Reading Log #5

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!