Tag Archives: qualitative research

Wordle clouds as a way of looking at my freewriting

Posted on by
Reply

Not all of the reflective freewriting is up to sharing on this blog – some of it is just intuitive rambling to start me thinking. This kind of writing indeed helps me identify my knowledge in a specific area and helps me generate the questions I need as I dive back into the literature.

I have been using the 750 words web site to give me motivation to write every day. It seems to be working and I may reflect in detail on the influence of that tool in the near future. Meanwhile, if I’m not posting some of what I am writing I will present the wordle cloud as a record of what I’ve been thinking about.

I often use Wordle clouds as a way of looking at a text from a different perspective – somehow breaking it up and jumbling the text like that and emphasizing terms and concepts which are high frequency gives me an additional way in to my thoughts.

Question of the day: Why qualitative research?

 

Research as a political act

Posted on by
Reply

In my confirmation report (2011) I wrote:

While negotiating the nature and content of my professional learning courses, I have recently come to understand that this study cannot
remain apolitical, if it ever aspired to do so. Teacher education is involved in politics and as I have discovered through my readings (e.g. Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Kincheloe, 2003; McWilliam, 2004; Price-Dennis, 2010) teacher practitioner research is in essence a political practice, even if its participants didn’t intend it that way at the outset. Teachers who critically explore their professional environment and their practice, teachers who reach out to their peers and share experience in search of collaborative learning,
are making a statement about who they are as professionals and how they wish to be seen by others.

This morning I read an article  in preparation for the lecture by Professor Bar Shalom that I will hear tomorrow at Mofet. The authors, Bar Shalom and Krumer-Nevo, claim that all research is political in nature. This is indeed interesting, as it is a far broader way of relating to the political goals and influences of research. The authors explain:

“Research is a political act since it not only reflects existing reality, but also influences and creates reality, whether by supporting, affirming, and reinforcing existing reality, or by criticizing it and advocating change. The researcher’s position regarding reality influences their choice of subject and the questions they raise, as well as the selection of research procedures to be applied. The words the researcher chooses in order to describe their findings and conclusions structure the object/subject addressed by their research and the balance of power between these (Ife, 1997)” (p. 237).

It seems that if this is the case, then a distinction must be made between those researchers who acknowledge this political side to their work and those who do not. Researchers setting out to achieve social change are usually more open and explicit about the way they are hoping that their work will influence the lives of their participants and their communities. In my study I write explicitly about my intention to sound the voices of classroom teachers whose knowledge is often overlooked in the educational research arena. The political nature of my own study is a theme I need to explore more thoroughly in the coming year. .

Bar Shalom, Y., & Krumer Navo, M. (2007). The usage of qualitative methods as means to empower disadvantaged groups: The example of the Kedma School in Jerusalem. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 2(1), 237-244.

 

Changing directions in methodology

Posted on by
Reply

This morning I read chapter 7 in the book I mentioned yesterday:

Kouritzin, S. G., Piquemal, N. A., & Norman, R. (Eds.). (2008). Qualitative research challenging the orthodoxies in standard academic discourse(s). New York: Routledge.

The author, Suhanthie Motha, describes her research journey. Originally intending to base her study of beginning teachers on classroom observations and teacher interviews, Motha was encouraged to change her methodology when her participants felt the need for some kind of group interaction.

I was particularly interested in the way the author describes her role as “connected” researcher and deals with the dilemmas which arose when the way she saw classroom incidents differed from the way  teachers related them in her story.

The author  relates to her teacher partners (as she calls them and not participants) in a respectful and open relational manner. They really are partners in the generation of knowledge in this study. Motha describes her methodology as disturbing the traditional researcher heirarchy. She quotes Motha and Wong (2005) explaining that this blurring of roles enables  “inquiry that is truly dialogic, in which learning is a two-way street”. Sensitivity to issues connected to power and the nature of knowledge are central to this chapter.

In this chapter I was introduced to the work of Michelle Fine (1992) who presents three different stances that researchers can adopt in their writing: ventriloquy, voice, and activism. This is indeed an interesting way of analysing how the researcher is relating to the participant and his or her story. Motha is attempting to follow an approach of activism which she explains with a quote from Fine (p. 41): as a “deep responsibility to assess critically and continually our own, as well as informants’, changing opinions” .

I will certainly return to these definitions when I try to describe my methodology.

I admire Motha’s honesty when she admits:

“What I’m learning to accept is that this work is still me telling someone else’s story” (p. 116).

Despite the dialogic nature of this study, despite the concious effort to present the stories she heard around her kitchen table as they were intended and told, and despite the significant disturbance of the traditional researcher-teacher heirarchy, the author acknowledges the limitations in her study as it is written.

Motha, S. (2008). Afternoon tea at Su’s: Participant voice and community in critical feminist ethnography In S. G. Kouritzin, N. A. Piquemal & R. Norman (Eds.), Qualitative research: Challenging the orthodoxies in standard academic discourse(s). New York: Routledge.

Institutional Ethnography – Dorothy Smith

Posted on by
1

I have been trying to acquaint myself with the work of Dorothy Smith for some time. Although GP suggested I read Smith’s work on several opportunities, I continually found that I couldn’t see the connection to my own work. I kept putting her articles aside for later on.
Last week I had the opportunity to attend a lecture on Institutional Ethnography and the work of Smith by Dr Orly Binyamin at the Bar – Ilan University.
Before the lecture I reread an article by Smith and arrived with one question in mind: How is Institutional Ethnography connected to my research? How is it relevant?

I learned from the session that Institutional Ethnography is a “methodological perspective”, that you don’t have to “do an Institutional Ethnography”, that you can let the ideas, the perspective color your research.

I was interested to learn that IE is a way of approaching interviews, of opening up the opportunities  contained in interviews by concentrating on the social information they contain. Dr Binyamin stressed that often the context of the interview is far more important than the themes which emerge from the interview transcript.

IE aims to map the social environment in which interviewees act. It aims to explore the connections between these various contexts.

IE explores relations of control and places emphasis on public policy. It examines how these policies affect the interviewees.

IE contends that people in the field possess knowledge and can teach us from their experience. It is the researchers responsibility to take that knowledge one step further in order to promote change. The information possessed by the people in the field isn’t enough as they often don’t have the opportunity to understand the institutional framework which shapes their reality. This is an alternative to research which simply describes behaviour – this is research which promotes action.

Binyamin stressed that we are adding on to the knowledge of the interviewees and not questioning it. The everyday knowledge of the participant is relevant and real. The researcher takes this information and widens the viewpoint and examines it. We are all trapped in our own very specific worlds. Binyamin gave the example of an interview with a cleaner about his or her work. The researcher can hear all of his or her experience and knowledge about the job but will move on to ask others. There are other people, administrators, managers, etc who can shed light on the work of the cleaner through the examination of policies and texts (like contracts) which can shed different light on the professional reality of the cleaner.

Often we are partaking in relationships of control without being aware of it.

In Ethnography the researcher aims to arrive at the study in order to explore, in order to discover. The researcher begins with “I don’t know”.

The term “ruling relations” relates both to structural procedures and texts. Smith explains that often an individual believes that he or she is making their own decision without being aware that they are in fact conforming to the demands of social or institutional forces. Institutional policy enters our personal and professional lives and influences our actions. IE asks what we can learn about the social, the public aspects and not just the reality of the individual. Public refers to the context outside the home.

IE exmines the external contexts in addition to the internal world of the interviewee.

According to Smith the personal is political and the political is personal. In ethnology the political was often neglected.

Binyamin warns that IE is complicated and that she doesn’t allow her PhD students to try it.

What is important to hear in interviews?

  • Daily routines
  • how the everyday makes sense to the interviewee
  • What it means to belong to a certain group

IE suggests asking the interviewee what change is necessary? This is of course the connection to action…

Questions that need to be asked later:

  •  who are various interests and ruling relations paying service to?
  • How are the implications of policy permeating the reality of participants?
  • How are decisions made?
  • What discourses are being used (medical, legal…)?

Often in IE the researcher decides who else to intervew after hearing the participant.

Binyamin explained that IE offers concepts which can be useful in other methodologies. The study must be feasible, she warned against getting “carried away” – there is always a wider circle ready to be approached and interviewed.

The lecture concluded with the words: “Overturn what you took for granted and thought you knew…”.

More about the conference…

Posted on by
Reply

idea

Dr Noga Hermon discussed the use of cognitive mapping to represent “ideational knowledge” visually. Although her paper discussed mathematics education, I was reminded of the use of mapping and I have been playing around with ideas how to include it in my work with teachers. A map of “ideational knowledge” is similar to a semantic map but uses 13-16 concepts which were carefully chosen ahead of time. A sentence must join two concepts, not a single word. In Dr Hermon’s research, the map is created in the framework of a closed interview. The map portrays far more knowledge on each concept than pure definitions.

Dr Leah Shagrir of Levinsky discussed the importance and contribution of self study in teacher education. She discussed the use of autoethnographic research methods.

I enjoyed the comparison made between the portrait painted in oil paints by the artist and the self portrait portrayed by the qualitative researcher. The artist produces a peice which can be significant for others. An artist will produce different self portraits at different times  – he or she sees himself differently at different crossroads. The portrait is an interpretation, the figure is created differently each time.

The researcher should be aware of the reader and what he or she can learn from the text. There should be space for the reader to bring his or her own experience to the reading. The researcher should remember that it is not only his or her text, it is the story of all those involved.

An interesting point stressed was that teacher education should be seen as a profession and that the teacher educator must therefore be an expert. He or she must possess excellent teaching skills as there must be an additional level, one of modelling teaching and reflection. This is of course in contrast with lecturers in other fields.

In the same session on self study in teacher education, the paper which captured my attention most was presented by Dr Rina Brenner, of The Kibbutzim College of Education. This paper was about encouraging personal growth through written response.

Dr Brenner pointed out that today many people think of “response” as a quick reply in a chat or blog. Brenner discussed the written responses she shares with her students as a teacher educator and researcher. Her study examines her own teaching practice, in particular the written responses to student writing in online reading logs. 

Questions Brenner asks herself are similar to the questions I pose when examining my own role in the online campus when teachers post their teacher narratives: In which role am I writing these remarks? As a lecturer? a teacher? a researcher?

An article by Robinson & MacMillan, 2006 was cited here. I found: The ethnography of empowerment : the transformative power of classroom interaction/ Heljä Antola Robinsonin the Monash Library and another article on the web about Professional Development.

Brenner instructs her 3rd year students to choose a childrens’ book, read it and respond periodically in an online reading log. This task is similar to the reading logs I used to run with my primary students. Each student writes 6-8 chapters in the reading log. Each chapter is responded to by Dr Brenner and often there is a chain discussion as a result.

Brenner makes a distinction  betweeen  feedback and response. Feedback is seen as an organisational tool which reflects a pedagogic dialogue according to specific professional  conventions. This feedback is aimed at strengthening or improving specific teaching practices. A response is different, it echoes and answers a particular text and its ideas. The response has no predetermined goals, it is a journey, a search. The response is viewed as an teaching practice which stimulates learning. This is a text which is directed at a specific reader.

An intimate circle of participants is formed.  Brenner describes several circles: the inner circle, the interpersonal circle (dialogue), the group circle and the public circle (publishing the research).

I was surprised to realize how close Dr Brenner’s work with these students is to my work with in service teachers. The way I respond to teacher narratives on the virtual campus, in a closed online environment is very similar. As I always try to do, Brenner looks for “what there IS” in a text and not what is missing or problematic. There is a constant search for what touched me in a student’s writing which will help me touch someone else. Brenner opens her response with a personal greeting, a description of how she read the text, in what context, a reflection of the topics covered in the chapter,  and discussion on one of the issues raised. The text ends personally. The response often involves personal memories, aspects Brenner especially likes and points to opportunities which arise from the text.

There are three aspects covered here: cognitive, emotional and dialogic. The response reflects, represents , reinforces and empowers everything the text brings with it. This written dialogue is a process of building interpersonal relationships.

I spoke to Dr Brenner after the session and will continue my discussion with her by email – I feel that we are doing similar work and that I have a lot to learn from her. In general, I came away from the conference with a feeling of community, that there are indeed researchers in Israel doing the kind of research I am, people who can understand my work and even be partners in professional dialogue.

RF pic:  http://www.images.com/

The Fourth Israeli Interdisciplinary Conference of Qualitative Research – Inspiring

Posted on by
Reply

I’m back from a two day break at the 4th Israeli conference on qualitative research which was held at the Ben Gurion Uni in Be’er Sheva. I found the sessions extremely stimulating and motivating and I left inspired and enthusiastic to continue my research.

Plaza

I am gradually going to sift through my notes to find the points and the people I want to remember.

I arrived at the conference on time and immediately  bought the new book by Rivka Tuval-Mashiach and Gabriela Spector-Mersel: Narrative research: Theory, creation and interpretation. It won’t be easy reading but I must get acquainted with the Hebrew terms for my work.

The first session was about teacher education. A group from Levinsky Presented their work on metaphoric collages. Teacher educators created collages representing the way they understand the feedback sessions they hold with students. Narratives were then a means of describing the visual creation. This encounter of metaphor reminded me that I have been planning to examine metaphors which can help me describe my work. In this case, the most common metaphors were pregnancy and birth, journey and food.

I was disappointed that the main speakers, Prof Carolyn Ellis and Prof. Arthur Bochner couldn’t make it in person, but the videoed session they sent was informative and well presented.

According to Bochner, the goal of social science inquiry is the creation of meaning in social life. There are 3 different purposes: a. prediction and control, b. interpretation and understanding, c. criticism and social change.

An important point made was that there is a false dichotomy between theory and story. Story can be very theoretical (e.g Dickens).

Qualitative research, according to Bochner, is looking at how we should live and not only exploring what we can know.

Another important point was to let our work tell the story and to stop being defensive about doing qualitative research.

Regarding autoethnography, Ellis and Bochner are less interested in defining the term as they see the search for definitions mainly political. People try to categorize research for the politics of publishing, tenure etc.

In the beginning they began with writing in the first person . There was a space in academic work that needed opening. There has always been controversy surrounding the term – “vocabulary has consequences”.

The speakers were asked what is the role of other peoples’ stories in autoethnography and the answer was of course, that all good ethnography has some self in it and that this work should portray the connection between self and others. Self is never in isolation. The researcher must attempt to touch the role of others and bring them in.

Autoethnography directs attention to the reason you chose to study this community. What is the engagement? What do you owe those communities as a researcher? These connections should be explicit.

The speakers were asked: What kind of a researcher is needed to do autoethnography? The answer included:

  • in tune to self
  • able to step outside and see yourself in different roles
  • a good writer
  • willing to be vulnerable
  • able to present yourself in a vulnerable light

The answer to the question: How do you educate others to do autoethnography? was:

An autoethnographer is firstly a story teller. He or she must read a lot of literature, stories and write a lot. Audience awareness is very important. The writer need to attend to what the audience is doing with the story. In opening up the conversation, the reader is supposed to develop his or her own stories after reading the texts of others.

In autoethnography and personal narrative, the reader is seen as a collaborator in making meaning and not as the receiver of knowledge.

Ellis and Bochner were asked which issues are suitable for this research and it was explained that the theme does not have to be sadness and suffering. The researcher writes in order to “figure something out”. It was explained that it is more difficult to write about happiness, there is less tension in the writing, there is less “call to write”. Suffering is central to much autoethnographic work, as is social justice. The speakers stated that young researchers may not have the depth of experience required.

I want to look for Revision by Ellis when it comes out. It takes stories written in the past and looks critically at how they were written. Changes that have occurred since the writing was done and new interpretations are explored. The book reminds me of Fields of Play by Richardson.

When asked about contradiction, uncertainty and puzzles addressed by autoethnography, the answer given was that if  subjectivity is not displayed on the page, the work is problematic.

Regarding ethics questions, Bochner explained that the search for universal ethics guidelines , good for every situation isn’t very helpful. There are no easy answers.

Final messages were:

  • -we need to find the opportunities to present the best of this work in our institutions
  • -People are listening and are giving credibility to this research
  • -concentrate on who in the world can join your conversation
  • -Ask: Does this mean anything? Can it do something important?
  • -Don’t do research for research’s sake

I’m of to a Monash HDR seminar online, I’ll try to summarize more in the morning.

This IS your father’s paradigm… / Patti Lather

Posted on by
Reply

Lather wrote this article in an attempt to understand the US government push for “evidence-based” scientific research in education. In this move, “the reductionisms of positivism, empiricism, and objectivism are assumed” (p. 16).

The author sees the return to the mandate of scientific research to be a reaction to the growth of alternative research methods and their use by women and political and cultural minorities.

Lather  explains that this is not the first time that scientific method as a solitary research path has been critiqued. She admits that she believed that there was a chance for policy to be shaped by non-traditional research.

Addressing this restricting connection between government policy and scientific research , Cochran-Smith (2002) wrote that in order to be financially supported “educational research must be evaluated “using experimental or quasi-experimental designs… with a preference for random-assignment experiments (Cochran-Smith , 2002, as cited in Lather, 2004, p. 18).

Lather reminds us that “The shift to qualitative methods in the 1970s was related to the difficulties of measuring what is educationally significant and th limits of causal models given the preponderance of interaction effects” (p. 20).

Which organizations are running after research money?

Which studies are encouraged and for what purposes?

Who pays for research grants and why?

Lather calls for educational researchers to refrain from following the natural sciences. She encourages researchers to ask complex questions, those that do not have single dimensional answers and in doing so, to “foster understanding, reflection, and action instead of a narrow translation of research into practice” (p. 23).

Lather sets out to disrupt the dominance of the white, male, academic voice in the production of educational knowledge.

Lather argues that although non-traditional research cannot be judged on “objectivity and systematicity” (p. 24), it is no less capable of valid knowledge production.

Lather optimistically remarks that “A rich production of counter-narratives is alive and kicking” (p. 26).

I believe I am part of this movement, making an effort to make other, more diverse voices heard in the production of educational knowledge.

Lather explains “… there is virtually no agreement … as to what constitutes science except, increasingly, the view that science is, like all human endeavor, a cultural practice and practice of culture” (p. 28).

 

 

Lather, P. (2004). This IS your father’s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry,10(1), 15-34. doi:10:10.1177/1077800403256154