Thoughts and musings

The paper is nearly finished. All I have yet are making my final edits and then handing it in. I will wait until this evening to do so. In the meantime, a beer and some thoughts.

This blogging thing has not taken off for me this semester. I don't know why. Usually I am able to easily put thoughts down into words, but this semester was another story. Perhaps it was the shakeup of life given the move and all ... I don't really know. What I can say, is that this has been a journey.

I was reflecting a bit this morning about what the Karen's said about the nature of qualitative research. It would seem the beauty is in the story -- in the text staring us in the face, yet we cannot seem to put to words the nature of this beauty in a way that does the beauty justice. Is that a commentary on the story, or the storyteller? My bet is on the latter.

The Karens pus to eloquently that which I was trying to achieve with this paper. Their idea of storytelling is actually somewhat inspiring as I have worked on the final draft of my paper. My problem, is that I had such "little" time to experience the story itself. Such a bummer about the nature of classroom learning! What if we truly evaluated our learning? Oh how a standard semester would die and whither. Wouldn't Tagg be so happy?!

Where does this leave me? Oh lonely me! My bent is still quantitative -- or at least my comfortability. Yet I think I have made room in my heart for qualitative. Room for the thoughts, the fears, and the story. The story. This is the heart of it all. What story shall next be told?

Creswell 10, Standards of Validation and Evaluation

Alex-

I just saw your comment from my previous Creswell post and thought I would look back at my notes on chapter 10 for a posting ... I guess I missed that one!

Creswell's chapter 10 is on validation and evaluation of information in qualitative research.

What does he mean here? Essentially he is exploring of the role the researcher plays in being truly responsible for the data. This responsibility takes many forms, and the approaches and language used in representing this responsibility differ across the theoretical approaches mentioned by Creswell.

Part of his initial discussion seems to focus on the need for qualitative research to present an understanding of, and commitment to, academic rigor. Information for a study is only important vis-a-vis its relation to the world -- both how was the information collected (where and by whom) and how is it being represented and verified (what is being said and how).

Creswell posits that researchers have an obligation to all sides of these tasks. Methodological approaches are important because they provide the guidelines for validation and evaluation, as well as being tools of verification for the researcher.

Firstly a researcher must begin to understand their own role in the process before anything. This should be articulated for the reader, and in some cases even articulated with the participants. Not only can this provide clarification for the reader, but it also frames the lens from which the researcher is presenting their argument. This illuminates potential compromising situations of power, bias, or ethical dilemma in ways that help frame the findings of the study.

Secondly the researcher must then be certain their method of collection is most appropriate for the study. This can be done in many ways -- considering the advice of other experts, other participants, or by researching relevant literature should all act as guiding principles in deciding what is appropriate for the study. Often the research question itself can be a guide in this process.

The last two items provide a framework of evaluation of the data. This process is both in the actual coding and the subsequent interpretation and re-representation of the data. Creswell states this happens in multiple ways and seems as though it should not be limited to only one or two approaches. Rigor is tested over time -- this process certainly seems as though it could involve a large portion of time for the researcher. Some of this occurs as the researcher seeks saturation in the data, but also through triangulation, member checking, peer review, the use of a cultural ambassador, as well as continued engagement with the literature. It would seem the more voices who are allowed to speak into the process, the clearer it should become for the researcher and therefore the more critical evaluation of the findings can occur. This provides the researcher the ability to affirm findings and also gives the researcher a position of expertise in the area of research.

Certainly other aspects of qualitative research are important, however it would seem to me that a solid qualitative research project in information gathering and design is meaningless should the researcher not carefully consider rigorous validation and evaluation of both the methodological approaches, but also in the findings and presentation of the data.

Faith Integration Reflection

It has taken some time to compose this into a suitable reflection, so I decided to take a little extra time and then post it here on the blog.

While I would not say that the last 2 years have provided a "crisis of faith" period for me, I do believe I have been challenged to consider the integration of faith in my life through new lenses. Partly due to discussions and revelations from my studying, much of this reconsideration has occurred because of life situations I have encountered throughout this journey. While some of these have been specifically personal situations -- the loss of a baby from miscarriage -- or others professional -- the search for new professional roles -- I do not see a great distinction between personal and professional since I see my working world as decidedly personal in its interaction with my personhood.

At times these crises moments cause me to consider abandoning my faith wholesale. Who needs it anyway? Part of me, at times, becomes cynical toward the idea of living as Christ follower, yet I am compelled to reconsider and "try again." It is during these moments of "trying again" where I reaffirm my understanding of faith in action and recommit myself to goals greater than myself. In these times I find myself engaging new challenges of life by reminding myself about the past and my goals for the future. I just cannot envision a future without God -- albeit that future relationship has surely changed!! (Possibly and hopefully it is continually changing).

Qualitative methodology is something with which I struggle. Not only do I find it difficult to frame conceptually and theoretically, I find it strikingly difficult to comprehend practically. Who am I to tell the story of someone else?

Alex keeps saying, "focus on the story of the other." Part of me argues that, in the end, I serve my needs through this work and therefore I am telling my story in a roundabout fashion. Possibly this is researcher bias at work. . .maybe I am just a horrible researcher! This driving philosophy of qualitative research, however, has possibly impacted my faith the most throughout the past semester. It presents the great challenge of story -- telling someone else's story is the gift of qualitative research.

Quantitative research allows me to embrace a true feeling of objectivity, "here are my data, this is what they seem to be telling us." For whatever reason I have been drawn to this approach; this approach is where I feel most comfortable.

Qualitative research means nothing without the voice of the other. The gift of this voice is the foundation of the research. During my work collecting data I continued reflecting on how blessed I felt by sharing in the conversation with my participants. I felt duly inadequate to be the individual with responsibility of providing venue to each of their voices. What a gift to cherish. For a brief moment I have felt God smile upon the participants. Not because anything I am doing or asking is groundbreaking or life-altering, but because I have been provided the gift of receiving these comments -- they were given to me as though I now hold guardianship over them.

Some of this reflection came to light during and shortly after the actual interviews, but it was my manipulation of the data that truly illuminated this reality. As I coded and wrestled with themes in the data I would write the name of the participant next to the code or idea. Through this process I kept saying to myself, "this is Suzie's thought and I have now provided it some kind of tangible permanence." I now have the responsibility of working with this thought appropriately and responsibly.

In a small way this has affirmed for me the importance I have to The Creator. He gives me the freedom of thought and expression. Yet, despite my ability to be of mobile agency, I am under His authority . . . what I know is that his representation and guardianship of my being and thoughts is perfect -- especially where mine is imperfect.

I many not be representing these thoughts in an appropriate or clear manner, however it all comes together to represent my new understanding of qualitative research. Has it altered my orientation toward quantitative research methods? No, but it has illuminated a new world for me and given me an orientation of openness toward other methodologies. It is even possible for me to say I can delight in the qualitative approach (to an extent!).

The most compelling aspect of qualitative research, for me, is the gift of story. The challenge for researchers is to take this story, focus on the fact that it is a gift from the participant, and represent it in a way that affirms who they are and whose they are. What a tremendous task in so many ways!

Creswell 9, Writing a Qualitative Study

In his text, Creswell takes us toward an understanding of how to actually begin forming a qualitative study. Based upon the previously-presented study types, Creswell describes the structure of each form.

Creswell also offers the reader some basic guidelines for forming a qualitative study. He informs us that we should embrace our role as researcher and do our best to provide the narrative from our perspective. This approach is different now than it was just a number of years ago, he mentions.

What a breath of fresh air! Be ourselves, write from our gut. Is that what he's saying?

Well, in some senses yes, and others no. On one hand Creswell is identifying and articulating the dilemma of the qualitative researcher -- that of human interpretation in research. On another hand Creswell argues there are distinct academic standards which dictate a structure for the researcher.

Could he be arguing here for a both/and approach?

I think this is somewhat the case. There are standards set within academe that all qualitative writing should meet. My personal experience, however, is that each 'expert' in the field, in my case supervising faculty, hold individual opinion on the interpretation of the standard. In some cases entire departments are influenced by the viewpoint of the chair, or of a particular researcher.

The reality is that, as a student, I must become a cognoscente of the preferred style of my faculty. How else would I find true success? But is this the measure of true success?

Better yet, is this the end of education? -- haha, I love puns.

Of course it is the end, but then the means. . . oh the means I shall not bother.

Back to my previous point. Creswell is presenting a bit of what could be considered "benchmark" standards in the field of qualitative research. I believe he articulates that these approaches have come from a history and certainly lead to a future - such a future means these 'structures' are bound to change as techniques adapt and the academy reinterprets the structures and standards of qualitative research.

Moving a bit beyond what Creswell presents brings me to thinking about how these structures could be altered in the future. Certainly ever-evolving technology offers new techniques and realities to which qualitative researchers must adjust. Even in the past decade, modes of human communication have transitioned so dramatically with the advances in online technology and cellular communication. Our world advances, or at the least, changes (with care not to place a value judgement on calling it advancing or retreating).

Hmmmm...

So now we have to begin writing a real paper I guess. That shall prove interesting.

The art of an interview

I have spent considerable time pondering my latest foray into qualitative study – the interview. My subject was a close friend who happens to be a masters student studying engineering. I chose her because she was willing to be interviewed and I wanted to "slide into the shallow end of the pool" of interview protocol for my first effort instead of "diving into the deep end" (so to say).

I found the interview was a bit difficult. Naturally I tend to be a conversationalist, but I felt stiff during the interview. Certainly this must have affected by subject. How could it not? I have subsequently spent time asking myself, "What did I do wrong?" and, "How can I do it all better next time?" 

The answers do not come simply. Each interview seems certain to be as unique as each subject being interviewed. Settings change, moods change, and people change; the dynamics just cannot be replicated with ease. What is a researcher to do? I struggle with manipulating the interview setting too much as I do not want to cause the setting to dramatically alter the outcomes. For this interview we sat down in the participant's home over a cup of coffee. We were in her domain, at her house, sitting at her table. Possibly I was the nervous one. Possibly she was at ease, and her answers flowed from comfort and familiarity. But possibly not. I have no way of knowing.

Next time . . . like my former orchestral conductor said, "Practice makes better!"

Narrative what?!

So I'm finding this narrative approach somewhat difficult. I can't tell if I am burdened by the approach or merely the style. All weekend I have been attempting to "polish off" this project but feel like I keep running into walls. Part of it may be that I was an English major so creative writing is not too difficult for me . . . but is that narrative? Seems too basic for me and "not academic enough" as a lot of my commentary tends to say from the professors. 

Oh well. . . gotta shoot the fish in the barrel I guess and see if I hit any. So here goes -- not my silver bullet mind you!

Creswell 8, Data Analysis and Representation

Summary:

Creswell explores the intricacies of data coding for qualitative research. He presents five approaches to analysis and offers some comparison of the five (narrative research, phenomenological research, grounded theory, ethnography, and case study). 

The use of computer programs which aid in the process of qualitative coding is introduced by Creswell in this chapter. Positive and negative implications of computer coding are discussed as well as a brief introduction to four available programs.

Lastly visual templates of qualitative coding are presented to the reader.

Response:

This chapter provides a cursory overview of qualitative data analysis and representation. In less than 30 pages, the author anticipates a reader should have the ability to begin data analysis of a given study, yet the author admits that most qualitative research is somewhat ad hoc and is learned through involvement (p. 150).

It is my feeling that Creswell is correct that much of qualitative coding is dictated by the study, the information, and the researcher. This is a fancy way of saying each study, while holding some elemental pieces similar to other studies, will be unique.

Despite the reality of my crass assessment in the aforementioned paragraph, there is really no other way for one to learn such methodologies without having them presented. For this task Creswell rises to the occasion and gives a decent quick-and-dirty description. The true learning, however, is likely to occur by actually practicing the coding and having the codes verified by colleagues, professors, or through the use of member checking. 

Drawbacks:

Biggest drawback: How could anyone truly represent this kind of material in one chapter? One might consider an entire book on each approach!

One thing I feel is lacking in this chapter is an emphasis on shortcomings. Creswell does not adequately identify potential shortcomings in the approaches presented within this chapter. Quite possibly each has its unique problems, and no one approach stands as a golden standard among all researchers, however an emphasis on potential problems could be of benefit to the reader. I would the be able to better predict my potential problems and watch for them through the analysis phase of my projects. 

I guess I still remain skeptical of Creswell because he spends so much time citing himself. Thus I remain in my post-Creswellian phase.