While reading Abbotts debates on methodology, I came to understand Ontology and Methodology as two separate stages of research that together to create the foundational bedrock to how to frame and engage in your research. Ontology I found to be especially interesting and more difficult to grasp because it is a lot more theoretical and abstract then Methodology. An ontology defines one’s view on the world. After exposure to different research methods and doing research on my topic, I have developed a context-dependent ontological view, I believe that the world is socially constructed and that we define our own realities depending on personal experiences. Which eventually leads me to have an Interpretivist methodological view because of their idea that “fact acquire meaning only when it is assigned interaction and interpretation”[1]. This is a change of position from where we first read Abbotts debates to which I originally sided more with the Positivism, but after seeing how the different debates are implemented into research I have decided that interpretivism is of a bigger interest to me.
In the early stages of class, when the question of whether a researcher can be an objective observer or if it is not possible to displace our assumptions from the research was first brought up, I tried hard to believe that we can be objective observers. But, it feels impossible to me to completely ignore your biases or past experiences when doing research. As discussed during our class discussions, if you believe that we cannot separate our personal ties to the research, the best practice is to simply put it out and address it in your research. Accepting your biases and putting them out there can help your research become more well-rounded and fair. If you know that you have a specific stand about an issue and acknowledge this bias, you will more be inclined to read about the opposing argument that refutes your bias and be able to include in your research.
As far as to the question of what can and cannot be researched, I think that almost anything can be researched and studied. Whether it is something theoretical or tangible, they can be examined using the different methodological techniques. It is difficult to imagine how someone can study or measure something that cannot seem or touched or even proved to be true, it certainly was for me to believe, there are different discourse analysis that can measure these ideas. For example, in my own research. When first thinking about the hurdles I might encounter during my research, I thought that there were certain areas and angels I might not be able to touch on because of the limitations of research. But, now I have learned that research is almost limitless.
I feel extremely fortunate to have Dr. Philip Brenner as my mentor for my upcoming research. I have been following some of Dr. Brenner’s work before our meeting as he is the resident Cuba expert of SIS and I have even used some of his work in past assignments. Unbeknownst to him, Dr. Brenner was also a factor in my decision to come to American University. Dr. Brenner and I had our first meeting on August 30, 2017, from 10:45 am to about 11:30 am. Right away I knew Dr. Brenner’s expertise on Cuba and its long history with the U.S. would be vital for providing guidance on my research and for introducing me to unknown aspects of my general topic.
We talked mostly about the general concept of my topic, our conversation was mostly centered around two questions: Why research Cuba and what was my goal? I explained to Dr. Brenner that my motivation on researching Cuba was due to my personal observation of how the recent thawing of US and Cuba relations have brought great hope to the people and have inspired new innovations and private businesses. I told him my goal was to use my research to bring attention to the benefits that could arise from the continuation of a better relationship between the two countries. Dr. Brenner also explained to me as to why he focuses on Cuba, which has to do with his interest in the relationship between small nations and superpowers. I felt that this conversation was also a good connection to our class discussion this week on Aristotle and his idea that every action has an end, every research has a goal.
One of the main tips that I took away from my meeting with Dr. Brenner is to always be aware of the different perspectives of actors involved in my research. I think this is especially useful for my research topic since there are so many different points of views when it comes to US-Cuba bilateral relations. A way I could learn more about the different perspectives was to be more aware of the history of my topic. Dr. Brenner was kind enough to gift me one of his books “Sad and Luminous Days.” This book talks about the Cuban Missile crisis and inability for each country to understand the other’s perspective. The main point from the reading is that the US had a lack of empathy towards Cuba during this time.
I look forward to continuing to work with Dr. Brenner in order to narrow down my focus and to eventually form a puzzle for my research because as of right now he believes my interest is a bit broad. Dr. Brenner and I have planned to meet at least once a month to discuss my progress and provide guidance on where to go next. He has also offered to take me to Cuba focused events around D.C.
Blight, James G., and Philip Brenner. Sad and Luminous Days: Cuba’s Struggle with the Superpowers after the Missile Crisis. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2007.
I would like my research to be concentrated on the recent events occurring between Cuba and the United States, more specifically the growth of the Cuban private business sector because of the thawing of relations. For the last 58 years, Cuba has been under a Communist regime where all business was under central government rule. In recent years, some private business has been legalized. With the new thawing of relations between Cuba and the United States, there has been massive entrepreneurial and innovative growth.
I want to engage with the changes happening in Cuba, more specifically on how a growing volume of American exposure has changed the mentality and ideas of the Cuban population and private business owners. Has there been a change in ideology? Are Cubans genuinely happy with the changes? How is the government reacting, in terms of new laws? What are the changes? These are some of the puzzles I am interested in exploring. This research topic is significant to me because being born and raised in Cuba, has made constant visits— I have noticed a huge shift in Cuban society after the announcement of the reestablishment of relations. Fortunately, I have had the opportunity to speak and engage with Cuban people, professors, and officials, and ask them about this ongoing social change. Although everyone feels differently about the change of Cuban society, they all recognize that it is undoubtedly a continuing phenomenon. My goal is to bring these feelings and ideas into the conversation and either provide new information or advance current research.
I strongly believe that this ongoing phenomenon is one of the biggest nuances in the field of International Affairs. I view this diplomatic milestone by Obama as one of the final nails in the coffin of the Cold War. This also merits substantial research because of a long history of Cuba’s fight for national sovereignty especially from the United States in terms of their imperialist history with Cuba during the era after the Spanish-American war and their economic dependency before the Cuban Revolution.