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.
I love the concept of digital walk alongs, where audio recorders or GPS trackers are used to correlate data, giving meaning to otherwise (non-contextualizable) conversations. This concept of using multiple data collection tools to enhance understanding really drew me in!
ReplyDeleteLast year my family and I decided to drive cross-country (and back) over the winter vacation. Along the way we captured short videos and pictures…everything from funny conversations, cool sceneries, and people falling asleep in the car. What we later discovered was that each visual piece was encoded with a geotag, which we then could use to track our journey across the country. I thought it was the coolest thing ever (and slightly creepy).
But yeah, GPS technologies can certainly enhance our understanding of a particular phenomena. I think that they can be valuable tools to enhance our research questions…I am not sure that I am ready to believe that the digital aspect of the walk along can stand alone. I think there needs to be a strong foundation, first, in place before adding in the digital tools. While new tech tools can certainly enhance our understanding they won’t be of too much help if the basic skills of inquiry and observation are not established.
Ah, yes -- your comment ("slightly creepy") made me smile. This is something to think about, nonetheless. The visibility of one's actions has potential consequence, and is certainly something we should consider.
DeleteIndeed, walk-alongs rarely stand alone. Can you say a bit more about what you mean by "a strong foundation"? I'm interested in learning more around this idea.
Sometimes, I feel like people take the information outputs (from CAQDAS) and don’t attempt to understand the context, and simply plug-and-chug information into larger implications.
DeleteThe use of tools only becomes effective after the researcher have understood the outputting of specific information. I take for example, a student using a simple descriptive statistic tool to structure hours of conversation; let's say they count the number of occurrences where participants discussed a specific concept. In the final result, the only thing represented in the frequency per person...but there is often no discussion on the value of those statements...every now and then there are quotes placed as examples.
Yesterday, I overheard a conversation about digital data collection tools. One student (undergrad) asked another (PhD), “Do you use coding in your research?” The doctoral student responded with “no, we just take our data…I guess the technology is doing its job, since we don’t have to code the information.” As the conversation progressed it became clear that the PhD student wasn’t interpreting the information any more than computer outputs. Sometimes the end result is spit out and that is incorporated into the final writings.
I am always the first to say that researcher should understand the tools they are using, how they work, and what the result (they are served on a silver platter) actually represents. Much the of the readings on digital tools does a great job at structuring them as tools and discussing uses. However the in-field research I've read that discusses how these tools were actually used (in the context of a full research study) seems to replace the methods with the tool.
I suppose that's my issue, at the heart of it all; the lack of understanding in use. Kind of like using a GPS in a foreign country and it tells you to follow a certain path like going the wrong way on a new one-way street. Well it's great that you can follow step-by-step voiced directions...however, if you can't read the one-way sign telling you that you driving the wrong way...well you might be in a spot of trouble. I see digital tools the same way. There seems to be an overwhelming trust (if trust is given, or distrust) when leveraging these tools, without firm understanding. Just thinking about the number of times I have had to (re)correct my CMS makes my head hurt.
Great points, Najia! I really think understanding how the tool work is very important. Although, I wonder how much training students and faculty get? It would be great if somehow trainings were incorporated into coursework too. I've been asked to just learn how to use tools rather than have an understanding of the how the tools function - this led me to try to figure it out on my own. It would be helpful to learn about the tools and their function in context.
DeleteGood Morning! I enjoyed reading Downing’s (2008) article on using video to capture the experiences of individuals living with HIV/AIDS. I believe this work made transparent some of the ethical affordances provided by technology in qualitative research. For example, by generating video-recorded data, Downing was able to understand – “the home serves as a place of security, self-expression, control and restoration” for persons affected by HIV/AIDS. Additionally, Downing’s description of Kaleb as a participant researcher who was ,“in charge of the whole encounter (video-recorded interview)” showed some of the ethical value inherent in using research technologies. Specifically, I believe the video camera provided an ethical affordance in that it provided a pathway in which Kaleb could own and share his experience through participant-research. I believe that this type of research, especially when working with vulnerable populations, is essential, for fully understanding lives and experiences.
ReplyDeleteIn close, I want to share that I have been challenging myself to look for the ethical affordances, rather than just constraints, inherent within qualitative research technology. My goal is to change my “default setting” or “assumptions” associated with their use. For example, instead of only asking myself – “what are the risks, constraints of video-recording or conducting online focus groups” – I am going to start first asking– “what are the ethical affordances associated with these digital tools? Will additional communities be afforded the opportunity to participate? Will these tools afford me the opportunity to understand their lives and experiences better?
Thank you for being open to my thoughts. Dan
I'm really interested in this shift in questioning. This perhaps a useful way to start an analysis of a particular tool. I'm particularly interested in this idea of a tool (like a video camera) empowering a research participant in sharing their life world. So, I'm going to challenge myself to think about how various tools re-shape how, when, and where people can share their lifeworlds. The question you pose, "Will these tools afford me the opportunity to understand their lives and experiences better?", is a question that perhaps could be used as a framework for shaping the decision-making process around using (or not) a particular tool. Thanks for sharing this.
DeleteI agree the idea of digital walk alongs has me thinking about all the possibilities they might provide. This is particularly true since part of my area of study involves how people act in certain areas – and their understanding based on experiences in those areas! The idea of tagging and recording a visit through a museum or historic site is intriguing. Similar things have been done but with less technology. This could include real time synchronization, which is cool – and would take out some of the difficulties in attempting to piece things together. A possibly benefit being data that are more accurate since the researcher isn’t trying to rely on his or her memory or field notes to match up observations and audio recordings.
ReplyDeleteOn a different note: I’m still a bit mixed up inside regarding online ethnographies or netographies and the ethics of conducting research within these communities. I think it comes back to the question of whether and when we treat what is placed online as either data or people (McKee & Porter, 2009 as cited in Paulus, Lester & Dempster, 2013) and how to best make that distinction. I wonder if this differs based on field of study or even the research question that is posed? I’ve spent considerable time discussing with my students their online presence trying to make them understand that what we put out there becomes public. So in a sense online profiles are naturally occurring data that exist without the researchers involvement. Then would anything online (that exists without the researcher) be considered data? I would say not, but the ethics of this are still a bit messes up in my mind.
Finally, I was a little confused about the distinction between researcher generated and naturally occurring online data – and am interested about times where it could be both. The instances I could think of are the life stories recorded by specific historical organizations. Often the intent is to save the memories of major historic events. Like during the Depression when members of the WPA recorded the stories of former slaves. I know similar work has been conducted with recording the memories of Holocaust survivors and there is a current project to capture the stories of veterans from the Global War on Terror. The initial intent of the researchers is simply to record the past. Which is user generated data I get that. But let’s say I was interested in conducting a feminist discourse analysis on the war stories and experiences of this new set of Veterans. (I don't but let's say I did.) So, I access the set of publicly stored archives and begin my work. Is this naturally occurring data? I think it would be in relation to my work. However, would using this data – even if it is in the public domain be ethical since the consent given by the participants was to simply record their stories? This is just a hypothetical, but at the same time, I would feel conflicted because of how I am using the information.
Ah, either data or people...this is something that I continue to think through. I do believe that some fields have more consensus on this; however, in general, this remains an open debate/conversation. I believe, though, that much of one's methodological and theoretical training shapes how they come to make sense of this distinction (data or people). Personally, I tend to orient toward online data as people -- always already. Yet, what are the implications of this orientation? One implication is that ultimately I will have potentially limited access to some data sources, as I may forever feel uncomfortable tapping data that I can't get permission to 'tap.' What are your thoughts on this issue?
DeleteAlso, in relation to researcher-generated vs. naturally occurring data -- yes. These are intersecting categories that speak to the researcher's actions first and foremost. In the example you give of analyzing stories that other researchers generated, I will view that data as existing data (rather than naturally occurring) -- as at one point a researcher made it possible. Does that make sense? Other thoughts on this?
Your answer related to research v naturally occurring data definitely makes sense. I was just stumbling over the original intent of the data being different than the use. Thanks!
DeleteGiven articles introduce multiple digital tools for generating data. Among them, I love Photo-voice. You are all familiar to Chinese proverb that “ A picture is worth ten thousand words”. I believe using images in research makes the research more understandable and more meaningful for readers. As it is mentioned in the chapter by Paulus, Lester& Dempster (2014), images are widely used by researchers. I know various images are utilized in Early Childhood Education research to explore children’ s interpretations in relation to social issues such as poverty, homelessness, racism and so on. Also, images are used by researchers in psychology to have clients spoken about issues and events in their lives. Many researchers in history get benefits from historical images and figures to get elders’ ideas about specific moment in history. Images might serve as stimuli for them to recall important memories.
ReplyDeletePhoto-voice might be an effective strategy in terms of bringing interview and images together. It might provide more in depth data and more rich information that may not emerge during traditional interview. It is a kind of participatory action research and seems suitable to conduct study including children and elders. Also photo-voice might be used if we search about special needs children’s learning in relation to specific concepts. Couple of years ago, I worked with special needs children. Some of them were visual learners who have difficulty in expressing themselves verbally, and understanding verbal expressions. They enjoyed engaging with images. At this point, photo-voice might be a beneficial tool for researchers to grasp the understandings of special need children who are visual learners.
I searched through the Web and I saw that photo-voice is currently used in numerous health research including vulnerable populations. While surfing the web, I came across this website (http://people.umass.edu/afeldman/Photovoice.htm)
that could be useful to learn more about theoretical foundation of Photo-voice.
I share your affinity and interest in photovoice. I too see the potential for this method to expand who participates and how the sharing occurs. Images open up new avenues for sense-making. I'm really interested in how sharing life through images can act to open up new avenues for people to share their lifeworlds. I'm just beginning to explore this as a possibility for my research with adults with disabilities who are nonverbal. Thanks for sharing the link!
DeleteI've not worked with photovoice before, but have enjoyed the conversation related to this methodology. It seems to have a particular social justice aspect that I find interesting. Giving voice to those who have at times been marginalized is a powerful tool. Have you done anything with photo elicitation? I know it's a different methodology, but the two seem related. This conversation has me wondering how to incorporate photovoice into some of my own work or how to digitize some of my photo elicitation devices. Thanks for the link and for stirring up some ideas!
DeleteRhonda, I was very surprised when I learned that many researchers use photo-voice to interview vulnerable populations including women who are raped. Photo-voice might be a new method, however widely used in women health and might be used in historical research too. You are very true it includes some critical and social justice aspects; therefore it might be applied in multicultural education. I have not used photo-voice before, but I am searching its theoretical foundation and considering it for future research. My only hesitation is using photos in research may create new ethical dilemmas. I am concerning about how I might minimize the ethical risks and keep participants’ private lives and well- being including their physical and mental health.
DeleteEveryone has made some great comments so far! A few year ago, I worked with an multi-disciplinary research project on smart environments for individuals with mild cognitive impairment (if you're interested --> http://wsucasas.wordpress.com/smart-homes-2/) . One of the interests was finding out how technologies could support aging populations to live independently longer. In the study, we attached sensors to participants and gave them a list activities to simulate every day tasks. These sensors provided tracking or tagged data for where the participants moved around in the smart home. Engineers used the data to develop algorithms to understand patterns and track common troubles the participants had with completing tasks. We used "live" coding that would signal corrective feedback to the participants from the smart environment (usually a voice talking to the participant). Along with this sensors, we had video, interview, and coding data. In this situation, the technologies were being used to collect and analyze data as well as inform design decisions for the smart environments technologies. The idea of multiple sites of analysis was so cool! We could look at the live codes and compare them to the sensor and video data, providing and enhanced understanding of what the participants were doing when they ran into troubles.
ReplyDeleteSome of the ethical concerns I remember discussing where things that had to do with the potential implications of technology glitches or failures because the participants were not necessarily "independent." In observations, sometimes the live coding did not prompt appropriate feedback response and the participant could potentially get hurt. For example, we asked participants to cook a cup of noodles in the microwave and perhaps the feedback reader says "...put the pot on the stove." Since our participants had mild (and sometimes more severe) cognitive impairments, they may have put the cup of noodles on the stove and potentially get injured. I think that because of the potential for glitches, many of the tasks were low risk while still simulating every day tasks.
Wow - that is fascinating. I just looked up the blog and am still processing all that you explored. It seems that the aim was grounded in a social interest -- one focused on increasing access to independent life/living. So, as I read, I started pondering how this work might interest with Zulfukar's comment below. Any thoughts?
DeleteIn regarding with the first question, I would like to give an example from myself.
ReplyDeleteI am a person who most of the teachers will call as a visual learner. However, I am not a person who learns from visual models or virtual manipulatives. The visual aspect of my learning occurs when I am conceptualizing and internalizing the concepts. If I am able to find a metaphor, or draw a diagram or concept map, this shows me that I understood that particular idea. There are also times which I never figure out certain stuff. In those times, I usually start drawing model and feel much better about the relationship between each component of the model.
Considering my personal way of understanding a concept, I always keep in mind that my participants may have different but unique way of understanding and expressing their ideas. Especially in qualitative studies, the main role of the researcher is to encourage and enhance participants’ expressing themselves. I think using technology in various ways will help qualitative researcher to set up an environment for participants to express themselves better.
I liked the idea of GPS tracker. I do not know whether it records the path that the participant took or the locations, but if it records the path as well as stops of a person who is walking, this might be a good tool to understand the shifting moments of a person who concentrate and think deeply by walking. So, I am imagining a person walking in the room, thinking and responding to the interviewer or telling her/his story. Since our tool (GPS tracker or some sort of motion recorder) will record the moments which this person stops, walks without talking, walks with talking, and so on, we can track his/her ideas and the shifts within and between ideas by using this motion record. We may also synchronize motion record and audio record to understand the “Aha” moments of the interviewee/participant. Moreover, motion record can be used in rhythm analysis which help us to understand the pattern of the flow of the ideas and the moments that pattern switch to the other one. Then we can focus on the reasons of the shifts in the pattern if it aligns with the purpose of our study. This example came to my mind when I read GPS tracker in our readings. I hope it is not confusing.
I think this is a great example for considering how GPS tracking might supplement how we make sense of a particular phenomenon. Your example led me to think about this article: http://mmr.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/04/19/1558689811406121.abstract
DeleteIf you are interested, take a look and see what you think about their approach/process.
I was not sure how I could explain it in a way in which I feel myself as a critical. For our first questions, technology as a mediating tool and institutions that enable us to understand a given phenomenon in many ways. It is really difficult to defend it for the sake of humanity. But, I feel that the last three generations are normally to be suspicious about “technology” and “research” as both developments and changes.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read the novel, 1984, I was doubtful about “Big brother watching us”(Orwell, 1990). I believed that the power/force would come from the one who had a power and apparatus. Later, I found my evil which was Television. I kept my distance from TV for all my youth. Even though I tried to follow some news and programs on them, I did not believe its positive functions and developments in society. As my evil, TV speaks on behalf of governments, dominant class etc. In 2001, I read Brave New World, written by Aldous Huxley. He claims that we obey the power since we are able to ignore and disregard the exploitive realtions in the system (Huxley, 1998). And then, I started to think about how people could give up learning and how they would pursue their own slavery. I shared this two books which influence me a lot. For me, all mediating and ruling apparatuses are developed and improved because the capitalism and its idea of govermentality finds its ideological discourses in what we are doing and what we are going to do. In this sense, our utopian dreams for living liberal, democratic, equal, unite and free have been becoming the part of the political and economic system.
For me, technology is the oldest dream for human being to change her destiny and fortune I the world. Wheel was found to make everything mobile for us, electricity was the dream of one men, but now it is a reality for us to change our fortune. For our discussion, I can say that I changed my attitudes and feelings against the technology. I believe that technology can enable us to understand a given phenomenon in both particular and general sense. Some natural occurring data can be relatively observed, comprehended and explained in a better way with the help of and usage of technology. For example, one of the recent research was conducted by using GPS technology. It aims to show and present the phenomena ‘where people run’ in the big cities (http://flowingdata.com/2014/02/05/where-people-run/). It is really innovative and creative way of naturally-occurring data. We can find many example for this. At this point, I am a bit critical about this phenomenon. When these kinds of research are very open to create and be used for the sake of economic system.
Let’s think about my example, the recent research about ‘where people run’. The given phenomenon has been revealed itself with the advent of technology. My question is about what the next step is and where this research would be used. It is ideally for me to be used in order to criticize and understand urban ethnography. Both of these are going to be dependent on academia, or/and policy making process. On the other hand, I can claim that ‘where people run’ would become a place for selling sport-related goods and broadcasting sport-related advertisements on those routes. Thus, I think that the active and passive empiricism is very important to understand the sides of researchers and data collection process (Bissell, 2010). On the other hand, we need to think about the effects of data which may lead the negative effects and usage on society and can be exploited by the economic actors and companies. We know that knowledge is the intelligence, or the way to reach the govermentality for the power. Technology can enable us to understand many given phenomena in both senses, researcher-generated data and naturally-occurring data.
Bissell, D. (2010). Narrating mobile methodologies: active and passive empiricisms. Mobile Methodologies, 53-68.
Huxley, A. (1998). Brave New World. London: Vintage.
Orwell, G. (1990). Nineteen Eighty-Four. The Complete Novels, 743-925.
Zulfukar, this is a really interesting comment and I am interested in hearing what others have to say about your thoughts here. One thing that came to mind as I read was the place of ethnography and marketing. This is a "booming" "field", actually. There is a new book out named "Practical Ethnography" that speaks directly to the place of one's work as an ethnographer and making sense of everyday uses of technology for the purposes of business development. For instance, Microsoft has a very large team of ethnographers who engage in such studies. I would be really interested in hearing your thoughts on this burgeoning area of work/study.
DeleteYour post really resonated with me, Zülfükar! The idea that technologies are developed in relation to capitalism really makes me consider why certain technologies were created in the first place. I think about healthcare applications with, for example, robotics for surgery. I wonder if this is to improve practice and/or decrease mistakes or if ultimately it is another way to make a profit. Also, how do these technologies impact the cost of medical care? It would be interesting to find out what sort of connections go back to costs for consumers.
DeleteZulfikar and Francesca, I very enjoyed reading your posts. As a student in Curriculum Studies your arguments remind me the hidden curriculum in education. Hidden curriculum is one aspect of educational reforms and includes social, political and economical goals in education. Hidden curriculum is not acknowledged by policy makers or school officials, but has more impacts on students than official curriculum (enacted curriculum). In similar way, technological tools and improvements are not neutral; they have strong ties to economical and political structures. Sociopolitical systems, power relationship and language are intertwined with technological tools and they are inseparable. Technology is like an iceberg. We, as publics, are only able to see the visible part of the iceberg, however we do not know very well the big part of iceberg below the surface of water that is mostly controlled by political, economical and social structures. I think we should be more critical thinkers!
DeleteFrancesca and Naime, thanks for your great and thoughtful comments. I will try to response question, 'how do these technologies impact the cost of medical care?' At the beginning, I would like to define myself as a scholar. I have some scholar values like 'representations' in critical theories, "prenotions" in Durkheim, 'idealogies' in Marx, 'habitus' in Bourdieu. These mean that I always want to declare my theoretical and methodological orientation at the beginning. In this sense, I can say that when we look at the cost of medical care, we can understand the causal relations between the advance and market. Let us think about counter questions, how the advance of medical technologies and medicine marketing develop. We know that clinical experiments were made in WWII (World War II). What made them possible?. We know that totalitarianism in the world made many technological developments. Let us think about after the WW II. During the cold war time, the world run other side, many military technological devices brought about the new ways for developing the medical technologies. It is visible that there are always two sides for them. So far, I could not explain myself, why the important medical technologies and medicine need to be protected because of their 'property rights'. If we support them for the sake of human being, why we integrate them into marketing rules?. I have many questions about the cost of medical care. I am certainly thankful to these developments, but I am doubtful about how they are sold and used in the economic strata.
DeleteNaime, Serife and I are from Turkey which is relatively defined as well-fare state. They might correct me if I make misinterpretations about Turkey. If you have a social security in Turkey, you do not need to be worry about the cost of the medical care. The fact is certainly different since the highest rate of tax are collected in Turkey to invest medical technologies which are imported from the developed countries.
I agreed with Naime's comment for hidden curriculum. Technology and capitalist economy sometimes have same rhetoric which is actually mystical, distorted, ideological for the sake of system.
I like the points that Jessica made in the first video. I did a video analysis case study. Our goal was to examine students’ conceptual knowledge growth in multimedia learning environment. We want to have a coordinated account of learning. Therefore, students’ small group discussion, group artifacts, and individuals’ artifacts are all of data source. Imagine if our goals were to do a video analysis only, then we would not need to have students’ artifacts as part of the data source.
ReplyDeleteI am a bit confused about naturally occurring data. I am intrigued by the really natural or “organic” features/ However, I am a bit unsure about the flow of the data without intervention of researcher. Like classroom, without teachers’ facilitation and organization, students would go wild when they engaged with discovery learning. Same situation here, without researchers’ intervention, I am a bit suspicious about the free-floating of the data.
Yawen, you first point sticks with me and I think speaks to the need for thick descriptive data especially in qualitative research. I would consider any study that only looked at one form of information suspect. In one of our readings (maybe two weeks ago) the author referred to this as a crystallization of the data instead of the more common triangulation. (I apologize I can't remember the author and I'm out of town without the article - so this might be a good example of how going paperless is an affordance!) So I digress...but something about the term crystallization spoke to me as it seems more inclusive. But also am particularly drawn to your phrase "creating a coordinated account of learning." I think digital tools my really aid in doing this especially across a group of researchers. I'd be interested in hearing more about your experiences with this project!
DeleteYawen, there is certainly something inherently arbitrary about the terms naturally-occuring and researcher generated. I would suggest, though, that if you are recording classroom interactions between teachers and students -- this is naturally occurring data. It is the study of the everyday life of a classroom. What are your thoughts on this? Other perspectives?
DeleteHi Jessica, yes. I agree with you in terms of video-recording the classroom experiences. However, if we video-recorded classroom activities with our curriculum intervention, I don't think this would be naturally-occurring data. What do you think?
Delete**Sorry this got so long. I situate the questions Jessica poses in my research, and that took up a lot of space. Also, apologies that this is late. I actually wrote all of this once already, but the page refreshed and I lost it.
ReplyDeleteAs Jessica framed this conversation, I agree that it is vitally important that we reveal both the theoretical grounding of the tools we use, as well as how our theoretical approach shapes our tool choice, use, and research process. I've mentioned in class and in my blog my situative perspective, but I’ll explain it here because this fundamentally shapes the way I chose digital tools, how I used them, and how I interpret them as impacting the participants’ experiences.
Context:
Situativity defines knowledge as the ability to participate in a community’s practices. It is inseparable from the context in which it is used, and is distributed across the people and tools in the community. Learning, then, is the strengthening of that ability and participatory practices (Greeno, Collins, and Resnick, 1996; Greeno, 1998; Brown, Collins, and Dugid, 1989). The way in which knowledge is distributed in online networks makes situativity a good fit for observing and interpreting interaction. Many of these online networked spaces feature discussion forums, commenting features, and some oven have video conferencing. This means that members of the community can leverage each other’s (and the tools’) expertise, insights, and opinions to collaboratively solve problems that may not otherwise have been able to solve individually. In doing so, they enrich the community’s knowledge and understanding of complex problems and concepts.
For the past three years, I have worked with teachers in hybrid and fully online spaces to help them integrate situative practices into their curricular designs and classroom practice. Very quickly I realized that online spaces provided busy teachers with the flexibility they need to work through these complex concepts while still attending to their other responsibilities. This summer I had the opportunity to redesign IUHS’s English department. This is an online high school; assignments are posted, completed, graded online. Students come to this school for many different reasons from all over the country.
I designed and implemented a professional development workshop that took place within the learning management system the teachers would eventually teach. We also used video conferencing to have community discussions. In addition to providing a flexible space for these teachers – who were spread across the state of Indiana - the online space both highlighted the teachers’ varying expertise and allowed them to participate peripherally until they felt ready to contribute and that what they contribute will be valued (Jenkins, 2009).
(continued in the next post)
(Continued)
DeleteMy observations:
In my experience as a teacher and now in my experience as a researcher, I have learned that situative definitions of knowing and learning – and their consequent implications for practice – are difficult for teachers to graps, and even more difficult for teachers to implement. In discussions and interviews, teachers have attributed this difficulty to situative practices being so different, and sometimes antithetical, to what they have been taught and have been practicing for years. The broad goal of this research is to help teachers integrate these practices while still feeling a sense of control and agency, and impacting achievement on the assessments on which they will be evaluated.
In the beginning of the workshop, I made myself a somewhat heavy presence in the discussions in the forums and in the video conferences. I guided discussions and provided feedback as the teachers began working together. Quickly, however, I backed off and allowed the community to form around their shared practice and problem solving. Some emerged as leaders while others stayed more on the periphery, but all of them shared their opinions and pushed one another to redesign and think about the kinds of learning their designs would elicit. They all expressed in their exit interviews that they valued the support of the community and hoped to continue to work with each other as they implemented their designs.
Even in the video conferences, I served mostly as a facilitator, setting up the Google Hangout and answering questions when I was needed, which was quite seldomly. By the end, I was not commenting at all unless I was explicitly asked to, and the teachers were turning to each other as experts. Because of this, I am unsure if I should call this data naturally occurring or not. Certainly in the beginning I was guiding conversation, but by the second week I had stepped back, and by week three, the teachers directed everything. I was able to observe a community of practice, collectively solving problems and growing in their shared understanding of situative design. I saw how they used each other for support, and used their collective expertise to make sense of this complex concept in ways they may not have been able to do individually.
Technically, and according to the IRB, this is not an at-risk population, and all that was required was a study sheet explaining the goals and intentions of the research. However, an ethical issue has emerged that I am not sure how to handle. One teacher, who was particularly resistant throughout the design process has “inappropriately assimilated” (Borko, et al., 1997) situative practices into his own practice, and it has resulted in a kind of lethal mutation. His first set of designs were completely redesigned with his permission by another member of the community, but his subsequent designs and revisions have rendered the lessons incoherent and confusing. His experience provides a good example of what can happen when a teacher who is not ready to design with situative practices does so anyway. This experience contrasts nicely with another teacher’s experience. She was also resistant, but more readily worked with the situative practices in the community forums to make sense of them, and her designs and classes have been wildly successful.
(last bit, I promise)
DeleteThe semi-public nature of the discussion forums and video conferences provided a low-stakes networked environment for teachers to explore these complex concepts. But it also openly revealed their struggles and vulnerabilities. And as a leader emerged and the practices were taken up, one teacher in particular stayed on the periphery, deciding not to become a more “central” member of the community (Lave & Wenger, 1991). This observation and the subsequent interpretation and analysis will be shared publicly in a peer reviewed journal and in blog posts. I can change names and genders, but the stories are going to be recognizable at the very least to the participants, and they may feel vulnerable. Additionally, I wonder if these observations could put the teachers at risk. The IRB says this is all ok, but I’m having reservations as the narrative is emerging.
Borko, H., Mayfield, V., Marion, S., Flexer, R., & Cumbo, K. (1997). Teachers’ developing ideas and practices about mathematics performance assessment: Successes, stumbling blocks, and implications for professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(3), 259–278. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(96)00024-8
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In Berliner, D. C. & Calfee, R. C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA, Prentice Hall International.
Greeno, J. G., & Middle School Mathematics through Applications Project Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5–26.
Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
There were two (primary) points that stood out for me as I read. First, I think your research is a really good example of the blurring across the (arbitrary) data type categories (naturally-occurring/researcher-generated). In many ways, your work is set up to ultimately be naturally-occurring. Second, your discussion of your ethical concerns really resonates with me. There are minimal guidelines for this type of work, particularly at the institutional level. What types of conversations did you have with the participants prior to and during the process about the purposes of the research (and publication routes, etc.)?
DeleteThis week as I began exploring recording applications for smartphones and really delved into the tech aspect of digital tools, I discovered a new concept of privileged. Many of the tools/applications discussed in the readings so far aren't free (well there are trial versions, but I don't count those). In fact, I went so far as to having a conversation with the university technology department about what available CAQDAS IU student had available to them. Sort answer: none. So these amazing tools we are hearing/reading about are not readily available to use.
ReplyDeleteIt got me thinking about some of the students in the School who are putting themselves through graduate school and cannot afford to pay for applications. I think about the number of (free) alarm clock applications I tried before I settled on one...if I had to try out several recording applications to see what best captured my interviews, I think it would cost me a pretty penny. So when purchasing smartphone applications can be a problem think about entire software packages that cost monthly or annual subscription fees. And by design as we incorporate snazzy tech tools to help us understand information better or easier we are privileging information. I know plenty of Education departments that don't have a video camera on hand and researchers purchase their own. But what if they can't? What does that mean for the quality of their research? How has the shift in pushing for the incorporation of digital tools hurt those budding researcher that don't have access?
This is a great point and something I've been concerned with as well. I find it interesting that we have access to quantitative tools such as SAS and SPSS, but not a single CAQDAS tool via IUanyware. I wonder if it speaks to the value Research I institutions place on the different types of research. The big money comes in from the large sexy quantitative research grants, but not so much from the often longer and less glamorous qualitative studies. What message is the University sending graduate students and faculty regarding the value of their interests and work?
DeleteI've become familiar with NVivo because that is what my adviser uses and the center I work for has a subscription - but I wonder if it is the best for my particular research interests?
Sorry this was a little conspiracy theory(ish). Thanks for bringing up this point!
Yes and yes. This is an issue and one that perhaps is linked to the history of social science and all that has come to be counted as "good" research. It is my hope that this can change VERY SOON. Perhaps we can think about a joint effort to illustrate the need for more access to qualitative tools. Tools support our research process and are certainly something that we should all have access to as we engage in the qualitative research process (and are trained to do so).
DeleteIt is a common problem in many countries. In similar way, universities in Turkey provide SPSS and some other quantitative data analysis tools and they are accessible to students, but there is no CAQDAS tool. As I Rhonda pointed out, there could be some economical powers, and giant moneys behind quantitative tools.
DeleteOne point that Jessica made in the third video resonates very much. Internet expands the scope of population. It made research more accessible to much broader populations. Moreover, Jessica pointed out that internet is also a context that shaped participants' identities as they participate in research activities. Their identities shaping processes are ongoing as research activities unfold. This connects to Rebecca's points of situative learning theory. Participants' identities buildings were situated in research activities. However, I am wondering if participants' identities were being shaped as they participated activities, we could not say it was a naturally research environment although researchers intervened less.
ReplyDelete