Do you have more trouble articulating your frame (social theoretical questions) or object?
Probably object. Finding my empirical object has been especially difficult given the current circumstances and my inability to undertake more traditional modes of ethnographic fieldwork, through which I would normally locate the object.
Do you tend to project-hop or to stick to a project, and what explains this?
Definitely a project-hopper. I get bored relatively easily, and if I don't lost interest, I invariably get frustrated when things aren't going smoothly.
Do you tend to be more interested in internal dynamics, or external determinations? In the terms laid out by Keller, do you tend to focus so intently on the object of your concern that context falls away (i.e. are you obsessive compulsive, rather than paranoid)? Is your desire to name, specify and control your object? Is your desire for figure, its ground your annoyance? Or are you paranoid, context being your focus and obsession? All is signal. Only begrudgingly will you admit that something is noise, outside the scope of your project? Figure is hard to come by. Its ground has captured your attention.
Paranoid! Without a doubt. When looking at documents/institutional architectures, everything seems important. The object - the thing itself I want to speak about - is inherently connected to everything around it, and I find how it is connected particularly fascinating. This is not to say that objects are not interesting, but rather than they become more interesting to me through their relations. (A/N: I often find 'object' a confusing term to use in the context of social sciences, because of its connotations of being a material thing-in-the-world. I wonder if anyone else has come across this feeling?)
What do you do with unusual or counter examples? Are you drawn to “the deviant,” or rather repulsed by it?
I am definitely drawn to what deviates, which makes processes of coding and categorization especially difficult - I find the pattern quickly, and then I spend the rest of my time thinking about the things that don't quite fit and what they might mean. Counter-examples should always be incorporated into a discussion in my opinion; if an article makes an especially grand claim, the first thing my mind does is search for instances where this may not be exactly the case. The reflex of a rebel, or just a glass-half-empty attitude?
Do you tend to over-impose logics on the world, or to resist the construction of coherent narratives?
I resist the construction of coherent narratives. Multiplicity and unruliness characterize every day of our lives - why should my work reflect otherwise? I suppose I was "raised" in quite an anti-structuralist school of thought, to put it mildly...
Do you tend to over-generalize, or to hold back from overarching argument?
Depends on what we're talking about. I find it much easier to make small, precise arguments when I have data in-hand. Otherwise I get carried away in the desire to make grand statements about what I think rather than what I observe. (n.b. my supervisors might disagree!)
Do you like to read interpretations different than your own, or do you tend to feel scooped or intimidated by them?
I wouldn't say I feel scooped or intimidated - if anything, I feel frustrated, annoyed, angry or upset. This is especially true of writing that I feel dodges difficult or uncomfortable points, e.g. post-coloniality, gendered issues, neo-liberalism. Still, I find alternate interpretations useful insights into the way other researchers think about a particular problem.
Do you tend to change an argument as you flesh it out, or do you tend to make the argument work, no matter what?
I change as I go. I prefer to start with a relatively good approximation of what I want to argue before I begin, so that I can make adjustments to refine the argument rather than change it altogether.
Do you tend to think in terms of “this is kind of like” (metaphorically)? Do you hold to examples that “say it all,” leveraging metonymic thinking?
Once again, it depends on what we're talking about. I find that both of these modes help me think, but that they do not carry well into my academic writings - my examples are often too outlandish, and leave me needing to justify their use as opposed to extrapolating upon the core of my argument.
Do you like gaming understanding in this way? Does it frustrate you that your answers often don’t fit easily on either side of the binaries set up by the questions? (Jakobson suggests that over attachment to a simple binary scheme is a “continuity disorder.”)
I feel like understanding is less subjective and more intersubjective- the gaming is complete once it has been put into action with and between relations. This could be most useful as an exercise done with supervisors/team members/ colleagues/ other intellectual companions. As for binaries, they can eat my dust.. at most, I have been enamored by the way they influence other peoples' thoughts. They do little for me, analytically or otherwise...
