Summary and Evaluation: Diagramming and Inverting
In Unit 4, we were asked to choose one of the sections from the Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary Research Methods and present a summary and analysis of our reading. We were also tasked with activating our research method(s) by inventing a verb that enlivens our area of research. Each week we participated in discussions and revised our summary and evaluation based on what we had learned, orienting it around the verb we invented.
Summary and Evaluation
Of Interdisciplinarity
In section 4 of the Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary Research Methods, Angela Last (2018) discusses interdisciplinarity and the development of interdisciplinary research methods using the framework of collaborations, institutions, geopolitics, and methodological futures. She poses the question: “’How does a method come into being?’ If method is not a neutral practice, but a practice that is shaped by context – by the field as well as wider systems in which research is embedded – one should really ask the question: what gives rise to interdisciplinarity and interdisciplinary methods?” (p. 199). In response to this question, this section explores interdisciplinary research in four different contexts. I chose to focus on diagramming, as I was immediately drawn to the link between art and science, and I can imagine its application to my own research topic/question.
Diagramming
Mice Space, a collaboration between Helen Scalway, an artist, and Gail Davies, a geographer of science, combines visual expression and interpretation from both art and science to form the experimental method of diagramming (Last 2018). Different from a solely artistic or scientific approach to creating a visual representation of a finding, concept, or idea, in this interdisciplinary context, diagramming offers a method through which experimentation, exploration, and discovery can occur. This chapter presents an exchange between Scalway and Davies about their individual work and their collaborative project concerning the geography surrounding genetically modified mice in biomedical research facilities. “They discuss diagramming as a form of spatial ethnographic practice, located at the interstices of geographical enquiry, ethnographic methods and visual analysis” (Davies and Scalway 2018).
Last (2018, p. 200) highlights the reflective process behind the Mice Space collaboration both between collaborators and through sharing it with others in the form of an online repository, framed as an anti-archive, at www.micespace.org (Scalway and Davies n.d.).
The diagrams of laboratory spaces are striking because at first glance they appear to be scientific or architectural in nature; however, upon closer inspection the text is more subjective, describing the space and the activities and thoughts of its occupants (Davies and Scalway 2018, p. 215). I was also drawn to the ink and bleach drawing, Lab Cleanliness, and how the process of its creation was described by Scalway as “attempting with inevitable lack of success to wash out the designated ‘clean’ areas of the floor plan with bleach”, and the response it elicited from Davies, saying that “this was an extraordinary image for me, which must have emerged from some of my writing about the challenge of managing and understanding microbes in animal facilities” (p. 225-226). Here we see the interplay between disciplines and how the process of diagramming can lead to new knowledge and understanding.
Research Topic/Question
At the end of Unit 3, I revised and refocused my research question both to reduce its scope and because TST’s Religious Reproductive Rights (RRR) campaign (The Satanic Temple n.d.) has recently gained attention due to the overturn of the Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. I think it would be interesting and timely to focus on the discourse of bodily autonomy, reproductive rights, and abortion access, and how language use shapes knowledge around this social issue.
My Preliminary Research Question from Unit 1:
What are the differences between the general public’s perception of Satanism and the stated beliefs of The Satanic Temple, and how does public perception inform political responses to The Satanic Temple’s advocacy initiatives?
My Revised Research Question from Unit 3:
How is The Satanic Temple (TST)’s Religious Reproductive Rights campaign represented by TST and in news media reports in the context of the abortion debate in the United States?
The “tried and true” research methods I was most drawn to from Unit 1 were Content Analysis and Discourse Analysis. Diagramming will be a useful addition to these methods to visually explore and organize what is said, how language is used, and the meaning that is produced about TST’s Religious Reproductive Rights campaign in the context of the abortion debate in the United States.
Invent a Verb: Inverting
Inspired by some of the symbolism found in Satanism, I have selected “inverting” as my verb, interpreting it through a Satanic lens and re-imagining it for the purpose of my research topic as way of exploring the context and systems of power around my research question.
In Speak of the Devil: How The Satanic Temple is Changing the Way We Talk about Religion, Joseph P. Laycock (2020) describes Satanism as “first imagined as an inverted form of Christianity” (p. 118), “a reconciliation of opposites” (p. 193), and a “rebellion against arbitrary authority” (p. 80). It is important to note that although Satanism may be imagined as a literal inversion of Christianity – good vs. evil – it is not actually so, but, in the case of TST, it presents an opposing force to Christian hegemony (p. 133). In carrying out this role, TST “appropriate[s] the discourse of evil” while also attempting “to strike a careful balance between identifying with the imagined forces of evil and redefining those forces” (p. 134).
Taken in this context, inverting can be used to examine the systems of power surrounding a research topic. If we take the definition of “invert” to mean to put “in the opposite position, order, or arrangement,” (Oxford University Press 2021) we can re-examine the distribution of power and its impact on the research question, methods, and context.
Further Reflection
The three methodologies I have chosen to explore my research question are Content Analysis, Discourse Analysis, and Diagramming. After the readings and discussions of Unit 3 and Unit 4, I have learned a lot about the other research methods presented. Unit 4 in particular has been eye-opening in terms of different approaches and perspectives that can be used in interdisciplinary research. With this added context, I feel confident that the three methods I have selected will be the most appropriate and productive for my research question. The use of language and the meaning that is produced are central to my research question and Content Analysis and Discourse Analysis will offer a traditional approach to examining these. The chapter from the Routledge Handbook on diagramming had a real impact on me, and I think diagramming will be a well-suited addition to my research process.
The exchange between Davies and Scalway caused me to reflect on my own academic history as an undergraduate student who changed disciplines after one year of studying engineering. At that time, I had considered majoring in fine arts; however, I didn’t have confidence in myself as an artist and I was worried that I would not find something to explore or convey through my work beyond learning about techniques and mediums. Ultimately, I decided to major in Art History and avoid the question altogether, but something clicked for me in the framing of diagramming and the artistic process as an interdisciplinary research method rather than something for its own sake. Scalway’s description of creating the ink and bleach drawing and Davies’ response to it solidified art as an interdisciplinary method for me, and I want to try it for myself.
I am continuing to think about how to answer the “so what” question and what theoretical framework I should use to guide my research. The exercise of inventing a verb and coming up with “inverting” has clarified for me that questioning and responding to systems of power is fundamental to TST’s Religious Reproductive Rights campaign and that systems of power are also at the core of the abortion debate. I am keeping this front of mind as I develop the background context and literature review for my proposal.
References
Davies, Gail, and Helen Scalway. 2018. “Diagramming.” In Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary Research Methods, edited by Celia Lury, Rachel Fensham, Alexandra Heller-Nicholas, Sybille Lammes, Angela Last, Mike Michael, and Emma Uprichard, 209–27. Routledge International Handbooks. Taylor & Francis Group.
Last, Angela. 2018. “Of Interdisciplinarity.” In Routledge Handbook of Interdisciplinary Research Methods, edited by Celia Lury, Rachel Fensham, Alexandra Heller-Nicholas, Sybille Lammes, Angela Last, Mike Michael, and Emma Uprichard, 197–208. Routledge International Handbooks. Taylor & Francis Group.
Laycock, Joseph P. 2020. Speak of the Devil: How The Satanic Temple Is Changing the Way We Talk about Religion. New York: Oxford University Press.
Oxford University Press. 2021. “Invert.” Lexico.Com. 2021. https://www.lexico.com/definition/invert.
Scalway, Helen, and Gail Davies. n.d. “Mice Space.” Mice Space. Accessed July 24, 2022.
The Satanic Temple. n.d. “Religious Reproductive Rights Campaign.” The Satanic Temple. Accessed June 27, 2022.
Notes
This post is a revised version of the Summary and Evaluation assignment I submitted in Week 13 of MAIS 602 Doing Interdisciplinary Research, Athabasca University (Dr. Nisha Nath, May 2022).
Featured Image: Person Holding Clear Ball by Aldiyar Seitkassymov from Pexels.com