thesisthoughts

This morning I started with Jill Walker’s chapter in Uses of blogs. She writes about the differences she experienced blogging about her research and other topics before and after she entered the “ivory tower” (in a permanent position).

There are other chapters in the book on blogging in academic work.

From here I peeked at Walker’s blog and found some relevant publications which are due soon:

Rettberg, Jill Walker. Blogging. Cambridge: Polity Press, forthcoming 2008.

 Rettberg, Scott, and Jill Walker Rettberg. “Narrative and Digital Media”. In Approaches to Teaching Narrative Theory, eds. David Herman, Brian McHale, and James Phelan, MLA (forthcoming, 2008).

Worth reading:

“Blogging Thoughts” by Walker, available online at:

http://imweb.uio.no/konferanser/skikt-02/docs/Researching_ICTs_in_context-Ch11-Mortensen-Walker.pdf

Walker, J. (2006). Blogging from inside the ivory tower. In A. Bruns, & J. Jacobs (Eds.), Uses of blogs (pp. 127-138). New York:  Peter Lang.

In the new online journal International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, there is an article on online interviewing – Small Talk by Annette Markham.

The article can be accessed free at:

http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/SOIS/cipr/ijire/issue_1.1.html

I heard about it on Mary Helen Ward’s blog “Faultlines”.

A comprehensive list of all Markham’s publications can be found on her website:

http://markham.internetinquiry.org/writing/index.html

Yesterday I read a fantastic paper presented by Nicole Shepherd at the AQR conference in 2003. She discusses her experience of online interviewing as part of her PhD research.

Shepherd interviewed participants face to face, via telephone, via email and through private chat rooms. She allowed participants to choose their preferred interview mode.

Online interviews all took far longer than other interviews.

Online communication allows participants a feeling of “control over their self-presentation” (p. 10). Physical characteristics do not influence the communication.

It is difficult for the researcher to remember all the details of the various participants because he or she doesn’t see them physically. This means that large amounts of text must be reread over and over again in order to place participants.

E-mail:

• useful in obtaining “rich” responses
• sending 1-2 questions at a time stimulates fuller answers
• more “intimate feeling” (p. 9)
• “Most of the participants I interviewed via e-mail give rich and full answers to my questions, equivalent to, and in some cases more in-depth than voice-based interviews” (p. 10)
• Interview process which is spread over a longer period allows the researcher to see more of the participant’s life.
• people  were willing to share private thoughts and stories “It seemed as though communicating via e-mail lent itself to personal disclosure” (p. 10). 
• time to reflect and compose an answer.

• at times it is hard to identify the mental state of the writer
• sometimes the researcher can miss the emotions going on at the time of writing.

 Chat room:

• graphic  tools help the writer convey emotions as in speech
•   technical problems hinder the drawing out of narratives
• “slow and frustrating” (p. 7)
• Reader must wait for the writer to press “send” before they can begin reading
• overlapping of responses
• It is hard to know what to make of the waiting period between responses .
• Text boxes are limited in their content – narratives must be broken up and sent in pieces 
• Need to type quickly

Issues to consider:

• “The digital divide” – issues of access and also the fact that not everyone can communicate  efficiently and easily with ICT
• “Communicating online does enhance the ability of participants to lie about their embodied identities” (p. 14).

Shepherd, N. (2003). Interviewing online: Qualitative research in the network(ed) society. Proceedings of the Association of Qualitative research Conference, Sydney, Australia, July 17-19, 2003. Retrieved January 13, 2008, from http://eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00001436/01/ns_qrc_03.pdf   

I have been recommended this book and have just started reading it – hope it gives me some confidence in my academic writing skills.

Ilana Snyder wrote a chapter in the new Encyclopedia of language and education called “Research approaches to the study of literacy, technology and learning”. The chapter is basically a literature review of surveying relevant issues which have been studied in the past 30 years. Reading the chapter was recommended to me after my disappointment in my last assignment. 

The text is organized, the reader is informed of the author’s aims and the section headings help the reader navigate his or her way through the large number of studies presented. The information is organized chronologically but within each time period studies are grouped together by research methods and other relevant factors.  

The subheadings are:

1. Introduction
2. Early developments (1978 – 1993)
3. Major contributions (1990’s)
4. Work in progress (2002 – )
5. Problems and difficulties
6. Future directions

* The dates are not part of the headings.

I will be able to use this text as an example when writing literature reviews in the future. I must say that I don’t feel confident that I will ever be able to reach this level of clarity and comprehensibility.

Snyder, I.(2008). Research approaches to the study of literacy, technology and learning. In K. A. King & N. H. Hornberger (Eds), Encyclopedia of language and education Volume 10: Research methods in language and education (2^nd ed. pp. 299-308). Springer science and business media LLC.

Fisher and Phelps found a refreshing, original form for their writing on thesis  structure. The authors chose to present their thoughts on the tension between traditional academic writing and the non linear threads of action research as a play – actors, set, props and all. The play presents the academic work of each of the authors including thesis topic, research process and examiners’ comments.

I found it particularly interesting to read the quotes from examiners, some were familiar with the action research and some were not. Some of the examiners were willing to follow the instructions for reading the text and others insisted on reading the thesis as though it had traditional 5 blocks structure. It is clear that today students are writing their research in varied ways but there is no doubt that it still involves risk. There is always a chance that a thesis will be rejected on structural basis.  I understand that the further the departure from conventional form, the more reader-friendly the text must be.

The authors raise a question I have already raised in my blog:

“Some of you will be fortunate enough to be studying and researching from innovative academic faculties with strong traditions of participatory inquiry and action research…” (p. 145). Does this describe Monash?

One of the authors explains that she convinced her supervisors of the necessity of a non traditional writing form and then justified this choice in the introduction of the thesis.

 Both authors chose to present themselves as active participants in the research process from the outset. They discussed their personal experience which led to their choices in research topic and process.

Narrative:The authors quote Ellis and Bochner (2000, as cited in Fisher & Phelps, 2006) and report that narrative in research encourages readers “to feel the moral dilemmas, think with our story instead of about it, join actively in the decision points…and consider how their own lives can be made a story worth telling” (p. 151). Isn’t that what I am hoping that my readers will experience?

Fisher explained in her thesis that there are three different voices involved: (p. 152)

1. “a relatively ‘neutral’ reporting voice that relays the ‘facts’ of what happened”
2. “the ‘reflective practitioner’
3. the ‘critical reflector’, offers a ‘commentary’ on the sometimes naive voice of the reflective practitioner from a vantage point that names the assumptions made and reflects on some of the silences and absences in the narrative.”

Both authors presented their PhD theses in chronological form where the literature review unfolded throughout the text as it did during the research process. They did not pretend (as in traditional research form) that they had read and analysed all the literature before they embarked on the project. They both discussed the influence reading had on the unfolding project.

Both authors discussed the “dead ends” (p. 153) they met in their research , seeing them as an integral part of the process.

As far as facing examiners go, the authors proclaim: “While there is always the risk of an unsympathetic examiner, by explicitly structuring the thesis consistent with the epistemological, methodological and ethical aspects of action research, postgraduate students can provide a clear and rigorous justification for their choices (p. 159).

It is interesting that most of the materials before me have been written by Australian academics. I’m not sure why that is, the paper chase is just blowing in that direction.

Fisher, K., & Phelps, R. (2006). Recipe or performing art? Challenging conventions for writing action research theses. Action Research, 4(2), 143-164. Retrieved from http://arj.sagepub.com/  

I’ve been busy with family business (sick mother-in law) and work issues (the teachers at school are writing reports and are in need of help) but now I’m back.

While waiting for my supervisor to come back from holidays I am swimming around in a sea of articles and book chapters but feel that I need to start narrowing down and making critical decisions concerning my thesis. I have been exposed to a wide range of research methods and writing styles and am eager to discuss these with someone more knowledgeable than I am. I have come to the conclusion that the unit I did on research methods did nothing in preparing me for the challenge of writing my thesis and as I result I am feeling pressured. Time is ticking away and I am worried that I will find finishing the project by July 14 difficult.  

The more I read the more I am disappointed with the  methods course I completed. I am also sorry that I studied it so early in my course. I am now being exposed to fascinating research methods and theories – directions which were completely ignored in the unit I did (or maybe I just missed something?????).

The question of using non traditional research methods and writing a thesis which departs from the conventional social science writing form  has been worrying me. Who am I writing the thesis for? Which audience am I aiming for? Who marks the thesis anyway? How will this kind of departure from traditional academic work affect my chances in passing?

This morning I took another large step as I read Julie M Davis’s article which recently appeared in the Action Research Journal. Davis writes about her action research PhD thesis. During the process she discovered that the traditional structure could not reflect the complex process of her research. She developed a unique structure for her paper – a format which presented the ongoing nature of her research. As she worked on the project, new questions arose, new literature was found and analysed, the process was never linear.

Davis used criteria for reporting action research (Elliot, 1994) and modified them.

I was very interested in reading the final part of the article, “Examiners’ Comments”. One of the examiners was familiar with action research and approved of the research concept but commented that there were problems with the readability of the text. The second examiner did not understand the research direction or the structure of the text but acknowledged the author’s scholarship and conscientiousness.  

Davis, encouraging others to experiment with form in research reporting quotes Bauman (2005, p. 1092, as cited in Davis, 2007):

“To create (and so to discover) always means breaking a rule; following a rule is merely routine, more of the same – not an act of creation” (p. 196).

 I think that you have to be very well organized in your thinking to “create” a unique structure as Davis has. Traditional structure gives you a stable framework to pour your data into. On the other hand I feel comfortable with the description that writing is a “method of discovery and analysis that helps create knowledge and understanding; it doesn’t just report it”(p. 188). Davis’ description of the role of writing in research reminds me of the views of Kamler and Thomson. I can’t see myself thinking things through from beginning to end, predicting which issues my participants will want to raise, interviewing and collecting data in other ways, interpreting and then finally writing it up.

But…I’m not writing a PhD, this is only a minor thesis…HELP!

Davis, J. M. (2007). Rethinking the architecture. An action researcher’sresolution to writing and presenting their thesis. Action Research, 5(2), 181-198. Retrieved from http://arj.sagepub.com/   

I’ve just been sent more material from the library - a book chapter by Connelly and Clandinin (1999). This piece seems to be more  instructional in tone and gives practical advice for doing Narrative Inquiry.

The authors stress (as in other chapters I have read) that the researcher must negotiate his or her relationship with the field being studied. Any point on the scale between neutral observer to active participant is possible. Much thought must be devoted to how experience will be interpreted and represented.

The chapter describes different methods for transforming field texts into research texts. A helpful point is that research texts must be written with an audience of practitioners or researchers in mind.

Field Texts: (p.135)

These are written representations of field events written by the researcher or a participant.

Methods for constructing field texts described in the chapter:

• oral history
• stories
• annals and chronicles
• photographs, memory boxes…
• research interviews*
• journals*
• autobiographical and biographical writing*
• letters*
• conversations (inc. letter writing)*
• Field notes and other stories from the field
• document analysis

* methods which may be relevant in my study.

The complex transition from field texts to research texts is discussed. The authors describe it as “the construction of a series of increasingly interpretive writings” (p. 138). These texts must display a distance from the field and the participants. “They are written in response to questions about meaning and significance” (p. 138). The role of the researcher and his or her relationship to the inquiry must be presented explicitly in the final paper. Research of this kind which lacks “autobiographical presence…lacks validity” (p. 138).

According to Connelly and Clandinin (1999) two elements are crucial in the creation of research texts in narrative inquiry:

1. voice – stating opinions, presenting a position, personal viewpoint… The researcher must find the right balance between bias and objectivity. “The dilemma for a researcher is to establish a voice that simultaneously represents participants’  field experience while creating a research text that goes beyond the field and its field texts to speak to an audience” (p. 138).
2. signature -“writing style that makes it possible to identify a text as an author’s work” (p. 138). The authors suggest modelling your writing on that of a researcher you admire until you develop your own signature.

Another decision for the researcher to make is what kind of text the research text will be:

• descriptive
• expositional
• argumentative
• narrative

 4 kinds of research texts - based on Chatman (1990) as cited in Connelly and Clandinin (1999).

Connelly F. M. & Clandinin, D. J. (1999). Narrative inquiry. In  J. P. Keeves, & G. Lakomski (Eds.), Issues in educational research (pp. 132-140). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.  

Gordon Griffiths wrote about the problems facing teachers who wish to research their immediate work environment. Difficulties mentioned are:

• It is not easy for teachers to look at their everyday surroundings and see them as unfamiliar.
• Recording the enormous amount of activity happening in a school hour/lesson/day.
• Finding the time to rewrite the large volume of field notes.
• The tiring research process which is in addition to the exhausting duties of the teacher.
• Knowing who the research plans and processes should be negotiated with and at which stage.
• One or more of the researcher’s regular school positions may hinder the process of data collection. This in turn may prevent the researcher from following certain research trails.
•  Collegues may feel threatened by the research, even if the teacher is researching his/her own classroom.
• There is danger of the teacher researcher exploiting the information gathered for purposes other than research goals.
• The teacher researcher is often jeopardizing something – position, social contacts, respect…in the exposing research process.

 An important point raised is that even if a teacher is researching his/her own classroom practice, the context must be presented, involving the whole school environment. 

Griffiths, G. (1985).  Doubts, dilemmas and diary-keeping: Some reflections on teacher-based research. In R. G. Burgess (Ed.), Issues in educational research: Qualitative methods (pp. 197-215). London, UK: The Falmer Press.