Week 7: Critical Traditions
Jackie Clark
This weeks readings move into qualitative traditions that seek to not only research but change the world. I feel like any researcher who chooses this methodology is really doing more than research by engaging in action. These actions are geared to right perceived wrongs and injustice often created by systemic inequality. In some ways this work is more complex, involving people's whole selves, with unavoidable psychological and emotional connections to groups and people studied. I think it might be hard to determine where the research ends and activism begins. Are these people researchers or activists? Or politicians? The work is so encompassing and in depth that it is a way of life, and I doubt researchers ever really leave it. If you feel compelled to connect research and social change, you would never be satisfied. There is simply to much inequality in the world to work through.
Prassad's writing on Historical Materialism and Critical Theory set the stage with a great deal of history and application. I continue to appreciate her easy way of writing with clear examples to make her points. However, I will admit to finding Marxism's history and ties to historical materialism really difficult to understand. The application of Marx's ideas regarding the dehumanization of people through the drudgery of work systems, and the overall umbrella of capitalism makes sense. I don't think it's a leap to see he is talking about psychology and the need to feel engaged and purposeful in your work. However, the reader must keep in mind the historical context of the author and the era. Today, economic systems have evolved worldwide, and sometimes reading these idea through today's lens provides a different outcome. At least to me. But in terms of the concepts and foundations of critical thought and research, it's very helpful to consider the sources. In student affairs, there is quite a lot of critical work being done, and one of our faculty is currently involved in a PAR project, so I have some more immediate idea of what this looks like today in a current research project.
The 2 articles we read were helpful both in providing a historic context of critical research and a current application via the study of alienated youth. Both pieces were written in a language I could understand, and made their points with succinctly and with examples. My take-away from the origins chapter is the essence of struggle in creating a new methodology, and the steps needed to hone it into a valid and reliable way to to research. I could feel the many voices coming together in the field, to try and both create a new way of doing research and connect to research from the past. It was very clear that no matter what, the importance of doing research that is connected to social justice and social change is paramount. If the researcher is not helping the oppressed, then there is no point! The author captured the messiness of the new methodology, and the steps needed to continue to hone it for scholarly acceptance.
The second piece, regarding alienated youth was well written and clear in its critique of current educational pedagogy. In a well organized article, the foundations of the issue were clear, the methodology clear, and the results clear. I won't go into my personal thoughts here on the education system and how degraded it is in the US, but this article shines an excellent light on pedagogic changes that might improve the engagement of students. When you are dealing with an issue that involves social systems, family systems, school systems, and individual actors, it's complex. I think this complexity has really been the hindrance to change.You must approach improvement as a multi-system issue, and that is exponentially difficult to do. This article does a good job at identifying a social change need, and articulating a possible idea for improvement.
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Week 5: Hermeneutics, Ethnomethodology and CA
Week 5: Hermeneutics, Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis
Jackie Clark
At the risk of saying this every week, I really like how Prassad writes and presents her chapters. It's straight forward but dense, while being easily readable. The chapter on Hermeneutics was very helpful, as I was quite confused about this term. I felt like I had heard it used in many different ways, and wondered if it was really that diverse or if people were just confused. Now I understand that it does have a long history and has come to represent a variety of philosophical and practical applications. The idea that texts are bound by the author's social location and historical context seems really logical and self evident to me. I was immediately reminded of my work in art history, when discussing political cartoons from the 19th century. They are virtually impossible to understand today without context and social location. In addition, as with many of the methodologies we have reviewed, there is a call for recognizing the interpreter (researcher) as part of the process. Heidegger and Gadamer's work in calling attention to this makes sense. Awareness of your social location, world view, and predispositions affect your interpretations of any situation.
The chapter on Ethnomethodology was enlightening, especially the differences between it and ethnography. Ethnomethodology fieldwork focuses on close examination rather than lengthy involvement . In addition, the difference between linguistic and situational was clear, leading me to think of dozens of ways we operate in social frameworks every day, "performing" roles like professional, student, teacher, woman, etc...I would agree that these frameworks are fragile, and when disrupted uncover disturbing realities. I can't help but think of 9/11, which is this week. A tremendous example of a national disturbance of reality and social construction that we have never recovered from fully. I also thought about the example used of managerial performance and control. In terms of a feminist framework, how would this look? Definitely different. Feminist frameworks are disruptive to the accepted social order, but can be transformative too.
The articles were good examples of how these methodologies and philosophies look in real research. You could see in both the clear use of deep analysis and close examination of the conversations. The piece by Drew was CA or Linguistic Ethnomethodology, focusing on talk-in-interaction. He looked at how people construct talk and tried to capture the subtleties in constructing how people take turns in conversation. Because of the context heavy nature of the work, he chose not to code the conversations, as meaning would change even between the same people. I thought that subtle but powerful idea was really interesting and reinforced the painstaking process of constructing meaning as a researcher of others' conversation.
By contrast, the article about TWS did use coding to look for patterns in meaning between the participants who represented 2 distinctly different roles in social order. There were multiple things going on in this analysis, and multiple levels of meaning happening. It was sometimes difficult to capture everything that was going on between the subjects who were making meaning of the TWS system as well as determining if a student would be a good teacher. So, in reality, the researcher was forced to uncover meanings between each pair of raters, between each individual in the pair, and overall together. In the end, the results were very interesting, and not surprising to me given the complexity of the research questions. It could almost be predicted that each person and team would construct grading norms differently, and judge students differently, since these concepts are heavily grounded in social constructions and personal experience.
Jackie Clark
At the risk of saying this every week, I really like how Prassad writes and presents her chapters. It's straight forward but dense, while being easily readable. The chapter on Hermeneutics was very helpful, as I was quite confused about this term. I felt like I had heard it used in many different ways, and wondered if it was really that diverse or if people were just confused. Now I understand that it does have a long history and has come to represent a variety of philosophical and practical applications. The idea that texts are bound by the author's social location and historical context seems really logical and self evident to me. I was immediately reminded of my work in art history, when discussing political cartoons from the 19th century. They are virtually impossible to understand today without context and social location. In addition, as with many of the methodologies we have reviewed, there is a call for recognizing the interpreter (researcher) as part of the process. Heidegger and Gadamer's work in calling attention to this makes sense. Awareness of your social location, world view, and predispositions affect your interpretations of any situation.
The chapter on Ethnomethodology was enlightening, especially the differences between it and ethnography. Ethnomethodology fieldwork focuses on close examination rather than lengthy involvement . In addition, the difference between linguistic and situational was clear, leading me to think of dozens of ways we operate in social frameworks every day, "performing" roles like professional, student, teacher, woman, etc...I would agree that these frameworks are fragile, and when disrupted uncover disturbing realities. I can't help but think of 9/11, which is this week. A tremendous example of a national disturbance of reality and social construction that we have never recovered from fully. I also thought about the example used of managerial performance and control. In terms of a feminist framework, how would this look? Definitely different. Feminist frameworks are disruptive to the accepted social order, but can be transformative too.
The articles were good examples of how these methodologies and philosophies look in real research. You could see in both the clear use of deep analysis and close examination of the conversations. The piece by Drew was CA or Linguistic Ethnomethodology, focusing on talk-in-interaction. He looked at how people construct talk and tried to capture the subtleties in constructing how people take turns in conversation. Because of the context heavy nature of the work, he chose not to code the conversations, as meaning would change even between the same people. I thought that subtle but powerful idea was really interesting and reinforced the painstaking process of constructing meaning as a researcher of others' conversation.
By contrast, the article about TWS did use coding to look for patterns in meaning between the participants who represented 2 distinctly different roles in social order. There were multiple things going on in this analysis, and multiple levels of meaning happening. It was sometimes difficult to capture everything that was going on between the subjects who were making meaning of the TWS system as well as determining if a student would be a good teacher. So, in reality, the researcher was forced to uncover meanings between each pair of raters, between each individual in the pair, and overall together. In the end, the results were very interesting, and not surprising to me given the complexity of the research questions. It could almost be predicted that each person and team would construct grading norms differently, and judge students differently, since these concepts are heavily grounded in social constructions and personal experience.
Monday, September 7, 2015
Week 4: Symbolic Interactionism and Grounded Theory
Week 4: Symbolic Interactionism and Grounded Theory
Jackie Clark, Qual 8400
I began this weeks reading with Prasad, who continues to be written in an easy to understand style. I find her organization of ideas and supportive literature comprehensive and conversational. It's also very helpful to have the chapter summary with important concepts to use for referral. I am starting to grasp the historic figures in context, although it is still challenging to keep track of them all in historic frameworks. Introductory remarks about the interpretive traditions helped me understand how these different ways of describing the world are connected and how they are all grounded in a social construction of reality and a subjectivity of experience. Combining this reading with the chapter by Rock, it seems clear that no matter how carefully considered a qualitative research project is, the researcher must constantly consider the completely unique character of the study. Because participants, time, context, and the researcher are always changing, there is basically no way to replicate a study in reality. This makes it essential to be able to write well, and address the changing nature of the study over time.
The chapter on symbolic interactionism was my favorite, I think because it seemed so logical and "real" to me. I immediately thought of the way Americans attach symbolism to various objects and how this social construction of meaning goes deep. We construct whole parts of our identity around objects, from our gender to our SES, objects are inextricably tied to our identity only because of the social context. I was thinking about any number of contexts, like school systems, social groups, religious groups, all full of symbolic interaction. The recent national conversation over the confederate flag seems to be a perfect example of the complexity of social construction of meaning. This is why it is so difficult to talk about, because it cannot be reduced to one simple meaning, agreed upon by all. Depending on your family history, race, SES, etc...you may have strong connections to this symbol or see it as a nothing more than a historic artifact.
Dramaturgy and Dramatist were a bit more challenging to grasp, being totally new terms and frameworks to me. However, they did seem to uncover a totally different aspect of our human experience. The way in which we all "play roles" in a larger drama is meaningful. I completely understand and agree with the concept that we all have an outer self and an inner self, but I would challenge the authors simplicity in this section. I think we all have carefully crafted outer selves that conform with what society finds acceptable. And there is great risk in choosing not to conform. The ways in which we perform gender, sexuality, work norms, etc....are controlled by the social construction that serves us best. I am sure Sociologists have written extensively on these concepts, and how to some extent we all keep up outer selves so that society can be "civil" and how quickly these outer selves will fall apart when emergencies happen, or resources are scarce.
Finally, as a student of Sociology in my undergraduate career, I am most familiar with Ethnography. This methodology has a long history, and of course, one that is mired in colonialism and white supremacy. It is in itself a great example of the importance of context and time. We can be duly critical in 2015 of work done decades ago, but situating that work in it's own time and social location changes it's meaning. This framework is unique in that it seems as important to trouble past studies, and look at them through new lenses as it is to conduct new studies.
The additional articles were helpful in more fully describing both symbolic interactionism as an ethnographic technique, and the use of SI in an actual study. Rock's piece was rich in description of the actual experience of the researcher, and it made the experience much more real to me that just a list of steps and directions. He seemed to have a humor to his work, which again, made it seem more accessible to the novice researcher. The study on self-injury was interesting, but I thought it lacked a good methodology section that really connected SI to the study design. It's possible I simply don't understand it well enough, but that was challenging for me to understand. The actual methods he used were not hard to understand, nor were his conclusions, just the framework and grounding of the study in SI.
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Reflections on readings for 9/2 (Phenomenology)
Reflections on readings for 9/2 (Phenomenology)
Jackie Clark
This weeks readings were helpful in understanding more about Phenomenology and interviewing. I am not sure if the order was intentional, but I read them that way, and it seemed intentional. Beginning with van Manen was good. His writing style is both heady and conversational to me. I felt like the piece was closer to philosophy in content, but not without some concrete examples and good illustrations of his point. Although intended for a certain audience, there was nothing in the content that could not be applied to my work. His discussion of the word geist and it's connections to German root words describing natural and human science was interesting. I often used the word zeitgeist in discussions of movements in the art world and larger contemporary national conversations. Just as with the German terms used in his piece, there is no good English translation. This is a great example of the power of language as a way of describing the reality around us. He goes on to describe the "lifeworld" and the reflective discipline of writing which is key to phenomenological research. These points were helpful in really deeply describing the essence of the work, and the importance of you as the instrument being reflective. It's such a departure from qualitative work in this way, and really a way of thinking more mindfully. I feel like it's a skill that will get better with practice and will take time to be comfortable with as a researcher. Finally, I thought the points around accurately and carefully describing the experience of a real person were thought provoking. You, as the researcher, are tasked with interpreting the experience of another, and therefore cannot avoid some amount of interpretation. You must carefully do your best to describe the experience deeply and richly, so the reader really gets a picture of person and their experience.
After thinking deeply and philosophically in van Manen's work, DeMarris's piece was much more straight forward and directive. I did appreciate the clear thoughts on interviewing, and things to think about when using this type of method to gather data. Again, themes around rich and textural description are clearly covered, and thinking about how to discover meaning in someone's lived experience. The sections on developing your interview questions were very helpful, and there is a lot to think through when doing so. I can see how this work really is an art, and getting good at doing interviews just takes practice, reflection, revision, and more practice.
Finally, the article by Beck was helpful to me as a scholarly piece using phenomenology. Although parts of it were above my head, I think I understood the structure and way it was organized. I know that reading articles in my own field using this methodology will be helpful, and I just need to find some. I wish you could search my research method. But, since I am deep in research for my publishable paper right now, I am sure I will find some. Qualitative research is very popular in Student Affairs scholarship, and our journals do a pretty good job of balance in what they publish.
My one side observation this week was that our research traditions are very rooted in European or Anglo philosophy. I understand this and the clear connections from the enlightenment, but I wonder how researchers feel about this in other countries, be they in Asia, Africa, South America etc....are there other ways of doing qual research that are grounded in different history and philosophy?
Jackie Clark
This weeks readings were helpful in understanding more about Phenomenology and interviewing. I am not sure if the order was intentional, but I read them that way, and it seemed intentional. Beginning with van Manen was good. His writing style is both heady and conversational to me. I felt like the piece was closer to philosophy in content, but not without some concrete examples and good illustrations of his point. Although intended for a certain audience, there was nothing in the content that could not be applied to my work. His discussion of the word geist and it's connections to German root words describing natural and human science was interesting. I often used the word zeitgeist in discussions of movements in the art world and larger contemporary national conversations. Just as with the German terms used in his piece, there is no good English translation. This is a great example of the power of language as a way of describing the reality around us. He goes on to describe the "lifeworld" and the reflective discipline of writing which is key to phenomenological research. These points were helpful in really deeply describing the essence of the work, and the importance of you as the instrument being reflective. It's such a departure from qualitative work in this way, and really a way of thinking more mindfully. I feel like it's a skill that will get better with practice and will take time to be comfortable with as a researcher. Finally, I thought the points around accurately and carefully describing the experience of a real person were thought provoking. You, as the researcher, are tasked with interpreting the experience of another, and therefore cannot avoid some amount of interpretation. You must carefully do your best to describe the experience deeply and richly, so the reader really gets a picture of person and their experience.
After thinking deeply and philosophically in van Manen's work, DeMarris's piece was much more straight forward and directive. I did appreciate the clear thoughts on interviewing, and things to think about when using this type of method to gather data. Again, themes around rich and textural description are clearly covered, and thinking about how to discover meaning in someone's lived experience. The sections on developing your interview questions were very helpful, and there is a lot to think through when doing so. I can see how this work really is an art, and getting good at doing interviews just takes practice, reflection, revision, and more practice.
Finally, the article by Beck was helpful to me as a scholarly piece using phenomenology. Although parts of it were above my head, I think I understood the structure and way it was organized. I know that reading articles in my own field using this methodology will be helpful, and I just need to find some. I wish you could search my research method. But, since I am deep in research for my publishable paper right now, I am sure I will find some. Qualitative research is very popular in Student Affairs scholarship, and our journals do a pretty good job of balance in what they publish.
My one side observation this week was that our research traditions are very rooted in European or Anglo philosophy. I understand this and the clear connections from the enlightenment, but I wonder how researchers feel about this in other countries, be they in Asia, Africa, South America etc....are there other ways of doing qual research that are grounded in different history and philosophy?
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Reflection on readings for 8/26 (foundations and craft)
QUAL 8400: Jackie Clark
Reflection on readings for 8/26
The readings this week were a good introduction to the world of qualitative research. Having done mostly quantitative research in the past, getting to know and understand the qualitative foundations was very helpful. I don't have any issues between the two, they seem very logical in terms of getting to the information that you are looking for as a researcher. These options for method allow you to look at different aspects of an issue or problem. I think a profound leap for me was understanding the complex history of research, and how the natural sciences and the scientific method have colored all conversations since. It seems all research has been measured against quantitative philosophies, and it's difficult not to fall back on those frameworks when thinking about research. Understanding qualitative work means opening your mind, changing your lens, and grasping that the study of people is simply not the same as the study of the natural world like biology or chemistry. Interestingly, I listen to a lot of science podcasts, and this conversation is alive and well even in the "hard sciences" where a number of key individuals are arguing that their past positivist mindset and methodology is lacking in many areas.
The readings for this week were an excellent introduction to this kind of research, but also interesting because they were very different in tone and style. The Prassad chapter was amazingly concise for all the information it included, while also being accessible and friendly to the new research student. Her analogy to the work as a "craft" really resonated with me, as a former artist. It helped me understand how you can learn technique and history, but in the end you craft your own work. She also did a good job of explaining how although there are methodologies and philosophic underpinnings to qualitative research, there is a lack of agreement on terminology and each researcher defines the work in their own way. On the surface this might seem disorganized and confusing, but if you understand why this might be expected or even sometimes necessary, you get back to the idea of this research as craft.
Given this occasionally confusing description of qualitative research, the chapter by Michael Crotty provides a more solid framework, what he calls a scaffold. His four part progression from epistemology to methods makes understanding this research much easier. It also makes a great point on page 14, regarding the divide between qualitative and quantitative work comes at the stage of method choice in his model. In this way, it's easy to see how either might work for your research and sometimes both are appropriate.Given my own research interests, this chapter really helped me outline my work.
Now for the "heavy-hitter" work by Weinberg. This chapter really challenged me intellectually, but was very interesting. I feel like I had to put on my philosophy hat to dig deep into this piece. In sum, it provided a great history of the philosophies guiding constructivist work and how important authors were in many ways simply struggling with challenges of their time as guided by history, politics, and culture. You could say their work was heavily influenced by their socialization. The progression over time, each critiquing the last, allowed me to understand how foundational epistemology is and to think about the creation of knowledge differently. As a pragmatist, I appreciated the conversation on page 28, connecting philosophy to the concerns of larger society. Finally, I remain challenged by the latter portions discussing language and dialog. I am not sure I fully understand the way language impacts construction of knowledge, so maybe we can talk about that in class.
Reflection on readings for 8/26
The readings this week were a good introduction to the world of qualitative research. Having done mostly quantitative research in the past, getting to know and understand the qualitative foundations was very helpful. I don't have any issues between the two, they seem very logical in terms of getting to the information that you are looking for as a researcher. These options for method allow you to look at different aspects of an issue or problem. I think a profound leap for me was understanding the complex history of research, and how the natural sciences and the scientific method have colored all conversations since. It seems all research has been measured against quantitative philosophies, and it's difficult not to fall back on those frameworks when thinking about research. Understanding qualitative work means opening your mind, changing your lens, and grasping that the study of people is simply not the same as the study of the natural world like biology or chemistry. Interestingly, I listen to a lot of science podcasts, and this conversation is alive and well even in the "hard sciences" where a number of key individuals are arguing that their past positivist mindset and methodology is lacking in many areas.
The readings for this week were an excellent introduction to this kind of research, but also interesting because they were very different in tone and style. The Prassad chapter was amazingly concise for all the information it included, while also being accessible and friendly to the new research student. Her analogy to the work as a "craft" really resonated with me, as a former artist. It helped me understand how you can learn technique and history, but in the end you craft your own work. She also did a good job of explaining how although there are methodologies and philosophic underpinnings to qualitative research, there is a lack of agreement on terminology and each researcher defines the work in their own way. On the surface this might seem disorganized and confusing, but if you understand why this might be expected or even sometimes necessary, you get back to the idea of this research as craft.
Given this occasionally confusing description of qualitative research, the chapter by Michael Crotty provides a more solid framework, what he calls a scaffold. His four part progression from epistemology to methods makes understanding this research much easier. It also makes a great point on page 14, regarding the divide between qualitative and quantitative work comes at the stage of method choice in his model. In this way, it's easy to see how either might work for your research and sometimes both are appropriate.Given my own research interests, this chapter really helped me outline my work.
Now for the "heavy-hitter" work by Weinberg. This chapter really challenged me intellectually, but was very interesting. I feel like I had to put on my philosophy hat to dig deep into this piece. In sum, it provided a great history of the philosophies guiding constructivist work and how important authors were in many ways simply struggling with challenges of their time as guided by history, politics, and culture. You could say their work was heavily influenced by their socialization. The progression over time, each critiquing the last, allowed me to understand how foundational epistemology is and to think about the creation of knowledge differently. As a pragmatist, I appreciated the conversation on page 28, connecting philosophy to the concerns of larger society. Finally, I remain challenged by the latter portions discussing language and dialog. I am not sure I fully understand the way language impacts construction of knowledge, so maybe we can talk about that in class.
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Week 1: Research Interests
Hello Everyone! I have never done a blog before but am certainly interesting in learning about everyone's research interests. I might be a less traditional doc student, in that I have worked both in Higher Education and in the private sector for an education company. This experience has definitely impacted my work in class the first year, and often I challenge the beliefs and attitudes of those in higher education. My research interests remain too large to accomplish during my time at UGA, and it is so very frustrating to try and parse them down to a reasonable size. I don't even know where to begin to identify singular experiences that drive my research interests. Given that they are all about college students, it is a broad field. That being said, I will try to narrow down some thoughts for this class.
Probably the single most salient experience for me was attending a small women's college for my undergraduate education.I had no expectations for what that experience would entail, but as it turned out it was critical to my development as an adult. The environment was incredibly supportive, my adviser was the Dean of the College, and I had many great relationships with faculty and staff. I learned to be independent, to be a critical thinker, and a decent writer. At a small school you get to know everyone on campus, and to provide leadership in multiple ways. I was an R.A, served in SGA, worked on research, and participated in a unique sister class relationship.The 4 years there provided the foundation I needed to go to graduate school and to pursue a career in Student Affairs.
Today, much of my interest lies in the role of the Dean of Student/VP of Student Affairs at small institutions, as well as the study of women students, and women's centers. I am also interested in the Millennial generation, who are a full generation distant from me as a member of GenX. I have most recently been working on the current state of women's centers and the roles and functions of these center's on campus. However, I am not sure this is my ultimate direction, I feel like I want to dig deeper into the role of the DOS at small schools.
In addition, I want to acknowledge that I am new to qualitative research. When I did my master's this research was in it's infancy in Higher Education (as opposed to an area like Sociology). I have always done quantitative work, so I am excited to learn more about the different types of qualitative research.
Thank you!
Probably the single most salient experience for me was attending a small women's college for my undergraduate education.I had no expectations for what that experience would entail, but as it turned out it was critical to my development as an adult. The environment was incredibly supportive, my adviser was the Dean of the College, and I had many great relationships with faculty and staff. I learned to be independent, to be a critical thinker, and a decent writer. At a small school you get to know everyone on campus, and to provide leadership in multiple ways. I was an R.A, served in SGA, worked on research, and participated in a unique sister class relationship.The 4 years there provided the foundation I needed to go to graduate school and to pursue a career in Student Affairs.
Today, much of my interest lies in the role of the Dean of Student/VP of Student Affairs at small institutions, as well as the study of women students, and women's centers. I am also interested in the Millennial generation, who are a full generation distant from me as a member of GenX. I have most recently been working on the current state of women's centers and the roles and functions of these center's on campus. However, I am not sure this is my ultimate direction, I feel like I want to dig deeper into the role of the DOS at small schools.
In addition, I want to acknowledge that I am new to qualitative research. When I did my master's this research was in it's infancy in Higher Education (as opposed to an area like Sociology). I have always done quantitative work, so I am excited to learn more about the different types of qualitative research.
Thank you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)