This week has largely been concerned with the definition of many of the terms in the sub-field of Applied Anthropology. In particular, the process by which we as Anthropologists design and define words and terms remains an important step in researching how to research research. In fact, I am going to use a term here to simplify this extended and convoluted idea int he title: meta-research. Looking into meta-research and the methods by which we create research is particularly interesting as there is a long-standing question of how best to do research. The entire basis of this class, Participatory Action Research looks to combine academic and community workforce in order to provide a proper result. Whereas Community Based Participatory Research is almost an integration of academic knowledge into the communal knowledge of the community. While it may be a little redundant, it is significant in discerning the relationship between community and researcher. Research itself is a convoluted process and in all means is cyclical and can be repeated among different variations and life-cycles. Definition is hard and is outstandingly annoying to constantly look into, but it is important in learning how to meta-research.
In terms of the research proposal for my work in Edmonds, I am in charge of my group’s Literature Review. I find this outstandingly hard to go through because of my lack of overall training in quantitative methodology. While I can understand the writing it is difficult for me to process because the people are there, but their voices are out of reach. There is no specification, nor is there a true link to their own advocacy. There seems to largely just be a compiled response of surveys. It makes me glad that we are doing this project.