Tuesday, July 18
Today, I started testing the coding structure I had developed for the collected visitor data, and the inconsistencies in my initial structure became apparent. While I felt like I had a good grasp on the general trends of the data (i.e. a a sense for the typical responses informants put forth) while I structured the coding rubric, actually going through and matching the coding structure to the answers revealed its deficiencies, especially in-terms of addressing ambiguous answers. It was, however, a great lesson in the need for checking an double checking assumed knowledge, and I am glad I went back to address the coding.
A big change to the coding will come from the way I split up the art vs. artifact question i.e. "What do you think of when you hear something described as African art vs. African artifact?" Initially my codes divided answers between the following content themes prominent in each response: geography, time, found vs. made, and functional vs expressive. After going through the codes with Monique and Jess, I gained a better grasp on the ways I can divide codes more meaningfully. For instance, both Jess and Monique suggested that the best way to structure the coding for the responses for the art and artifact question was to divide the question and code responses commenting on art, and the other on artifact. So far, that organization has allowed me to code much more effectively!
Later that day, seeing the African section collections storage space brought into greater perspective the breadth of material the museum holds, but also the selective nature of the objects. Especially in comparison to my past experiences volunteering in the Near East section, the sheer amount of material present from single sites in Mesopotamia dwarf some collections in the African Section that were collected to represent whole landscapes of the continent. How anyone thought these collections would provide an encyclopedic depiction of material culture or humankind is laughable. At the same time, the diversity of the collection is extraordinary, and hearing Duwane's story about finding the millet in the container struck home the fun and excitement that comes with working with objects, and the exciting mysteries they innately hold.
A big change to the coding will come from the way I split up the art vs. artifact question i.e. "What do you think of when you hear something described as African art vs. African artifact?" Initially my codes divided answers between the following content themes prominent in each response: geography, time, found vs. made, and functional vs expressive. After going through the codes with Monique and Jess, I gained a better grasp on the ways I can divide codes more meaningfully. For instance, both Jess and Monique suggested that the best way to structure the coding for the responses for the art and artifact question was to divide the question and code responses commenting on art, and the other on artifact. So far, that organization has allowed me to code much more effectively!
Later that day, seeing the African section collections storage space brought into greater perspective the breadth of material the museum holds, but also the selective nature of the objects. Especially in comparison to my past experiences volunteering in the Near East section, the sheer amount of material present from single sites in Mesopotamia dwarf some collections in the African Section that were collected to represent whole landscapes of the continent. How anyone thought these collections would provide an encyclopedic depiction of material culture or humankind is laughable. At the same time, the diversity of the collection is extraordinary, and hearing Duwane's story about finding the millet in the container struck home the fun and excitement that comes with working with objects, and the exciting mysteries they innately hold.
Comments
Post a Comment