I have begun to process the qualitative data of my doctorate research. Fascinating.
I liken the process to panning for gold, where the findings are nuanced, rhetorical, fine-grained based on the date processed.
That has become an important point to realise, and why perhaps unlike science theorising which supplants one for the other, it's problematic within journalism.
Essentially, if as many scholars have done treating journalism as literary text, rather than science, we're in the realm of literary critique.
The only you thing you can do is to argue a point against a detractor using rhetorical powers of debate.
Empiricism also serves broadly two purposes. The research we conduct now to comprehend where we are in this topsy media turvy world which registers its moment in time. Then moving away from the scene of examination for reflection. The further we're removed from the event, those small tears begin to look like gaping holes.
The 1990s now seems an era away, the 1960s for the baby boomers almost a lifetime. But as a caveat I note their importance.
We're only begin to realise, or at least the screen generation born into a digital world, will when we help contextualise change not for nostalgia, but to curate systematised change
This week that quality will be put into practice judging the RTS, and then next week providing a heuristics of journalism knowledge lecturing at Uni.
Interesting times ahead :)