Reading Log #5 (part 1)
Creswell, ch. 11
Summary:
Creswell’s final chapter works primarily to illustrate the perspectives each of the approaches to research might adopt in relation to a single situation. Although the gunman incident was presented initially as a case study, the author demonstrates the feasibility of “turning the story” and exploring different aspects of the situation through the various lenses.
The secondary function of this chapter is to conclude the book by answering the question that prefaced the majority of the book: “How does the approach to inquiry shape the design of the study?” He lists seven ways this happens: the focus of the study, the consciously interpretive nature of qualitative research, the language used in designing a study or presenting a question, the type and number of participants, the style of data analysis, the rhetorical structure of the written report, and the criteria for assessing the quality or usefulness of the study.
Creswell closes the book with an admonition to beginning qualitative researchers that they learn the distinctions among the five approaches explored in the book in order to best understand the many studies that have been or could be undertaken. Although the author admits that studies can be successfully conducted using a blending of approaches, he urges the importance of learning the hallmarks of each approach.
Reflection:
I enjoyed the exercise undertaken by Creswell in this final chapter. It was interesting to me to watch him figuratively walk around a single research study and examine it from new angles by using new questions. This helped me understand that most situations can probably be explored effectively through more than one qualitative approach and that an approach should be chosen based on the particular question about which the researcher is curious rather than on the situation itself.
Most meaningful to me in this chapter was Creswell’s emphasis that “our writing can only be seen as discourse” (p. 231). What a great realization! I really like the idea that writing up my research is the equivalent of starting (or joining) a conversation.
Reading Log #5 (part 2)
Golden-Biddle & Locke, Intro and ch. 1
Summary:
The introduction to Golden-Biddle and Locke’s book focuses on two issues: the authors’ reflections on writing about the writing process, along with the lack of published work on that topic; and an overview of the book’s contents. They draw attention to their central metaphor of the theorized storyline—the development of a “plot” in our research story as it connect to the existing body of work on related ideas.
Chapter 1 explores the phenomenon of academic writing and the attitudes that surround it. The authors decry the objectiveness generally promoted in academic publication, bemoaning it as both disingenuous and distancing. In their discussion of “writing up” research, they what we write, for whom we write, and to what purpose we write. If we write for the purpose of publication, the authors say, our writing is submitted for judgment and must be found worthy of the audience for which we intend it.
The authors go on to discuss the idea of rhetorical writing, and they demonstrate that all writing (even “objective” writing) is essentially persuasive. If a point is to be made, even if that point is simply that our topic requires exploration, the author must persuade readers to agree. Golden-Biddle and Locke conclude this chapter with four components that comprise the task of writing: articulating and framing our insights; finding an outlet for our work and shaping that outlet by our participation in it; presenting and defending the importance of our work; and establishing ourselves as people worth listening to.
Reflection:
This initial sample of the Golden-Biddle and Locke book has left me convinced of its usefulness in my own attempts at writing up qualitative research. Just in the first chapter, their argument has been encouraging to me. I particularly like their assertion that qualitative research is not about interjecting personal factors (as opposed to some mythical “bias-free” type of research); instead, it’s about being conscious and open about the relationship between researchers and the topics they pursue. I like this way of thinking about a style that’s somewhat less comfortable for me than the more distanced style of traditional academic writing. Hopefully their insights will help me embrace first-person writing, but it may still be a stretch!
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
In one fell swoop: all of reading log #4
Reading Log #4 (Part 1)
Creswell, ch. 10
Summary:
Creswell explores issues of validity, reliability, and overall evaluation in chapter 10. As he does with most topics, the author dedicates a sizable portion of the chapter to exploration of the implications of these ideas within each of the approaches to research. Overall, however, he emphasizes the importance of conducting and writing qualitative studies in ways that accurately convey the data gathered throughout the course of the study, of establishing the reasonableness of the researcher’s interpretation of that data, and of evaluating both the quality and the usefulness of the study and its stated outcomes.
Reflection:
I feel like chapter 10 provides some helpful suggestions for examining my own study as I move further into it. While my interviews are nearly complete, I have yet to jump wholeheartedly into transcription and coding. Creswell’s description of tools like triangulation and member checking will be helpful to me as I consider how to most accurately convey the data I’ve collected. I am particularly looking forward to member checking as I gather my participants back together for another group conversation. The students were actively engaged in our first group discussion, and I anticipate their deep investment again when we discuss the ways I’ve interpreted or categorized the data.
Reading Log #4 (Part 2)
My Freshman Year, ch. 6-7; afterword
Summary, ch. 6:
In many ways, this chapter focuses on the pragmatism of students and on the ways that pragmatism is reinforced by the college setting. Given the many obligations to which most students are subject, including academics, work, and interpersonal commitments, Nathan concedes that some measure of “management” is necessary, simply for survival.
Nathan begins this chapter by discussing the historical precedents for the divide between students and professors. She also elaborates on the kind of divisions that exist among student groups, defining these differences by students’ membership in mainstream (average) student culture, “outsider” or “new outsider” cultures, or “rebel” culture (p. 108-109). While she provides some description of each of these groups, Nathan’s focus seems to be on supporting her assertion that the college environment includes both dominant and less powerful student groups and that this is a well-established phenomenon.
The remainder of chapter 6 is dedicated to the various aspects of college life that students must manage in order to function within their environment. These include the complexities of time management in a demanding setting, the creation and navigation of a workable semester schedule, the requirements and peculiarities of professors, the allotment of time and energy to course-related workload, and even basic class attendance. Nathan also discusses some of the motivations and justifications for cheating. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of the changes students experience in these competing demands over the course of their college careers.
Reflection, ch. 6:
This is probably my favorite chapter of Nathan’s book. I think chapter 6 is the point at which she transitions from her “observe and report” role to her real student experiences… not so much what she saw happening in the lives of her fellow students, but a stronger emphasis on what she had come to see as the realities of her own freshman year. Accordingly, this section felt to me like a more authentic fulfillment of Nathan’s stated goals—even of her book’s title. More than anything else, I value this chapter for its general admission that student life is difficult, demanding, and (in some ways at least) pretty much impossible to shape in the ways most often touted by professors and institutions.
Summary, ch. 7:
Nathan uses this chapter to reflect on the entirety of her experience as a freshman at her own institution. She describes the wide chasm between student life or perspective and the lives and perspectives of faculty. She particularly highlights points of assumption or ignorance from each viewpoint. These include the frustration of faculty over student failure to read assigned material, student confusion over the “out of class” obligations of their professors, and the frequent failure of professors to grasp how highly scheduled and carefully compartmentalized the lives of their students truly are. At the heart of her reflection is that faculty need to learn compassion for their students and that students need to understand that their professors are real, live people with reasons for their actions.
Nathan devotes a few paragraphs to a discussion of “liminality” (p. 146), the transitional nature of the college experience. The essence of the liminal experience is that individuals enter an environment in which prior constraints are lifted, they experience personal transformation, and they re-enter larger society as changed people with a new status and (to some extent) a new identity. This discussion is followed by information on the transformation of higher education itself in terms of social prevalence, access by diverse learners, and increasing enrollment. Financial concerns are also discussed as influencing factors on the nature and quality of colleges and universities.
Nathan’s final section of the body of the book offers two incidents that depict apparent definitions of what college is and why it exists. She uses these incidents to underscore the inconsistency of the messages institutions send to their students about the role of higher education in the life of the individual and in society.
Reflection, ch. 7:
I appreciated Nathan’s exploration of the lessons students and faculty could teach one another. I think this chapter did a particularly good job of emphasizing that college is both difficult and transformative, and I sensed that she returned to her classroom with a very real awareness of the ways her previous thought patterns either supported or (potentially, at least) frustrated her students.
The discussion of liminality was very interesting to me. I think, especially for those of us who work at fairly small, residential institutions, this transitional undertaking is a prominent feature of our daily interaction with students. Of course, that sort of institution is also more likely to keep some of the strictures of the student’s prior environment intact; still, I think this is something we care very much about.
One last thought here—I’m not really sure why Nathan included the statistical walkthrough of the changing face of higher education over the last 50-75 years. While I suppose the information is relevant, it felt like an incongruous lit review in the middle of some very personal reflections.
Summary, afterword:
Nathan begins the afterword by describing the decisions she made at the project’s outset regarding anonymity and disclosure. She depicts her choice to lay aside the benefit of institutional or external funding and to forego her role as an “agent of the university” (p. 160) in order to retain the rights to protect her subjects to the greatest extent possible. Most of the afterword is dedicated to Nathan’s ongoing judgments about how directly to tie information to specific individuals, how extensively to use verbatim statements, and how best to write the results in ways that conveyed the information she considered important while preserving anonymity for her student colleagues. As a final means of supporting the privacy of those whose thoughts, actions, and lives she portrayed, Nathan elected to write under a pseudonym and to assign one to the institution.
Reflection, afterword:
This section of the book provides some enlightenment on Nathan’s thought process. I believe she deeply wanted to understand student life and that she intended to treat her research subjects (I hesitate to call them participants since nearly all of them “participated” involuntarily…) with the utmost respect. Still, even in cases where Nathan seems to be asking the right question (…the most important of which is “Was information shared with me done so on the assumption that I was a student, and only a student?”), I never feel confident that she came to what I would have considered the right answer.
In the case of this example I just highlighted, I think the answer is a firm and resounding YES—it’s the very reason she chose to go native. She chose to portray herself as a student specifically because she had noticed students tell their peers things they do not tell their professors. In other words, hiding her status as a professor was the central goal of this whole thing, and I don’t know that Nathan ever really talks about that in a way that satisfies me. Still, I find it gratifying that she does seem to legitimately struggle with the ethical issues inherent in her project—the struggle itself seems like a minor moral or ethical victory.
Nathan’s approach to research is defined for me by the conversation she had with a student who responded to Nathan’s admission of her “real” identity by saying that she felt “fooled.” As much as I enjoyed this book (and I enjoyed it immensely—I’ve been recommending it to people left and right), I have a hard time making peace with any research that leaves its participants feeling (rightfully so) that they’ve been tricked or lied to.
Creswell, ch. 10
Summary:
Creswell explores issues of validity, reliability, and overall evaluation in chapter 10. As he does with most topics, the author dedicates a sizable portion of the chapter to exploration of the implications of these ideas within each of the approaches to research. Overall, however, he emphasizes the importance of conducting and writing qualitative studies in ways that accurately convey the data gathered throughout the course of the study, of establishing the reasonableness of the researcher’s interpretation of that data, and of evaluating both the quality and the usefulness of the study and its stated outcomes.
Reflection:
I feel like chapter 10 provides some helpful suggestions for examining my own study as I move further into it. While my interviews are nearly complete, I have yet to jump wholeheartedly into transcription and coding. Creswell’s description of tools like triangulation and member checking will be helpful to me as I consider how to most accurately convey the data I’ve collected. I am particularly looking forward to member checking as I gather my participants back together for another group conversation. The students were actively engaged in our first group discussion, and I anticipate their deep investment again when we discuss the ways I’ve interpreted or categorized the data.
Reading Log #4 (Part 2)
My Freshman Year, ch. 6-7; afterword
Summary, ch. 6:
In many ways, this chapter focuses on the pragmatism of students and on the ways that pragmatism is reinforced by the college setting. Given the many obligations to which most students are subject, including academics, work, and interpersonal commitments, Nathan concedes that some measure of “management” is necessary, simply for survival.
Nathan begins this chapter by discussing the historical precedents for the divide between students and professors. She also elaborates on the kind of divisions that exist among student groups, defining these differences by students’ membership in mainstream (average) student culture, “outsider” or “new outsider” cultures, or “rebel” culture (p. 108-109). While she provides some description of each of these groups, Nathan’s focus seems to be on supporting her assertion that the college environment includes both dominant and less powerful student groups and that this is a well-established phenomenon.
The remainder of chapter 6 is dedicated to the various aspects of college life that students must manage in order to function within their environment. These include the complexities of time management in a demanding setting, the creation and navigation of a workable semester schedule, the requirements and peculiarities of professors, the allotment of time and energy to course-related workload, and even basic class attendance. Nathan also discusses some of the motivations and justifications for cheating. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of the changes students experience in these competing demands over the course of their college careers.
Reflection, ch. 6:
This is probably my favorite chapter of Nathan’s book. I think chapter 6 is the point at which she transitions from her “observe and report” role to her real student experiences… not so much what she saw happening in the lives of her fellow students, but a stronger emphasis on what she had come to see as the realities of her own freshman year. Accordingly, this section felt to me like a more authentic fulfillment of Nathan’s stated goals—even of her book’s title. More than anything else, I value this chapter for its general admission that student life is difficult, demanding, and (in some ways at least) pretty much impossible to shape in the ways most often touted by professors and institutions.
Summary, ch. 7:
Nathan uses this chapter to reflect on the entirety of her experience as a freshman at her own institution. She describes the wide chasm between student life or perspective and the lives and perspectives of faculty. She particularly highlights points of assumption or ignorance from each viewpoint. These include the frustration of faculty over student failure to read assigned material, student confusion over the “out of class” obligations of their professors, and the frequent failure of professors to grasp how highly scheduled and carefully compartmentalized the lives of their students truly are. At the heart of her reflection is that faculty need to learn compassion for their students and that students need to understand that their professors are real, live people with reasons for their actions.
Nathan devotes a few paragraphs to a discussion of “liminality” (p. 146), the transitional nature of the college experience. The essence of the liminal experience is that individuals enter an environment in which prior constraints are lifted, they experience personal transformation, and they re-enter larger society as changed people with a new status and (to some extent) a new identity. This discussion is followed by information on the transformation of higher education itself in terms of social prevalence, access by diverse learners, and increasing enrollment. Financial concerns are also discussed as influencing factors on the nature and quality of colleges and universities.
Nathan’s final section of the body of the book offers two incidents that depict apparent definitions of what college is and why it exists. She uses these incidents to underscore the inconsistency of the messages institutions send to their students about the role of higher education in the life of the individual and in society.
Reflection, ch. 7:
I appreciated Nathan’s exploration of the lessons students and faculty could teach one another. I think this chapter did a particularly good job of emphasizing that college is both difficult and transformative, and I sensed that she returned to her classroom with a very real awareness of the ways her previous thought patterns either supported or (potentially, at least) frustrated her students.
The discussion of liminality was very interesting to me. I think, especially for those of us who work at fairly small, residential institutions, this transitional undertaking is a prominent feature of our daily interaction with students. Of course, that sort of institution is also more likely to keep some of the strictures of the student’s prior environment intact; still, I think this is something we care very much about.
One last thought here—I’m not really sure why Nathan included the statistical walkthrough of the changing face of higher education over the last 50-75 years. While I suppose the information is relevant, it felt like an incongruous lit review in the middle of some very personal reflections.
Summary, afterword:
Nathan begins the afterword by describing the decisions she made at the project’s outset regarding anonymity and disclosure. She depicts her choice to lay aside the benefit of institutional or external funding and to forego her role as an “agent of the university” (p. 160) in order to retain the rights to protect her subjects to the greatest extent possible. Most of the afterword is dedicated to Nathan’s ongoing judgments about how directly to tie information to specific individuals, how extensively to use verbatim statements, and how best to write the results in ways that conveyed the information she considered important while preserving anonymity for her student colleagues. As a final means of supporting the privacy of those whose thoughts, actions, and lives she portrayed, Nathan elected to write under a pseudonym and to assign one to the institution.
Reflection, afterword:
This section of the book provides some enlightenment on Nathan’s thought process. I believe she deeply wanted to understand student life and that she intended to treat her research subjects (I hesitate to call them participants since nearly all of them “participated” involuntarily…) with the utmost respect. Still, even in cases where Nathan seems to be asking the right question (…the most important of which is “Was information shared with me done so on the assumption that I was a student, and only a student?”), I never feel confident that she came to what I would have considered the right answer.
In the case of this example I just highlighted, I think the answer is a firm and resounding YES—it’s the very reason she chose to go native. She chose to portray herself as a student specifically because she had noticed students tell their peers things they do not tell their professors. In other words, hiding her status as a professor was the central goal of this whole thing, and I don’t know that Nathan ever really talks about that in a way that satisfies me. Still, I find it gratifying that she does seem to legitimately struggle with the ethical issues inherent in her project—the struggle itself seems like a minor moral or ethical victory.
Nathan’s approach to research is defined for me by the conversation she had with a student who responded to Nathan’s admission of her “real” identity by saying that she felt “fooled.” As much as I enjoyed this book (and I enjoyed it immensely—I’ve been recommending it to people left and right), I have a hard time making peace with any research that leaves its participants feeling (rightfully so) that they’ve been tricked or lied to.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Reading Log #3 (Part 2)
My Freshman Year, ch. 4-5
Summary, ch. 4:
In chapter 4, Nathan focuses on international students’ perspectives on American college students and American collegiate experiences. She represents the perspectives of these “outsider” or “other” students on cultural norms, sincerity (or insincerity) in interpersonal relationships, participation vs. integration, consideration for others, classroom behavior, academic rigor, faculty approachability, and student work ethic. This is one of the few sections of the book that relies heavily on quotations instead of simply providing Nathan’s interpretation or recollection of events. The chapter concludes with international students’ reflections on the deficits of American higher education and the broader American perspective.
Reflection, ch. 4:
This chapter felt somewhat out of place due to its tone and extensive use of quotations. To some extent, this makes sense because Nathan is clearly interviewing these students directly instead of simply observing them; however, I wonder why Nathan doesn’t also work to observe these students in their daily interactions with each other and with American students or faculty. Somehow, I felt that these students had an opportunity to explain themselves in a way that wasn’t available to most of the students with whom Nathan interacted. It would, for instance, have been incredibly interesting for Nathan to interview a group of students born and raised in the United States to see what they would identify as the biggest problems with America or with American higher education. I would have liked to see if some of the U.S. students would have been able to articulate the nationalistic or ethnocentric emphasis of their curriculum. It’s essential that international students be represented among the others experiencing student life at AnyU, but Nathan’s method of adding their perspective varied too much from her methods for understanding other students’ perspectives.
I also wonder about the curriculum at AnyU. One French student is quoted as saying, “There is no required history course in college” (p. 88). WHAT? Are there really colleges that don’t require world history courses? I realize that my college experience has been defined by my undergrad life at a small liberal arts institution, but I was shocked that any school with a general education program would omit basic world history as a core requirement. Incredulity aside, I found this chapter very interesting and was intrigued by the various perspectives presented here. I just felt like the approach and writing used in chapter 4 fit awkwardly with the rest of the book.
Summary, ch. 5:
Nathan starts chapter 5 with an illustration of alienation in the classroom. She describes an exercise she uses with her Anthropology students. As part of the exercise, students are asked to imagine that they are members of a community that attributes its negative experiences to the presence of a witch in the group. The students anonymously vote on which member of the class is likely to be the witch. Even though they are mostly strangers to one another, class members’ votes reveal at least some consensus on the identity of the witch. Consistently, the “witches” are the students who participate most in class, who ask meaningful questions, and who interact with the professor. Nathan uses this example to emphasize the importance students place on invisibility and sameness within the classroom. She goes on to describe the ways in which she tries to blend in with the student standard of invisibility. More importantly, she demonstrates that students value the appearance of disengagement. Questions about expectations (What do we have to do, and how must we do it?) are acceptable, while deeper questions (What does that mean? Or, How do we apply this concept?) are not.
As she proceeds through the chapter, Nathan discusses the type of discourse that occurs inside and outside the classroom. She was clearly surprised that students are unlikely to discuss classroom topics in their personal conversations within the dorm. Instead, students are more likely to talk about relational, recreational, or self-focused issues. Nathan conveys her disappointment that the life of the mind is often excluded from students’ daily interest and priorities. Some students do seem invested in the process of intellectual development, while others seem more interested in the overall experiential education of college, little of which is curricular.
Finally, Nathan discusses a course on sexuality that was recommended to her by several other students. The most important aspect of this class was that its subject matter deeply interested students, but its student-led, confidential, semi-rebellious approach to the subject matter provided the means and the motivation for students to become involved. The course successfully matched the issues about which students want to learn with methods that made students feel daring and exciting.
Reflection, ch. 5:
This chapter felt a bit unfocused to me as I first read it. As I reflect, however, I see that it’s really about a broad dichotomy regarding the situations and topics that draw student attention and the value judgments that accompany those expressions of interest. At its heart, this chapter says that students generally want to be invisible on academic issues and visible on interpersonal or relational issues. If a professor can successfully “hide” the academic issues in a cloud of relational issues, Nathan seems to say, maybe we can trick students into caring about what they’re learning. In some ways, I suspect these conclusions are fairly accurate. Students compartmentalize their lives into “classroom stuff” and “everything else,” and blurring the lines between those compartments is probably a good thing.
As I read this chapter, I kept thinking that it is the section of the book that could be most meaningful to classroom professors who just don’t understand their students. This may be a hard sell, though, since I suspect most faculty members would see students’ concurrent academic and personal lives as a problem to be solved. I do think that the extent of the disconnect between “school life” and “real life” is exacerbated by the setting at AnyU—the wall separating the two might not be quite so high at another type of institution. Still, I think this dichotomy exists and will continue to do so due, in some measure, to the developmental stage encountered by college students of traditional age as they leave their family homes and transition to a new stage of independence and exploration.
Summary, ch. 4:
In chapter 4, Nathan focuses on international students’ perspectives on American college students and American collegiate experiences. She represents the perspectives of these “outsider” or “other” students on cultural norms, sincerity (or insincerity) in interpersonal relationships, participation vs. integration, consideration for others, classroom behavior, academic rigor, faculty approachability, and student work ethic. This is one of the few sections of the book that relies heavily on quotations instead of simply providing Nathan’s interpretation or recollection of events. The chapter concludes with international students’ reflections on the deficits of American higher education and the broader American perspective.
Reflection, ch. 4:
This chapter felt somewhat out of place due to its tone and extensive use of quotations. To some extent, this makes sense because Nathan is clearly interviewing these students directly instead of simply observing them; however, I wonder why Nathan doesn’t also work to observe these students in their daily interactions with each other and with American students or faculty. Somehow, I felt that these students had an opportunity to explain themselves in a way that wasn’t available to most of the students with whom Nathan interacted. It would, for instance, have been incredibly interesting for Nathan to interview a group of students born and raised in the United States to see what they would identify as the biggest problems with America or with American higher education. I would have liked to see if some of the U.S. students would have been able to articulate the nationalistic or ethnocentric emphasis of their curriculum. It’s essential that international students be represented among the others experiencing student life at AnyU, but Nathan’s method of adding their perspective varied too much from her methods for understanding other students’ perspectives.
I also wonder about the curriculum at AnyU. One French student is quoted as saying, “There is no required history course in college” (p. 88). WHAT? Are there really colleges that don’t require world history courses? I realize that my college experience has been defined by my undergrad life at a small liberal arts institution, but I was shocked that any school with a general education program would omit basic world history as a core requirement. Incredulity aside, I found this chapter very interesting and was intrigued by the various perspectives presented here. I just felt like the approach and writing used in chapter 4 fit awkwardly with the rest of the book.
Summary, ch. 5:
Nathan starts chapter 5 with an illustration of alienation in the classroom. She describes an exercise she uses with her Anthropology students. As part of the exercise, students are asked to imagine that they are members of a community that attributes its negative experiences to the presence of a witch in the group. The students anonymously vote on which member of the class is likely to be the witch. Even though they are mostly strangers to one another, class members’ votes reveal at least some consensus on the identity of the witch. Consistently, the “witches” are the students who participate most in class, who ask meaningful questions, and who interact with the professor. Nathan uses this example to emphasize the importance students place on invisibility and sameness within the classroom. She goes on to describe the ways in which she tries to blend in with the student standard of invisibility. More importantly, she demonstrates that students value the appearance of disengagement. Questions about expectations (What do we have to do, and how must we do it?) are acceptable, while deeper questions (What does that mean? Or, How do we apply this concept?) are not.
As she proceeds through the chapter, Nathan discusses the type of discourse that occurs inside and outside the classroom. She was clearly surprised that students are unlikely to discuss classroom topics in their personal conversations within the dorm. Instead, students are more likely to talk about relational, recreational, or self-focused issues. Nathan conveys her disappointment that the life of the mind is often excluded from students’ daily interest and priorities. Some students do seem invested in the process of intellectual development, while others seem more interested in the overall experiential education of college, little of which is curricular.
Finally, Nathan discusses a course on sexuality that was recommended to her by several other students. The most important aspect of this class was that its subject matter deeply interested students, but its student-led, confidential, semi-rebellious approach to the subject matter provided the means and the motivation for students to become involved. The course successfully matched the issues about which students want to learn with methods that made students feel daring and exciting.
Reflection, ch. 5:
This chapter felt a bit unfocused to me as I first read it. As I reflect, however, I see that it’s really about a broad dichotomy regarding the situations and topics that draw student attention and the value judgments that accompany those expressions of interest. At its heart, this chapter says that students generally want to be invisible on academic issues and visible on interpersonal or relational issues. If a professor can successfully “hide” the academic issues in a cloud of relational issues, Nathan seems to say, maybe we can trick students into caring about what they’re learning. In some ways, I suspect these conclusions are fairly accurate. Students compartmentalize their lives into “classroom stuff” and “everything else,” and blurring the lines between those compartments is probably a good thing.
As I read this chapter, I kept thinking that it is the section of the book that could be most meaningful to classroom professors who just don’t understand their students. This may be a hard sell, though, since I suspect most faculty members would see students’ concurrent academic and personal lives as a problem to be solved. I do think that the extent of the disconnect between “school life” and “real life” is exacerbated by the setting at AnyU—the wall separating the two might not be quite so high at another type of institution. Still, I think this dichotomy exists and will continue to do so due, in some measure, to the developmental stage encountered by college students of traditional age as they leave their family homes and transition to a new stage of independence and exploration.
Reading Log #3 (Part 1)
Creswell, ch. 9
Summary: Creswell begins chapter 9 with references to other researchers’ descriptions of the “architecture” of a qualitative study. This apt analogy conceptualizes a study as a 3-dimensional space in which the researcher interacts with a combination of methodology, data, and insights to provide structure and perspective for the study’s eventual audience. Creswell identifies four rhetorical considerations common to every qualitative study: reflexivity and representation, audience, encoding, and quotes (p. 177).
Reflexivity and representation refer to the position of the researcher/writer in relation to the subject matter and the participants. Creswell is firm in his assertion that writing and interpretation are inseparable from personal perspectives; researchers must carefully identify and reveal their biases. Similarly, any given audience will situate the work in a context of personal or group biases.
Audience, Creswell’s second rhetorical issue, is a shaping force on the writer’s work. Whether the audience is professional, popular, political, or comprised of participants, the writer will emphasize components of the study deemed important to that target audience. The written report may be constructed in ways intended to enrich scholarly understanding, expose the public to an idea, influence political policy, or affirm the study’s participants.
Creswell describes encoding as the writer’s choice of words based on his or her own biases and the perceived biases of the intended audience. Encoding consists primarily of conveying information in ways that resonate with those who will be reading the study. Encoding includes complexity of vocabulary, level of formality, emphasis on particular aspects of the writer’s experience or interests, use of graphics or other imagery, and emphasis or de-emphasis of particular aspects of the study in accordance with the priorities of the audience.
Finally, Creswell discusses the use of quotes in writing, emphasizing quotations of various types and lengths. Short quotes, dialogue, embedded quotes, and long quotations are all described, along with their respective uses.
After discussing each of these four rhetorical issues, Creswell provides examples of the main methodological approaches and how each might look. These examples include overall rhetorical structure (the spatial blueprint of studies written from each approach) and embedded rhetorical structure (the rhetorical tools used by the writer to effectively report the study to a particular audience).
Reflection: I love rhetorical devices! This chapter provides an honest perspective on “selling” the importance of a study to the people who need to know about it. By using language well and crafting the study to meet the interests of the intended audience, the writer/researcher can constructively deal with basic issues of varying priorities and perspectives. I found it refreshing to read a head-on admission that we phrase our work in certain ways to accomplish particular ends. I suspect there’s a general tendency to view such linguistic sculpting as manipulative or dishonest despite the pragmatism of such an approach. The discussion of overall and embedded rhetorical structures in phenomenological research studies was particularly useful to me, but I was mostly just happy that Creswell emphasized the power of language and structure in research report writing. Now I suppose I just have to use that power for good…
Summary: Creswell begins chapter 9 with references to other researchers’ descriptions of the “architecture” of a qualitative study. This apt analogy conceptualizes a study as a 3-dimensional space in which the researcher interacts with a combination of methodology, data, and insights to provide structure and perspective for the study’s eventual audience. Creswell identifies four rhetorical considerations common to every qualitative study: reflexivity and representation, audience, encoding, and quotes (p. 177).
Reflexivity and representation refer to the position of the researcher/writer in relation to the subject matter and the participants. Creswell is firm in his assertion that writing and interpretation are inseparable from personal perspectives; researchers must carefully identify and reveal their biases. Similarly, any given audience will situate the work in a context of personal or group biases.
Audience, Creswell’s second rhetorical issue, is a shaping force on the writer’s work. Whether the audience is professional, popular, political, or comprised of participants, the writer will emphasize components of the study deemed important to that target audience. The written report may be constructed in ways intended to enrich scholarly understanding, expose the public to an idea, influence political policy, or affirm the study’s participants.
Creswell describes encoding as the writer’s choice of words based on his or her own biases and the perceived biases of the intended audience. Encoding consists primarily of conveying information in ways that resonate with those who will be reading the study. Encoding includes complexity of vocabulary, level of formality, emphasis on particular aspects of the writer’s experience or interests, use of graphics or other imagery, and emphasis or de-emphasis of particular aspects of the study in accordance with the priorities of the audience.
Finally, Creswell discusses the use of quotes in writing, emphasizing quotations of various types and lengths. Short quotes, dialogue, embedded quotes, and long quotations are all described, along with their respective uses.
After discussing each of these four rhetorical issues, Creswell provides examples of the main methodological approaches and how each might look. These examples include overall rhetorical structure (the spatial blueprint of studies written from each approach) and embedded rhetorical structure (the rhetorical tools used by the writer to effectively report the study to a particular audience).
Reflection: I love rhetorical devices! This chapter provides an honest perspective on “selling” the importance of a study to the people who need to know about it. By using language well and crafting the study to meet the interests of the intended audience, the writer/researcher can constructively deal with basic issues of varying priorities and perspectives. I found it refreshing to read a head-on admission that we phrase our work in certain ways to accomplish particular ends. I suspect there’s a general tendency to view such linguistic sculpting as manipulative or dishonest despite the pragmatism of such an approach. The discussion of overall and embedded rhetorical structures in phenomenological research studies was particularly useful to me, but I was mostly just happy that Creswell emphasized the power of language and structure in research report writing. Now I suppose I just have to use that power for good…
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Research Journal Entry #4
Analytic Memo:
Over the weekend, I conducted the first observation related to my main project for the class. I attended a panel session on cultural re-entry at the Southern California "Lessons from Abroad" conference. Since I haven't studied abroad, I hadn't given much thought to reverse culture shock and the re-entry process. This session gave me two important topics to keep in mind and work into my individual interviews as I move forward: feelings of isolation and a sense of being overwhelmed when returning home. While I have been thinking mostly about expectations for the study abroad experience--which are fulfilled, which aren't--I had been overlooking the possibility of extending my questions to ask about students' expectations for their return home. The observation session was incredibly useful in that the data it provided will help me more effectively collect data during other parts of the research process.
Over the weekend, I conducted the first observation related to my main project for the class. I attended a panel session on cultural re-entry at the Southern California "Lessons from Abroad" conference. Since I haven't studied abroad, I hadn't given much thought to reverse culture shock and the re-entry process. This session gave me two important topics to keep in mind and work into my individual interviews as I move forward: feelings of isolation and a sense of being overwhelmed when returning home. While I have been thinking mostly about expectations for the study abroad experience--which are fulfilled, which aren't--I had been overlooking the possibility of extending my questions to ask about students' expectations for their return home. The observation session was incredibly useful in that the data it provided will help me more effectively collect data during other parts of the research process.
Research Journal Entry #3
Faith Reflection:
As I met with a young woman for my individual interview assignment, I was reminded of the influence of my faith perspective on the ways I perceive other people. The student I spoke to talked easily about God and his role in her life--past, present, and future. Because I share her faith perspective, I found her comments inspirational. Her trust in God and willingness to follow his direction challenged me to grow in those areas. I think very highly of this student, even more so now that I've seen a glimpse of her Christian commitment.
I wonder, though, whether I would have thought less of a student who expressed such devotion to a faith different from my own. Would I have admired the depth of faith in someone whose religious views dismiss the beliefs I value, or would I have used that point of contention to negatively frame my regard for the person? I think it's natural to connect with those who agree with us and to categorize those who don't. One of the lessons I will need to keep in mind as I conduct future interviews is that I must remain cognizant of the ways my own perspectives, especially those related to faith, could influence my opinion of other people and the ways I represent the data I collect during interviews.
As I met with a young woman for my individual interview assignment, I was reminded of the influence of my faith perspective on the ways I perceive other people. The student I spoke to talked easily about God and his role in her life--past, present, and future. Because I share her faith perspective, I found her comments inspirational. Her trust in God and willingness to follow his direction challenged me to grow in those areas. I think very highly of this student, even more so now that I've seen a glimpse of her Christian commitment.
I wonder, though, whether I would have thought less of a student who expressed such devotion to a faith different from my own. Would I have admired the depth of faith in someone whose religious views dismiss the beliefs I value, or would I have used that point of contention to negatively frame my regard for the person? I think it's natural to connect with those who agree with us and to categorize those who don't. One of the lessons I will need to keep in mind as I conduct future interviews is that I must remain cognizant of the ways my own perspectives, especially those related to faith, could influence my opinion of other people and the ways I represent the data I collect during interviews.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Research Journal--Entry #2
Methodological Memo: After talking to Alex on the phone last week, I've narrowed the focus of my study to include only students who have studied abroad in Costa Rica. I had initially been interested in examining the study abroad phenomenon through the perspectives of students who had voluntarily studied abroad in any one of a number of developing countries. I was a bit fearful that focusing on a single country could blur the lines between a study of the phenomenon of study abroad and a case study on the "Study Abroad: Costa Rica" program. Alex assured me that wasn't the case. I feel better knowing that the goal of phenomenology is to pinpoint as specifically as possible a particular phenomenon--as long as I'm looking at student experiences (and not examining the program), it's still phenomenology.
This is great! I think we have a large enough pool of students who have studied in Costa Rica over the two most recent semesters for me to have a good sample. Once I have clearer demographics on that group from the study abroad office, I intend to start with a general focus group that includes everyone who fits the study requirements and then identify a fairly representative sample to schedule for individual interviews. I need to finish an email to the study abroad program assistant, but that should allow me to start moving forward pretty soon!
This is great! I think we have a large enough pool of students who have studied in Costa Rica over the two most recent semesters for me to have a good sample. Once I have clearer demographics on that group from the study abroad office, I intend to start with a general focus group that includes everyone who fits the study requirements and then identify a fairly representative sample to schedule for individual interviews. I need to finish an email to the study abroad program assistant, but that should allow me to start moving forward pretty soon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)