Paper short abstract:

In my paper, I would like to discuss the problem of disagreeing with one’s empirical material and suggest “studying what is not there” as an uncertain research method. How can one justify focusing on something that is absent in the material without appearing stubborn?

Paper long abstract:

The hermeneutic research process begins with the researcher’s preconceptions, and proceeds to making sense of the research field and material. Reflecting what is not mentioned in the empirical material is an important part of source criticism. But if the researcher decides to focus on something absent in the material, and refuses to adjust the research questions, is it stubbornness and unwillingness to co-operate with the material? Is the researcher letting the preconceptions rule his or her judgement? What are the rules for following your instincts?

In my ethnological PhD research about the changing museum practices in the late 20th century Finnish museum field, I have come across such a dilemma. I make use of archived interview material, gathered as part of a Finnish Museum History Project, carried out before my own research project and without my own involvement. In my analysis, I have paid attention to how the interviewees construct communities and hierarchies through practices: how they understand “real museum work” and who actually carries it out in the museum field. Reading the material, I have been surprised by how little attention the interviewers have paid to the emergence of new occupations, such as museum educators. Is this a mere coincidence or an act of exclusion? Am I jumping to conclusions?

There are many things uncertain in the professional museum field, but I want to focus on studying what is not there as an uncertain research method. In my example, I believe it makes sense, but the approach also contains risks. Ethnological research relies on the ethnologist’s skills and “hunch”, and concentrating on something that is missing from the material depends on the researcher and his or her background knowledge and understanding of valid contexts. Are they enough to justify such an approach?