So I think I went into this week’s readings thinking that since we looked at quantitative papers last week, that we would see more qualitative this week. But the numbers still slipped in there in several! Not that I have a problem with numbers – they have their place. I just feel like I get more insight into the subjects of a research study when I know more of the why behind their responses. Some interesting studies, although a few were over topics that I have no background in so I was a bit lost on some of it.

In all honesty, I don’t think I have really learned that much about my professors over the past few weeks just by looking at one paper each. I am currently taking classes from Norris and Warren, but I feel that I know much more about them by having been in their classes. The papers I read from them really didn’t seem to add or take away from that knowledge, so I am assuming that the one paper I have read from others will not tell me much about them either. I think I have discovered something about one research topic per professor, but I know they all have more than that. So I will probably need to read much more from each one to really get a picture of who they are.

The Wang article on Foucault seems to be different than the others. I can’t seem to find Wang on the list of faculty in the LT department. So I am guessing with our past interactions with Foucault that this article was one to read and learn from. But it is also one of those articles that basically says “this is what I am saying. But not really. Or maybe so.” Wang is basically examining where others get Foucault wrong. That much I understand. The part I am unsure of is whether Wang presents an actual answer, or if he is just thinking through something that he is unsure of. At the very end, he seems to be suggesting that we not overturn power, but seek to transform power relations into powerful subjects. I am guessing this is the essence of the productive power that he speaks, but overall the point is still unclear to me.