00:46:03.600 For people on Zoom, we will go into breakout rooms, NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:46:03.600 --> 00:46:09.100 because I want you to work in small groups. While people here, you have 00:46:09.100 --> 00:46:16.300 time for a break to organize yourself and your group. As you prefer, you can do it here in the classroom, or 00:46:16.300 --> 00:46:23.500 you can go outside, even though it's not really sunny. 00:46:42.400 --> 00:46:52.900 Now let me let me explain what I would like you to do today. I have posted an article on 00:46:52.900 --> 00:46:59.300 canvas this morning. It's a very short article of three pages. 00:47:02.600 --> 00:47:13.000 It's in the anouncements section. It's a very short article, but it's a very groundbreaking article 00:47:13.000 --> 00:47:22.300 as you will see and it created a lot of discussion. So, what I would like you to do is, split 00:47:22.300 --> 00:47:28.600 in groups, you choose four to six people. NOTE Confidence: 74% (MEDIUM) 00:47:29.900 --> 00:47:37.100 And this procedure will be the same every time. So just remember it. 00:47:37.100 --> 00:47:48.149 Each group should choose one speaker. Because, if you want to ask questions, 00:47:48.149 --> 00:47:54.750 if you want to say something, just one person is going to speak. Otherwise, there will be too much 00:47:54.750 --> 00:47:58.700 confusion. Than, I want to you take NOTE Confidence: 78% (HIGH) 00:47:58.700 --> 00:48:06.300 20-25 minutes -- maybe it's too much time for you but people read differently -- to read the 00:48:06.300 --> 00:48:14.350 article. It's in Canvas, but it's also open-acsess, so if you just Google it, you will find it. 00:48:14.350 --> 00:48:23.700 So read it individually for 20, 25 minutes and than I would like you to have a 00:48:23.700 --> 00:48:29.500 small group discussion. 00:48:33.300 --> 00:48:43.050 In this group discussion, 00:48:43.050 --> 00:48:48.300 what I want you to do is, to apply NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:48:48.300 --> 00:49:01.200 what we have learned and discuss this article. To help you in this, I have created some 00:49:01.200 --> 00:49:09.900 questions that you can use to discuss. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:49:45.100 --> 00:49:53.500 So you have some triggering questions. NOTE Confidence: 73% (MEDIUM) 00:49:53.500 --> 00:50:04.000 These are not the only questions that you can ask about this article. I will give you just one 00:50:04.000 --> 00:50:16.500 one tip: This article is actually discussing ''What do we do in research, in behavioral sciences 00:50:16.500 --> 00:50:18.900 is actually useful or not. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:50:18.900 --> 00:50:23.900 Or what we are doing is wrong and useless. '' NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:50:23.900 --> 00:50:33.100 So, it's just a simple question. Do you have any doubts or question about the task? Everything is 00:50:33.100 --> 00:50:43.600 clear? Okay. Because we have limited time, I don't think we have time to meet again 00:50:43.600 --> 00:50:54.200 and discuss like in afull session, so we can continue to use the ''discussion'' on Canvas, NOTE Confidence: 71% (MEDIUM) 00:50:54.200 --> 00:50:59.100 if you have reflection and comments. I am trying to do as much as possible, but we have few 00:50:59.100 --> 00:51:08.000 hours. I will be around the groups in case you have questions or things you want 00:51:08.000 --> 00:51:16.600 to discuss. I will be around, as well as Hristina, Hakan and Sophia. They will help us all the 00:51:16.600 --> 00:51:24.149 time when we have hands-on activities. Okay, so if you have questions, things you want to NOTE Confidence: 85% (HIGH) 00:51:24.149 --> 00:51:32.000 talk about, just tell us and we will be around. Is it clear? The same applies for you people in their homes. 00:51:32.000 --> 00:51:34.500 Okay, we'll work in breakout rooms. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:51:37.100 --> 00:51:46.000 Now we take the break. I will just leave this on. So just have a coffee, relax and decide the 00:51:46.000 --> 00:51:54.750 groups while we are on the break. NOTE Confidence: 91% (HIGH) 00:51:54.750 --> 00:51:58.300 Okay guys, any question? NOTE Confidence: 86% (HIGH) 00:51:59.200 --> 00:52:07.400 Super, thank you! Okay, now I'm stopping the recording.