Wednesday, April 23, 2014
moving toward the collaborative
After our discussion in class yesterday, I've been thinking more about the whole notion of collaborative qualitative research. So very much of the academia is structured to reward individual work, even though many institutions are moving toward a call for and support of interdisciplinary research teams. Nonetheless, historically, there has been a strong tendency to promote the notion of the lone scholar, working away on their *individual* ideas. With the emergence of new technologies, to some extent, there is an opportunity for us to rethink how collaboration can 1) be supported and 2) be promoted. From ATLAS/NVivo/MAXQDA to collaborative video conferencing (Skype/Google Hangout), there are new opportunities to think as a collective and generate something we could not generate alone. The notion of distributed cognition is something that can also pervade how we pursue research.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Transparency is in the details...
I was really struck by one of TP's comments yesterday -- transparency (in the research process) is found in the details...
Yes and yes.
It is easy to forget that it is in the chronicling of the details that we re-create/re-present the research process for outsiders. We create an opportunity for others make sense of our process, making visible our every step.
CAQDAS packages do seem to provide one avenue by which to make the process visible. As we've discussed in class, one of the common (and long-standing) critiques of qualitative research is that the process is 'hidden' from others, requiring us to trust that data analysis occurred and even that data was collected. I've found over the years that moving my entire research process to a space that records my chronicled thoughts/ideas, results in a publication that is far more transparent. The details are there for me to return to, include in my writing, and re-consider.
I think the possibilities for transparency continue to lead me to invest time and energy into using CAQDAS packages.
Yes and yes.
It is easy to forget that it is in the chronicling of the details that we re-create/re-present the research process for outsiders. We create an opportunity for others make sense of our process, making visible our every step.
CAQDAS packages do seem to provide one avenue by which to make the process visible. As we've discussed in class, one of the common (and long-standing) critiques of qualitative research is that the process is 'hidden' from others, requiring us to trust that data analysis occurred and even that data was collected. I've found over the years that moving my entire research process to a space that records my chronicled thoughts/ideas, results in a publication that is far more transparent. The details are there for me to return to, include in my writing, and re-consider.
I think the possibilities for transparency continue to lead me to invest time and energy into using CAQDAS packages.
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Post-class reflection -- moving the representation OFF the page
Many of your questions/reflections yesterday focused on the desire to explore (alternative) representations of findings/research further. I agree! We need to spend more time discussing this aspect of digital tools and qualitative research, as this is perhaps where we can identify some concrete ways to 'change' how we 'do' research.
Vannini's work brings together some really informative and inspiring ideas/practices related to sharing research with the larger populace. From community performances to cafe gatherings, these exemplars push us to expand how we share what we come to know. Check it out:
There are also a growing number of journals that are pushing authors/researchers to move beyond only representing there work with text. These journals are worth exploring.
Vannini's work brings together some really informative and inspiring ideas/practices related to sharing research with the larger populace. From community performances to cafe gatherings, these exemplars push us to expand how we share what we come to know. Check it out:
- http://www.popularizingresearch.net/
There are also a growing number of journals that are pushing authors/researchers to move beyond only representing there work with text. These journals are worth exploring.
- http://www.audiovisualthinking.org/
- http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/imr/
- http://www.jove.com/
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Attending to the assumptions of a CAQDAS package
I really enjoyed learning more about Dedoose this week. For me, the 'ah-ha' came as I have reflected upon the assumptions that drove (continue to drive) the development of Dedoose. Much like our discussion around NVivo, the assumptions underpinning Dedoose do certainly shape how the features are presented, designed, and even described. I think this reinforces the point that as qualitative researchers it is important to spend time exploring the packages to determine whether they:
This all takes time, money, and then a bit more time.
Is it worth the time?
I think so. It can takes years to become 'fully' versed in all that a CAQDAS package allows you to leverage; however, in my experience, it is time well spent. Also, I would argue that a shift away from being bound to paper-pen (which is also a technology) allows not only for a chronicling of your research to be preserved, but also opens up new ways to think about interacting with data. For instance, the potential of directly coding media-based data or incorporating multiple transcripts within your view, pushes us to expand how we come to know. Yet, are their 'dangerous' consequences to this shift in location (e.g., where the 'actual' analysis takes place -- electronically or not)? Whether with a package or not, we remain the interpreters and the consequences (often unintended) of our interpretation is always already present. Consequences are something we must always consider, regardless of whether we use CAQDAS or not. Nonetheless, positioning reflexive practice as a core research practice allows us to make explicit the steps we take in our analysis and representation of findings. By doing so, we start to unpack the (often unintended) consequences of our research endeavor (a reality true of all research).
- Feel intuitive in relation to your approach to research and preferences;
- Seem to be easily aligned/used in relation to your analytical framework and epistemic assumptions; and
- Are accessible (financially and practically - e.g., Dedoose requires the Internet).
This all takes time, money, and then a bit more time.
Is it worth the time?
I think so. It can takes years to become 'fully' versed in all that a CAQDAS package allows you to leverage; however, in my experience, it is time well spent. Also, I would argue that a shift away from being bound to paper-pen (which is also a technology) allows not only for a chronicling of your research to be preserved, but also opens up new ways to think about interacting with data. For instance, the potential of directly coding media-based data or incorporating multiple transcripts within your view, pushes us to expand how we come to know. Yet, are their 'dangerous' consequences to this shift in location (e.g., where the 'actual' analysis takes place -- electronically or not)? Whether with a package or not, we remain the interpreters and the consequences (often unintended) of our interpretation is always already present. Consequences are something we must always consider, regardless of whether we use CAQDAS or not. Nonetheless, positioning reflexive practice as a core research practice allows us to make explicit the steps we take in our analysis and representation of findings. By doing so, we start to unpack the (often unintended) consequences of our research endeavor (a reality true of all research).
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Post-class reflection...the interpretative coding act
I really enjoyed class yesterday, learning about NVivo and thinking through the act of 'coding' qualitative data. Two things have stayed with me from our discussion:
First, I've been reflecting on the ways in which NVivo sets you up to think about coding in a particular way. Obviously, you can 'manipulate' the package to do what you need; however, this is a good reminder about the importance of working toward coherency across your methodology-method-analytical approach-selection of digital tools. Coherence requires that we compare and contrast packages in light of our analytical focus and purpose. This, of course, requires time and even playing with packages across one project to see what feels most intuitive and allows us the MOST flexibility.
Second, I've been really struck with this idea around not having adequate opportunities to explore software packages that support the analysis process, particularly as graduate students. There is a long history of minimal attention being given to the place of CAQDAS packages in qualitative methods training. I would argue that the early experiences with technology and qualitative inquiry training (or the lack thereof) create long lasting patterns in subsequent generations of scholars. Of course, it not simply about 'training' in CAQDAS use; rather, it is the dual task of 'training' and 'practicing reflexivity' around technology choices. Nonetheless, we have a ways to go in this area. I hope this semester is one small step forward in your training process. We'll keep at it...
First, I've been reflecting on the ways in which NVivo sets you up to think about coding in a particular way. Obviously, you can 'manipulate' the package to do what you need; however, this is a good reminder about the importance of working toward coherency across your methodology-method-analytical approach-selection of digital tools. Coherence requires that we compare and contrast packages in light of our analytical focus and purpose. This, of course, requires time and even playing with packages across one project to see what feels most intuitive and allows us the MOST flexibility.
Second, I've been really struck with this idea around not having adequate opportunities to explore software packages that support the analysis process, particularly as graduate students. There is a long history of minimal attention being given to the place of CAQDAS packages in qualitative methods training. I would argue that the early experiences with technology and qualitative inquiry training (or the lack thereof) create long lasting patterns in subsequent generations of scholars. Of course, it not simply about 'training' in CAQDAS use; rather, it is the dual task of 'training' and 'practicing reflexivity' around technology choices. Nonetheless, we have a ways to go in this area. I hope this semester is one small step forward in your training process. We'll keep at it...
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Post-class reflection...Transcription & Digital Tools
Really great questions posed in class yesterday and on the 'tickets'! I'm going to attempt to respond to your questions, while inviting you all to share your insights as well.
**
Why do I prefer Transana over InqScribe?
I use both. Transana is a tool I sometimes prefer when I'm considering engaging in analysis in a more systematic way when I'm transcribing. I work with fairly 'large' interactional data sets and it is often helpful for me to NOT construct a Jeffersonian transcribe for all 300 hours, for instance. Rather, I create 300 hours of verbatim transcripts and then go through and carefully select segments that I will come back to and apply the Jeffersonian process too. This means that I'm making some pretty significant analytical decisions and I want to systematically document these. I've found that Transana allows me to do this in a way that is convenient for me. I view InqScribe as a transcription tool -- not useful for supporting the type of analysis decisions I describe above. However, I have other work where I may be transcribing 15 life narrative interviews, which will later be thematically analyzed. I would use InqScribe. First, I typically (in this case) create a verbatim transcript and then move to work within a package like ATLAS or NVivo. However, more recently, I've started just doing that type of transcription within ATLAS. In this way, the bulk of my research process is occurring within one package. It's a balancing act -- one which requires creativity and flexibility.
**
What about moving across two packages? (e.g., Transana --- ATLAS.ti)
Sometimes it is needed and actually serves to support the research process. There are certain projects that will call for you to move across packages. I'll send you all a chapter in which I describe my own use (and rationale for it) across two packages. Part of this move to work across packages is grounded in the need to 'manipulate' the package to do what I (as the analyst) need it to do.
**
Are there packages that support PDFs for literature reviews?
I would recommend exploring NVivo and/or ATLAS.ti. Both of these packages support PDF files and are quite useful packages for systematic literature reviews.
**
How much space (in a paper) should one give to discussing how digital tools are being used within the research process?
This is a challenging issue. There has been SO little discussion in the qualitative community around what should be shared and why. I would argue that we need to share more than we typically have shared. Why? The process becomes more transparent when we make explicit how we used particular tools. For instance, rather than stating, "I used ATLAS.ti throughout," it would be more helpful to say what features were used. Perhaps there is minimal space or reason for sharing the details of a given feature, but as a reader and evaluator of what I'm reading I want to know what features were used (e.g., coding, memoing, etc.). In general, we've tended to do a decent job talking about the tools that support data collection; however, when discussing reflexivity (did we maintain an audio diary or a blog, for instance) and data analysis, there has been far less explicit discussion. One of the critiques of qualitative research is that the analysis occurs in a 'black box.' This is a fair critique. However, it is up to us as qualitative researchers to make explicit to others what happened in this 'box,' as we maintain a commitment to make the process transparent. Transparency and rigor are very much linked (and I would suggest ethical practice is central to the process, as ethics is made evident through transparent reporting).
**
**
Why do I prefer Transana over InqScribe?
I use both. Transana is a tool I sometimes prefer when I'm considering engaging in analysis in a more systematic way when I'm transcribing. I work with fairly 'large' interactional data sets and it is often helpful for me to NOT construct a Jeffersonian transcribe for all 300 hours, for instance. Rather, I create 300 hours of verbatim transcripts and then go through and carefully select segments that I will come back to and apply the Jeffersonian process too. This means that I'm making some pretty significant analytical decisions and I want to systematically document these. I've found that Transana allows me to do this in a way that is convenient for me. I view InqScribe as a transcription tool -- not useful for supporting the type of analysis decisions I describe above. However, I have other work where I may be transcribing 15 life narrative interviews, which will later be thematically analyzed. I would use InqScribe. First, I typically (in this case) create a verbatim transcript and then move to work within a package like ATLAS or NVivo. However, more recently, I've started just doing that type of transcription within ATLAS. In this way, the bulk of my research process is occurring within one package. It's a balancing act -- one which requires creativity and flexibility.
**
What about moving across two packages? (e.g., Transana --- ATLAS.ti)
Sometimes it is needed and actually serves to support the research process. There are certain projects that will call for you to move across packages. I'll send you all a chapter in which I describe my own use (and rationale for it) across two packages. Part of this move to work across packages is grounded in the need to 'manipulate' the package to do what I (as the analyst) need it to do.
**
Are there packages that support PDFs for literature reviews?
I would recommend exploring NVivo and/or ATLAS.ti. Both of these packages support PDF files and are quite useful packages for systematic literature reviews.
**
How much space (in a paper) should one give to discussing how digital tools are being used within the research process?
This is a challenging issue. There has been SO little discussion in the qualitative community around what should be shared and why. I would argue that we need to share more than we typically have shared. Why? The process becomes more transparent when we make explicit how we used particular tools. For instance, rather than stating, "I used ATLAS.ti throughout," it would be more helpful to say what features were used. Perhaps there is minimal space or reason for sharing the details of a given feature, but as a reader and evaluator of what I'm reading I want to know what features were used (e.g., coding, memoing, etc.). In general, we've tended to do a decent job talking about the tools that support data collection; however, when discussing reflexivity (did we maintain an audio diary or a blog, for instance) and data analysis, there has been far less explicit discussion. One of the critiques of qualitative research is that the analysis occurs in a 'black box.' This is a fair critique. However, it is up to us as qualitative researchers to make explicit to others what happened in this 'box,' as we maintain a commitment to make the process transparent. Transparency and rigor are very much linked (and I would suggest ethical practice is central to the process, as ethics is made evident through transparent reporting).
**
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Post-class reflections: The process of generating data
I really enjoyed class yesterday. There were so many insightful questions posed, highlighting the ways in which qualitative researchers must continually position themselves as 'questioners'/reflexive practitioners.
As I reviewed the "tickets-out-the-door," I noted that one of the overarching 'themes' was around naturally-occurring/researcher-generated data. Questions included...
The question around validity and new data types fascinates me. I would be interested in hearing all of your thoughts around this. Indeed, being able to access varied data types would allow for the pursuit of variability, which is important in relation to validity. Other thoughts?
****
There were a few comments/questions around the differences between online and face to face data collection. I copied a table below that I think is helpful for thinking through the gains/losses. I encourage you to fill it out, particularly if you are considering how you might collect data.
****
There was another question around balancing the ethical concerns of participants' views of themselves and the researcher's interpretation?
"Ethical balancing" around around our interpretative practice is always going to be central to our work as qualitative researchers. In fact, some scholars have highlighted how this very 'balancing act' becomes a validity move within our work. For instance, perhaps it is at this moment in our research process that we return to the participants with our initial interpretations. Yet, what if there is a vast difference between how we see what is happening? These are validity questions. One thing we need to consider is how we will report this difference, as reporting it highlights how we are going about validating our findings. This is also a space for us to lean into the methodological assumptions that drive our work. These relate to researcher power (who has the last word?) and the epistemological and ontological claims we make related to 'truth' and 'meaning.' Are we reporting one truth or one of many possibilities? How do we share this with participants? Should we? I would argue that the methodological positions you take up will also inform how you answer these questions. If you all would like to explore these issues further, let me know! I'd be happy to share some readings around validation strategies and dilemmas in qualitative research.
As I reviewed the "tickets-out-the-door," I noted that one of the overarching 'themes' was around naturally-occurring/researcher-generated data. Questions included...
- Why focus on these data types in a course on digital tools?
- What are the affordances of considering these two types of data?
- Do these types of data (when categorized this way) results in generating/producing validity?
The question around validity and new data types fascinates me. I would be interested in hearing all of your thoughts around this. Indeed, being able to access varied data types would allow for the pursuit of variability, which is important in relation to validity. Other thoughts?
****
There were a few comments/questions around the differences between online and face to face data collection. I copied a table below that I think is helpful for thinking through the gains/losses. I encourage you to fill it out, particularly if you are considering how you might collect data.
|
Observations
|
Gained
|
Lost
|
Interviews/
focus
groups
|
Gained
|
Lost
|
|
Face to face
|
|
|
Face to face
|
|
|
|
Researcher-initiated online discussion (using
blog, social networking site, email discussion list or other tool)
|
|
|
Phone
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email/
asynchronous
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instant messenger/text-based synchronous chat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Video conferencing (2 way audio/video e.g.
Skype)
|
|
|
There was another question around balancing the ethical concerns of participants' views of themselves and the researcher's interpretation?
"Ethical balancing" around around our interpretative practice is always going to be central to our work as qualitative researchers. In fact, some scholars have highlighted how this very 'balancing act' becomes a validity move within our work. For instance, perhaps it is at this moment in our research process that we return to the participants with our initial interpretations. Yet, what if there is a vast difference between how we see what is happening? These are validity questions. One thing we need to consider is how we will report this difference, as reporting it highlights how we are going about validating our findings. This is also a space for us to lean into the methodological assumptions that drive our work. These relate to researcher power (who has the last word?) and the epistemological and ontological claims we make related to 'truth' and 'meaning.' Are we reporting one truth or one of many possibilities? How do we share this with participants? Should we? I would argue that the methodological positions you take up will also inform how you answer these questions. If you all would like to explore these issues further, let me know! I'd be happy to share some readings around validation strategies and dilemmas in qualitative research.
Friday, February 14, 2014
Data Generation and Digital Tools
Over the next few weeks, we will be exploring the data generation process and the place of digital tools within it. This the first of many conversations around data generation and digital tools.
As we think about data sources/types, we must also keep in mind the methodological perspective(s) that we take up and the theoretical orientation(s) that frame our understandings. These considerations are also related to our own perspectives about where we think knowledge lies and who we believe is part of the knowledge construction process. I talk a bit about this in the first video.
Furthermore, when we consider qualitative data sources, it is often helpful to think about 'organizing frameworks' that help us distinguish between data types. Silverman (2001) and many others have made distinctions between researcher-generated data and naturally-occurring data. I consider these distinctions in the video below.
Here are a few examples of naturally-occurring data sets available online:
There are a variety of digital tools that support a qualitative researcher who goes about the challenging work of collecting researcher-generated and/or naturally-occurring data. When we think about interviewing, for example, we must carefully consider how we go about recording the interview data (see http://www.sagepub.com/paulus/study/Chapter%205/top-tips-recorders.pdf). If you use mobile devices to collect data, there are certainly pitfalls to consider and hopefully avoid (see http://www.surrey.ac.uk/sociology/research/researchcentres/caqdas/support/integrating/georeferencing_and_caqdas_mobile_interviewing_experiences_and_pitfalls.htm).
Across data types, qualitative researchers frequently spend time audio or video-recording data. This week we read two articles (Gratton & O'Donnell, 2011 and Matthews & Cramer, 2008) that highlighted how the Internet might serve as a tool for data collection. The authors illustrated how emergent technologies act to expand who participates in the knowledge construction process. Others have highlighted this reality as well (http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-2/downing.pdf). Alongside the excitement around technologies expanding the data collection landscape, there remains a commitment to understanding the methodological impact(s) of new technologies. I talk more about this in the next video.
To further are thinking around this topic, let's engage in some dialogue around the following two questions:
References
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing text, talk and interaction.
London, UK: SAGE.
As we think about data sources/types, we must also keep in mind the methodological perspective(s) that we take up and the theoretical orientation(s) that frame our understandings. These considerations are also related to our own perspectives about where we think knowledge lies and who we believe is part of the knowledge construction process. I talk a bit about this in the first video.
Furthermore, when we consider qualitative data sources, it is often helpful to think about 'organizing frameworks' that help us distinguish between data types. Silverman (2001) and many others have made distinctions between researcher-generated data and naturally-occurring data. I consider these distinctions in the video below.
Here are a few examples of naturally-occurring data sets available online:
- https://archive.org/
- http://cadensa.bl.uk/uhtbin/cgisirsi/x/x/0/49/%20;%20charset=UTF-8
- http://www.paultenhave.nl/Forrester.htm
- http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ls/cava/faq.shtml
There are a variety of digital tools that support a qualitative researcher who goes about the challenging work of collecting researcher-generated and/or naturally-occurring data. When we think about interviewing, for example, we must carefully consider how we go about recording the interview data (see http://www.sagepub.com/paulus/study/Chapter%205/top-tips-recorders.pdf). If you use mobile devices to collect data, there are certainly pitfalls to consider and hopefully avoid (see http://www.surrey.ac.uk/sociology/research/researchcentres/caqdas/support/integrating/georeferencing_and_caqdas_mobile_interviewing_experiences_and_pitfalls.htm).
Across data types, qualitative researchers frequently spend time audio or video-recording data. This week we read two articles (Gratton & O'Donnell, 2011 and Matthews & Cramer, 2008) that highlighted how the Internet might serve as a tool for data collection. The authors illustrated how emergent technologies act to expand who participates in the knowledge construction process. Others have highlighted this reality as well (http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-2/downing.pdf). Alongside the excitement around technologies expanding the data collection landscape, there remains a commitment to understanding the methodological impact(s) of new technologies. I talk more about this in the next video.
To further are thinking around this topic, let's engage in some dialogue around the following two questions:
- How might technology enhance our understanding a given phenomenon?
- What are the ways in which we can ensure ethical practices as we generate data for our research studies?
References
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing text, talk and interaction.
London, UK: SAGE.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
"Staying Up" with the Literature
Long before the term "information explosion" entered the lexicon,
"staying up" with the literature was certainly not easy. In recent
years, this challenge has fairly been described as increasing. Yet, this
remains one of the daily tasks of academics -- being well-versed in the
literature.
After yesterday's class, I was inspired to list out the various tools that I'm using to stay up to date with the literature. Yesterday's speakers primarily focused on organizing and annotating literature, which is central to the literature review process. Yet, what are the ways that we can assure that we are doing our part to stay up-to-date? There are a variety of tools, but I thought I'd share a simple one that I've always found useful.
One very simple tool that has served to support my 'daily' reminder to remain steeped in the literature are my search and journal alerts. If you haven't already, I encourage you to go into EBSCO today and set up search word alerts and journal alerts.
After yesterday's class, I was inspired to list out the various tools that I'm using to stay up to date with the literature. Yesterday's speakers primarily focused on organizing and annotating literature, which is central to the literature review process. Yet, what are the ways that we can assure that we are doing our part to stay up-to-date? There are a variety of tools, but I thought I'd share a simple one that I've always found useful.
One very simple tool that has served to support my 'daily' reminder to remain steeped in the literature are my search and journal alerts. If you haven't already, I encourage you to go into EBSCO today and set up search word alerts and journal alerts.
- The first thing you'll need to do is create an account.
- Make sure you are signed into your account.
- Then, you can use keywords of import to your work and save this search as an alert.
- You can set up the alerts to be daily, weekly, bi-weekly, etc.
- For details of how to do this, check out this link: http://support.ebsco.com/help/index.php?help_id=1164
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Reflexivity and Digital Tools
One of my favorite topics is reflexive practice. I like thinking often about how reflexive practice shapes the research process. More recently, I've been playing with how varied digital tools may or may not underlay this process.
Pinterest is my most recent exploration -- one which, as some of you noted today, is perhaps quite 'public', but also affords news ways to construct the meaning(s) of self in relation to others. I posted here a recent board.
I've been thinking about how collaborative research projects might engage in collaborative reflexivity through the use of visual representations/textual support (as in pinterest). Perhaps this could be done more conveniently and efficiently in a shared blog. Nonetheless, it is always healthy to explore ways to push the bounds of how we represent our assumptions.
Here it goes...any thoughts?
Pinterest is my most recent exploration -- one which, as some of you noted today, is perhaps quite 'public', but also affords news ways to construct the meaning(s) of self in relation to others. I posted here a recent board.
I've been thinking about how collaborative research projects might engage in collaborative reflexivity through the use of visual representations/textual support (as in pinterest). Perhaps this could be done more conveniently and efficiently in a shared blog. Nonetheless, it is always healthy to explore ways to push the bounds of how we represent our assumptions.
Here it goes...any thoughts?
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
post-class reflection
I really enjoyed yesterday's discussions. One thing that stood out for me was our consideration of the notion of affordances and constraints. This morning, I've been re-reading Gibson, Greeno and others who have talked about these constructs. I'm struck how little writing exists around these concepts in relation to technology and the qualitative research process. Perhaps, this speaks to the idea of varied fields/disciplines having conversations, while rarely talking to one another. Nonetheless, as we progress this semester, I hope that we can begin to evaluate digital tools within the framework of "affordances and constraints" -- something that is perhaps more commonly applied other contexts/fields (http://www.newschooltechnology.org/2011/08/tpack-and-systemic-integration-affordances-and-constraints/).
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Laying the foundation...
3 hours post-class...
When thinking and discussing foundational aspects of qual, the image of layers always come to mind.
I tend to think about the qualitative research process as a layered process, one that is always already unfolding. Thinking about qualitative work as layered pushes me to think about the process as not being simply about procedures (aka methods). This is perhaps one of the central concerns about making decisions around the uses of technologies in qualitative research. Does the research process drive the decision making process or the tool itself?
Another thing that is sitting with me is the whole notion of us as researchers being ready to push the technologies to do what you, as the researcher, need. I think this comes back to whether the feature of a tools drive the research or the research drives the decisions around tools.
When thinking and discussing foundational aspects of qual, the image of layers always come to mind.
I tend to think about the qualitative research process as a layered process, one that is always already unfolding. Thinking about qualitative work as layered pushes me to think about the process as not being simply about procedures (aka methods). This is perhaps one of the central concerns about making decisions around the uses of technologies in qualitative research. Does the research process drive the decision making process or the tool itself?
Monday, January 20, 2014
Baron's work
I thought you all might be interested in taking a closer look at Baron's work. She has an ongoing research study focused on comparing reading onscreen to reading on paper. This touches on the whole notion of going paperless, which is something we will all be exploring this semester. Also, Dr. Jennifer Lubke (UT-Chatanooga) will be giving us a talk on the process of going paperless as researchers on February 11th.
http://www.american.edu/cas/faculty/nbaron.cfm
http://www.american.edu/cas/faculty/nbaron.cfm
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Reflections on Our First Class
Introductions
It is always inspiring to meet with a group of scholars who are committed to exploring methodological affordances and limitations in relation to emergent technologies and qualitative research practices. A few things that stood out for me after meeting all you today...The emphasis on "everyday" data sources. Many of you bring with you an orientation to making sense of 'life' (or your area of research, more generally) as it happens in everyday acts. From student interactions to online discussions to teacher knowledge to students comments to museum learning, etc., we can make sense of how life happens. Such data, I hope, will be exciting for you to explore in relation to new technologies.
I am also still thinking about our discussion regarding the sheer amount of reading that academic life brings with it. I recognize this course does not shy away from reading - and reading extensively. One thing I was just reflecting upon is how graduate school can become a place where you begin to develop an 'internal' and 'external' library. This library is one that comes about from conversations with advisers and classmates, as well as the courses you take. The contents within this library, however, require us to develop strategies that support us in moving through masses of readings.
In academic life you often hear the phrase, "staying up with the literature". Where do we find the time to do this? With all of the duties that work, and just life in general, bring us...how can we "stay up"? This is something I think about often, as it certainly is an ongoing challenge. A couple of things to play with are learning to "peruse" the literature and mark items that are central to your work and worth really digging into again and again. Another thing to keep in mind is that these central pieces/publications are often papers that we end up reading again and again and again. Then, we use them to build arguments, and, at times, even build our research around. Perhaps this semester we can begin to share our strategies for "staying up" with the literature, as this is a really important part of carrying out research and (ultimately) speaking to a research community.
Another thing I'm reflecting upon...why blogs? Why might we choose to blog as researchers? There is certainly not one answer to this question. Just a few thoughts. Blogs, perhaps, can be viewed as everyday artifacts of thinking about and doing research and being a researcher. As qualitative researchers, we are always looking for ways to chronicle our thinking, our decision-making process, our musings, our unexpected understandings, etc. We often view writing itself as inquiry -- a central part of the research process. Blogs are one way to go about doing this in a potentially very public way. Of course, you can certainly keep your blog private, which is something I do with all of my research projects. For instance, I'm currently carrying out a study with a colleague around graduate students' experiences of grief. We have a collaborative, password protected reflexivity blog. We share reflexive musings about our data collection and analysis process, and also chronicle our collaborative process. I'm sure we'll learn of many additional examples this semester.
All this to say...I'm looking forward to what the next semester brings. I'm sure I will learn a great deal from each of you and my own research practices will be challenged.
I'm looking forward to a meaningful and productive semester...
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Welcome to Y650!
Hello All ~
I am looking forward to beginning the semester with all of you! This course has come about after a 2+ year book project with my colleagues Trena Paulus (at University of Tennessee) and Paul Dempster (formerly at University of Leeds). Much of what we discuss and practice this semester is based our studies over the last few years, as related to digital tools and qualitative research. Further, I anticipate learning a great deal from all of you. I'm always inspired to learn about emergent technologies that lead us to rethink theoretical and methodological practices and expand what we can know about everyday life.
I'll be using this blog site to chronicle my own journey through the course. You too will set up your blogs, sharing your reading notes and reflexive musings.
I look forward to it!
JNL
I am looking forward to beginning the semester with all of you! This course has come about after a 2+ year book project with my colleagues Trena Paulus (at University of Tennessee) and Paul Dempster (formerly at University of Leeds). Much of what we discuss and practice this semester is based our studies over the last few years, as related to digital tools and qualitative research. Further, I anticipate learning a great deal from all of you. I'm always inspired to learn about emergent technologies that lead us to rethink theoretical and methodological practices and expand what we can know about everyday life.
I'll be using this blog site to chronicle my own journey through the course. You too will set up your blogs, sharing your reading notes and reflexive musings.
I look forward to it!
JNL
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)