Gary+Schneider

__11/29:__

Updated abstract from Gary (11/29):
Paper Title: "Raising our Voices" Qualitative research is touted for providing a voice for those who often go unheard. In lifting up these voices, QI has both broadened and deepened the human conversation. My paper will examine a classroom experience intended to help students find their voice within that conversation. I will discuss how an open source system of communication (commonly referred to as wiki) can be used within a qualitative methods class to democratize the processes of knowledge construction. Using the framework of my experience as a student in such a class, I will answer such questions as: How does knowledge get constructed through a democratic process of collaboration in wikispaces? Where in the current spectrum of politics are these discussions situated? What role does collaboration play in hearing voices and using shared voices to construct knowledge? What is considered evidence for the knowledge that is constructed?

Abstract ideas for Gary Schneider
How does knowledge get constructed in a qual methods class through a democratic process of collaboration in wikispaces? Where is the current spectrum of politics are these discussions situated? What role does collaboration play in hearing voices and using shared voices to construct knowledge. What is then considered evidence for the knowledge constructed?

__11/19:__

Chaudry:
I found the three vignettes effective ways to tell the stories she told -- certainly more engaging than the arcane droning that so often is used to "discuss" issues in the academic world. I was most taken with the first of the three stories.

In the first vignette: The last line of her introductory poem (about first- vs. third-world blood), I think, is true on many levels and defines so well what underlies so much of world politics. It was interesting to sit with the writer in the tension of the meeting she describes and to feel the presence of the different groups that were part of the meeting (as opposed to the clustered identity that is so easy to adopt in considering an experience that seems outside of our own). Within that meeting, there was a common experience that brought the group together, and yet so many sub-groups and so many individual experiences that both added to, and detracted from, that commonality. My awareness of that differentiation, however, caused me to wonder whether the "dominant modes of thought" to which she refers are as one-dimensional as that expression suggests -- or are there the same multitudinous variations among "dominance" as she portrayed in this assembly? But that kind of reasoning, so often, is used to dismiss the experience of those who are "minority" (the word itself is offensive) -- we get so busy defending our own turf/position/etc., that we can't hear what other people are saying. These issues are hard to talk about because they're hard to pin down (it seems for every assertion, there are hundreds of exceptions); perhaps that is one reason we shy away from these conversations and remain so divided. I was impressed with the writer's ability to stay close to her own experience in the way she related the overall narrative.

I didn't like the second vignette as well. I thought the writer did an effective job of communicating her conflict, but the story didn't grab my interest as much as the first vignette. I was struck by how this monumental situation came out of nowhere from the perspective of the writer -- just a phone call from a research participant that precipitated the cascade of personal dynamics that affected the lives of so many people. I liked the contradistinction posed toward the end of the article regarding, "issues of confidentiality, choice, and agency" vs. the sister's question, "What if this had happened to your own sister?" Both personal and professional boundaries can be difficult to maintain in the midst of what life brings us, and I thought the writer effectively communicated this conundrum.

In the third vignette, I felt a little embarrassed about being given this level of exposure to the writer's family. Shouldn't family members be accorded the same protections we are so careful to provide for our research participants? Obviously, such protections for family members would impinge on our abilites to write autoethnographic pieces, but it seems there should be some kinds of protection from this "exposure by association". I did like the writer's statement that, "There is no one right path to empowerment" (p. 449). It seems that truth has been played out repeatedly in world history. The follow-up remark, "What matters is the challenging of power relations" equally is true in my opinion. What is important about this remark, I think, is the increased prevalence of awareness regarding these power relations in today's world -- at least, partially, because of feminism.

Toward the end of the third vignette, the writer states, "I have been conscious of my marginality for a long time now" (p. 449). That word, "marginality", seems to capture so much of what runs throughout this article -- a sense of being different -- even marginal -- that becomes a way of relating to the world at large. There is tremendous pain in that word -- pain that feminism has helped to bring to light in the way it has given a voice to those who so often have gone unheard.

Visweswaran:
I found this reading less easy to get into -- probably because there was less narrative and more overt analysis. Nonetheless, I thought it was an interesting piece of work. What was most striking to me was the broken-ness that seemed to underlie the subject -- ""forced to reflect the world in fragments of broken mirrors ... I must reconcile myself to the inevitability of the missing bits" (p. 304). The thing I liked most was the section heading, "Hyphe-Nation" (p. 302). The writer tells her story in terms of finding an identity as an Indian-American or an American-Indian, but is there anyone in this nation who shouldn't be hyphenated in some way? Several of us probably would need several hyphens if the whole story were told. But we seem to reserve those hyphens for those whose skin tones have higher levels of melanin -- something by which we can differentiate between who are "we" and who are "they". Perhaps we would do better to approach the hyphen more as KB talked about the colon in 8561 -- a mark that tells us there is more to the story.

I thought the writer was effective in portraying the struggle of those who are labeled with the hyphen. It truly does, "take a long time to figure out where you belong" (p. 308). I think that is true for any of us, but perhaps moreso for those described in this article due to all the baggage that little hyphen carries.

Both the Choudry and the Vidweswaran article are good examples of feminist work as I understand it -- studies rooted in the experiences of women. I thought both of these authors were effective in using the experiences of women (including themselves) to speak to dynamics that were important to shaping the realities of these women. Some of these realities reflected the importance of gender roles and power dynamics, but neither writer restricted these women's identities to whom they are in relationship to men. The writers effectively told their stories in such a manner as to let each woman's experience speak for itself.

__11/18:__

Wiki dialogue:
I was just looking over KB's recap for this week where she outlines a bit more what she wants in our final Wiki -- a "narrow focus", but "multiple perspectives" with "scholarly citations".

It seems eons ago since we did some of the preliminary exploration of sources, but I guess we need to try to collect some of those around a narrow focus and then figure out if and how they tie in with the more recent work we've put together.

Karen, you've said you are more interested in the evidence side of this question; David, you seem more intrigued with the politics side of this question. Or am I being too dualistic? Is there a way for these two sides to dance ... harmonize ... dialogue? Jennifer, you seemed interested in the language we use to talk about all of this. Is that the piece to pull this together?

(If you respond, please use the Discussion page on the POEs site)

__11/14:__

Ponderings
I've been feeling a bit adrift with respect to the various assignments / tasks related to the course. I enjoyed the trying the narrative analysis, but now I'm concerned about what other ways I can sort through this data. I'd like to try the poetic analysis, but I didn't feel too successful the night we did that in class. A couple of the ideas I had last night might develop into something, but I'll have to see how "poetic" they become. I've enjoyed working on the vignette and the dialogue for the Wiki project but am concerned about what we need to add to that in order to tie it together and speak to the POE issue. Early in the semester, a lot of my focus was on developing my research question. Now, that's kind of become lost in the shuffle as my attentions have shifted to the various assignments that are due. I feel like these assignments will be helpful to the dissertation process, but specifics about the research question, etc., are on the back burner for now. Also I still have to do the exemption form for IRB and make a decision about the spring conference (and do that write-up if I'm going). Oy ves!

__11/11:__

Wiki dialogue
I don't know if the scenario below helps to capture the discussion we had Wednesday night or not. Perhaps it, at least, can be a place to begin the discussion of our product. Please feel free to comment, modify as necessary:

Ladies and gentleman, we welcome you to tonight’s discussion. The rules for this dialogue are quite simple: Each side will be given ten seconds to state its position as clearly and succinctly as possible, followed immediately by the other side’s rejoinder. No time will be given to debate of these points of view. Rather we will trust that elucidation of these respective positions will help to frame our broader discussion regarding the Politics of Evidence. Side one, if you would please begin…


 * Side 1: || Side 2: ||
 * This researcher believes that research is a valuable academic tool that can be used to study and present truth. ||  ||
 * || I believe that research can help display the broad array of truths that shape our lives. ||
 * This researcher loves the precision that research applies to the study of complex issues. ||  ||
 * || I love the window that research allows me to have in exploring the messiness of life. ||
 * This researcher uses statistical significance as a benchmark for determining which variables and relationships are important to the outcome of the study. ||  ||
 * || I hope to tell a compelling story. ||
 * This researcher is careful to follow sound research principles that protect the subjects who are being studied. ||  ||
 * || I follow principles that promote ethical practice and help me to engage with the participants in my study. ||
 * This researcher is careful to maintain objectivity throughout the course of the study. ||  ||
 * || I believe that I am always in the midst of that which I am studying. ||
 * This researcher strives to eliminate bias in studies that are undertaken. ||  ||
 * || I strive to be aware of the multiple subjectivities that affect my ability, both to hear and to tell a story honestly. ||
 * This researcher engages in sound practices that assure validity in studies that are conducted. ||  ||
 * || I am careful to engage in scholarly practices that increase the rigor of my work. ||
 * This researcher is careful to measure results that are accurate. ||  ||
 * || I gather information via many sources in order to enhance my interpretation of that data. ||
 * This researcher conducts studies in a manner that will make them generalizable to the larger public. ||  ||
 * || I strive to capture stories that might translate into other peoples’ experience. ||
 * This researcher is careful to design studies that will minimize the effects of confounding variables. ||  ||
 * || I try to find the narrative turn that introduces texture and complexity to the story I am trying to tell. ||
 * This researcher develops evidence that helps to prove and disprove theories. ||  ||
 * || I try to tell stories that give a voice to those who often are unheard. ||
 * || I try to tell stories that give a voice to those who often are unheard. ||

__10/29__

Project goal for Wiki Project:
I've been thinking about how we should identify our final goal for this project. It seems that we have spent a fair amount of time commenting on how so much of what we have learned in that "other world" is different than what we are learning in the "Qualitative world". I think KB also has talked about using this project to help newcomers to Qualitative Research better understand some of these differences. Maybe we should try to explicate some of those differences as a way of providing a context for our discussion of the Politics of Evidence and why this topic is so important. Some of the differences that come to my mind are listed below with this qualifier: by "vs.", I do not mean to pit any of these concepts against another, but simply to use shorthand to indicate the concepts provide different approaches for understanding a topic: > Qualitative vs. Quantitative -- in the sense of measuring different characteristics or processes; > First person vs. third person involvement or participation; > Subjective vs. objective frameworks; > Subjectivity vs. bias; > Rigor vs. validitiy; > Translatibility vs. generalizibility; > Understanding vs. proof; > Story vs. statistic

I'm sure there are others we could include, but it seems that explicating those would provide a context to talk about the importance of POE. In this context, I think it would be good to emphasize that evidence is used in the sense of attesting to something, not proving or disproving anything. In this sense, the academic rigor is tied to telling the story as fully and honestly as possible, and techniques like bracketing interviews, peer reviews, and member checks are used to enhance that fullness and honesty.

The politics side of the issue, at this point, seems to relate, not so much to how evidence is used, but rather to what constitutes evidence. I think we have some good material from the lit we've already discussed. It seems from KB's remarks the other night, that the primary political question is, "Who gets to be in the room?" to make that determination. Posted 1 minute ago

__10/28__

Vignette for Wiki posting
__Music: Medicine for the Soul__

Jana sat back, rested her eyes, and thought, “In this mess of a world, it’s nice to know some things don’t change.” She reached over and turned up the volume of the radio, letting the strains of Brahms wash over her. There was something so clean and ordered about the music. She was glad she had contributed so generously this year to keep such programming available on the local public radio station. She rested and let the music carry away the tensions of another long day.

The sonata ended just as the clock began to chime. The announcer thanked those who were listening and began to tell of changes that would be occurring in WGTB’s programming. Jana, only half-awake, paid no attention until the harsh dissonance of the next piece shattered her tranquility. Harsh, discordant, atonal – the “music” (she hated to even use the word in reference to this din) ripped at her soul. Why would they do this; why would they give airtime to such apostasy? She rushed to the phone to register her complaint.

Two doors down, Simone also had turned on her radio. For Simone, it was more a habit than anything; she usually didn’t even pay attention. The radio was just background noise that kept her from feeling so alone in that big house. But today the program was different – not the staid, predictable pabulum that WGTB seemed to play day after day. No today, there was a fresh new sound – one filled with excitement and passion. Simone stopped what she was doing and listened. Suddenly she realized she was weeping, and though a little embarrassed to be feeling so exposed, she was grateful. She hadn’t felt moved like this in such a long time.

Weeks later, there they sat – Jana and Simone – neighbors, but now rivals, as they waited to express their opinions before the WGTB Program Board. This would be the critical day for deciding what kind of music the station would make available to the community. Common sense seemed to say that surely there is adequate airtime to play numerous types of music that would appeal to a variety of interests, but the board had made it clear that the station would play only that which was judged to be true music. The recent programming changes had created enough of a stir among the station’s benefactors to bring about this meeting, but the question remained both for Jana and Simone: In deciding what is truly music, who gets to be in the room?

__10/22__

Source Material for Politics of Evidence
In looking for material about narrative analysis, I found some stuff that might be useful to our discussion. In the Chapter 3's that KB has provided, there is one by Parker on narrative analysis in which she spends several pages (147-156) discussing rigor in qualitative study. What's more, she provides references to several writers that have information that would be helpful to our discussion.

__10/17__

More Wiki stuff on Politics of Evidence
My friend, Yvonna, and I have been spending some time together this afternoon. Here are some more of the things we think:

"The question is always one of 'fit'; does the model of research 'fit' the research questions of interest?" (p. 14), and all scientists are both literary and symbolic reasoners (p. 15).

Carlson (1994) states that the three criteria for determining what constitutes evidence are: (1) whether the data are pertinent to one's "critical perspective"; (2) whether the evidence selected is relevant to the claim; and (3) has the critic done a credible job of persuading us that the best available data has been utilized (p. 15). Those seem like pretty reasonable questions -- in line with what I think we've been saying about evidence.

In the final section, Lincoln identifies three questions she sees as pertinent to the "politics" issue: (1) does science have a moral aspect; (2) who determines what counts as evidence and who is persuaded by it; and (3) what is the nature of the 'language game' which is being played out? (p. 16). Her answers to those questions resonate with what we have been saying: (1) each set of decisions about a research project involve choices about values and, thus, have a moral component. What's more this transparency is a signal contribution of qualitative work to the sciences; (2) a second signal contribution of qualitative research is attention to the voices of those who generally have not been allowed to be part of the conversation. These voices should be heard, so finding ways to evoke them is an important contribution; and (3)Restricting the language that will be considered acceptable in the scientific dialogue limits the scope of that dialogue and, when used in its worst fashion, dictates the limits of inquiry. (pp. 16-17)

After reading all of this, it seems to me that it is vitally important that qualitative research keep open the doors to ways of knowing beyond the narrow limits of statistical "proof". Its success in doing so, however, I suspect will lay more in its loyalty to the stories it tells than to the methods it prescribes for that telling.

__10/17__

Wiki posting re: Politics of Evidence
I was just re-reading some of this evidence material and I was reminded of the info we covered in College Teaching this past weekend -- William Perry's stages of learning. Our teacher presented the summary of his schema in four stages: dualism, multiplicity, contextual relativism, and commitment.

It struck me that much of the discussion around rigor and evidence seems to occur on the dualistic level(i.e. whether something is valid or is not valid), which is kind of frightening when one observes that this is the least complex form of knowledge. The more complex forms of knowledge involve multiple truths and relative aspects of truth that relate to the context of that which is being studied.

It seems that qualititative research has an excellent opportunity to give voice to these multiple and relative aspects of truth (and more complex ways of knowing) if it doesn't give in to the temptation to prove itself in the world of dualism.

__10/17__

Wiki posting re: Politics of Evidence
So, Jennifer, it sounds like you are saying that evidence should be accessible. Instead of using a "foreign language" that reserves evidence to the privileged few who know statistical language, evidence, if it is to be useful, should be readable and understandable.

That makes sense to me, but I think we need to be careful that we don't ride this evidence horse right back into "Which is better?" gulch. There's been too much time spent waging those useless gunfights -- battles that have settled nothing, but have kept the the territory too dangerous for a meaningful discipline to establish itself on its own merits.

Truthfully, I'm a bit turned off by the argument about rigor. I acknowledge that it's important to have standards beyond "anything goes", but it seems terribly easy to slip back into artificial ways of "measuring up". For example, procedures like reporting the number of hours put in on a project (as one measure of rigor) diminishes that effort in my opinion because somewhere in that accounting is an implication that the more time I spent doing this task increases its truth or its validity. That may, or may not, be true -- just as it may, or may not, be true for one of my students to say that s/he knows more because s/he spent 10 hours -- as opposed to another student spending five hours -- studying the material. Probably the greater amount of time will translate into more knowledge, but that would depend on the student and the quality of the studying.

That's a rather long way of saying that the quality of research needs to stand on its own. "Anything goes" is one extreme, but at the other end of that continuum, is another extreme -- which to me would be over-accountability in the interest of "establishing legitimacy". Life's too short; let's get on with learning what needs to be learned instead of shoring up the walls of the "discipline".

__10/14__

Wiki posting re: Politics of Evidence
I like what you have said, David, and it's nice to hear that kind of position coming from someone who works in the "hard" sciences. The examples you offer are three pretty significant phenomena to have as a backdrop for our "politicking".

I still don't have anything else of a substantive nature to add, but just wanted to say I agree with where it sounds like we are going.

__10/10__

Taxonomy
The best I've been able to come up with on this is the following:

I. Becoming a writer > A. Stages in becoming a writer > B. Getting published

II. Persona of a writer > A. Attributes of a writer > B. His room > C. Drugs

III. Feelings expressed in writing > A. Feeling safe > B. Feeling close

This still doesn't feel like I did much different than I did in the domain exercise. I was able to use Alex' words to organize some of the material, but used my own words (e.g. persona) in other places.

__10/1__ =Research Project (cont.)=

Purpose of Research:
The purpose of this research is to understand the meanings that five instructors in higher education attach to their role as teacher, particularly as these meanings inform their sense of identity and sense of integrity in living in concert with those meanings. These issues of identity and integrity will be addressed by exploring the experiences that have informed the instructor’s teaching philosophies and, in turn, how these philosophies have fostered personal growth and transformative learning. Consistent with the precepts of the methodology to be applied (symbolic interactionism), the goal of the study will be to “understand the meaning that individual participants place on the objects that facilitate their interpretations and choice(s) of action” (Darby, n.d., p. 70).

Rationale:
By engaging in conversation with instructors in higher education, I hope to better understand the ways in which their professional experiences have informed their teaching philosophies and the ways in which these philosophies have affected the teachers’ interpretations of the environment and their choices of action with respect to those interpretations. Much has been written about the power of transformative learning from the perspective of the “learner”. I hope to better understand the ways in which the act of teaching is transformative for the “teacher”. By conducting this study, I hope that I will become more informed about educational pedagogy in such as way as to better inform my own interpretations and choices with respect to being a teacher.

In addition to my own personal gain, I think such a study could be of use to the broader higher education community by fostering constructive discussion about the roles and purposes of higher education, as well as the ways in which these are manifested in today’s higher education environment. As information technology increasingly moves higher education toward a learner-centered model of pedagogy, it is important that those who are charged with constructing and maintaining the learning environment (teachers) be self-aware and informed in making the choices necessary to do those tasks well.

Research Questions:
In what ways do teachers in higher education inform their sense of identity through their professional experiences and their teaching philosophies? In what ways do teachers in higher education inform their sense of integrity through their professional experiences and their teaching philosophies? In what ways do teachers in higher education engage in transformative learning through their professional experiences and their teaching philosophies?

Interview Questions:
Using the framework provided by Darby, (n.d., p. 76) and the questions we discussed earlier this week, the type of interview questions to be used in this study are provided below: 1. Could you tell me about an experience as an educator that informed who you wanted to be as a teacher? In as much detail as possible, describe the context of the situation and what happened. 2. Could you tell me about a time in your experience as an educator that really changed how you viewed yourself as a teacher? 3. Could you tell me about a time in your experience as an educator that reinforced how you viewed yourself as a teacher? > Areas to probe for the above questions: > What led up to the situation? > How did you handle the situation? > What was the outcome? > What facilitated or prevented you from handling the situation the way you would have liked to? > When you reflect back on the incident, what would you have done differently? > How would you describe the changes that came about within you at that time? > What did you learn about yourself from this experience? > What made this experience memorable for you?

Methodology:
The methodological framework that will be used for this study will be symbolic interactionism. Taylor and Bogdan (1984) state that, “Symbolic interaction emphasizes the meaning people attach to their social interactions and the world around them” (as cited in Darby, n.d., p. 68). This framework seems ideally suited to the types of questions this study hopes to address. “In interactions, participants use symbols such as language to understand their environment. Blumer’s (1998) theory of symbolic interaction rests on three guiding principles: 1) Human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that the things have for them; 2) The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interactions that one has with one’s fellows; and 3) These meanings are handled in and modified through an interpretive process used by the person in dealing with the things he or she encounters” (as cited in Darby, n.d., p. 69).

Terminology:
I stated earlier that I hope to better understand how these instructors in higher education construct meanings that inform their sense of identity and sense of integrity in living in concert with those meanings. By identity, I follow the definition provided by Palmer (1998): “an evolving nexus where all the forces that constitute my life converge in the mystery of self … a moving intersection of the forces that make me who I am, converging in the irreducible mystery of being human” (p. 13). Similarly, I apply Palmer’s definition of integrity: “whatever wholeness I am able to find within that nexus as its vectors form and re-form the pattern of my life. Integrity requires that I discern what is integral to my selfhood, what fits and what does not – and that I choose life-giving ways of relating to the forces that converge within me. (p. 13). My goal is to better understand these issues of identity and integrity by exploring the ways in which teachers’ professional experiences inform their teaching philosophies. By professional experiences, I mean the actions and relationships in which they engage on a day-to-day basis in the course of fulfilling their role as teacher as they understand and shape that role. By teaching philosophies, I mean the ways of thought and understanding that underlie and support the choices that shape those experiences. These philosophies embrace the spectrum of how the teachers understand the respective roles of teacher, learner, and their chosen subject area and give voice to the broader context of their understandings about life and the world in which we live. One of the most significant concepts that has intrigued me since beginning the degree program in which I’m enrolled is the need for education to be transformative. That term encapsulates a call for education to be about helping people change at foundational levels – in Kegan’s (1994) words, “not only to increase our fund of knowledge (a change in //what// we know), but to transform qualitatively the very //way// we know” (p. 133). It seems to me that this type of learning – and the foundational changes it fosters -- must be true for teachers as they engage in learning via the act of teaching. It is my hope that this research will help me to understand these transformational processes.

Sources of Data:
The primary sources of data for this study will be critical incident interviews, participant observation, and archival data. Each of these sources within itself will be a distinct means for increasing my understanding of the issues to be addressed, but it will be the confluence of these distinct sources that will best portray the comprehensive aspects of learning in which these teachers are engaged. By critical incident interviews, I am using the concept as described by Kain (2004): “seeking the unique experiences of meanings of individuals (such that) we can illuminate patterns that may apply to other persons and contexts … invit(ing) the respondents to tell a story and explain why it is significant for a given context” (as cited in Darby, n.d., pp. 74-75). By participant observation, I mean to observe these teachers in various settings that provide an environment for their professional experiences. This, most certainly, would include their classrooms, but also, perhaps, faculty meetings, professional conferences, student conferences, and student advising. By archival data, I mean documents and records that have been used to communicate information related to the teaching process. These would include class syllabi, personal and course websites, records of meetings, and correspondence (mail or e-mail) with students, peers, and the professional community.

References:
Darby, A.N. (n.d.). //Living in a fishbowl: Teachers’s emotions during a comprehensive school reform initiative//. Retrieved on September 28, 2006 from http://kakali.org/8562/dissertation%20chapter%203's/darby_alexandra.pdf Kegan, R. (1994). //In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life//. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Palmer, P. (1998). //The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life//. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

__10/1__ =Analysis of Domains=


 * __Included terms:__ || __Semantic relationship:__ || __Cover term:__ ||
 * not the drugs I was into || is a kind of || drugs ||
 * nothing hard ||  ||   ||
 * the sort of thing that kids get curious about ||  ||   ||
 * this place of dirty clothes || is a part of || his room ||
 * beer bottles growing here and there ||  ||   ||
 * walls stained yellow with the smoke ||  ||   ||
 * knowledge there is no world beyond ... || is a cause of || feeling safe ||
 * we lay embraced ||  ||   ||
 * fall back into each other's dreams ||  ||   ||
 * because I am a writer || is a reason for || writing ||
 * writing is what I do for fun ||  ||   ||
 * in this place we can be models ... || is a place for || feeling safe ||
 * in this place we recreate each other ||  ||   ||
 * good morning kisses || is used for || feeling close ||
 * half-lucid caresses ||  ||   ||
 * our skins mingle ||  ||   ||
 * novel still needs a lot of work || is a way to || get published ||
 * been re-writing it ||  ||   ||
 * I'm going to keep re-writing it ||  ||   ||
 * in grade 4, we had a creative writing unit || is a stage in || becoming a writer ||
 * I continued to develop my writing ||  ||   ||
 * I've written plays and stories and poetry ||  ||   ||
 * bunch of drunks and drug addicts || is an attribute of || writers ||
 * lazy slobs with a variety of mental illnesses ||  ||   ||
 * novel still needs a lot of work || is a way to || get published ||
 * been re-writing it ||  ||   ||
 * I'm going to keep re-writing it ||  ||   ||
 * in grade 4, we had a creative writing unit || is a stage in || becoming a writer ||
 * I continued to develop my writing ||  ||   ||
 * I've written plays and stories and poetry ||  ||   ||
 * bunch of drunks and drug addicts || is an attribute of || writers ||
 * lazy slobs with a variety of mental illnesses ||  ||   ||
 * bunch of drunks and drug addicts || is an attribute of || writers ||
 * lazy slobs with a variety of mental illnesses ||  ||   ||

10/4: Whoops, I neglected to do the paragraph that was requested. Initially I found it more difficult to extract the domains from Alex' poetry, but in the end, I think I got at least as much from the poetry as from the prose. Since the poetry is so image-filled, it provided a ready means for separation into domains that were intended to communicate very definite forms of information. The prose tended more to be Alex rambling on about various topics -- not as focused as the poetry. In the prose, I found his use of humor to be a recurring part of his presentation. At times, this made the process of cataloguing trickier, at times the humor jumped off the page with two or three phrases that readily fit into a domain. The exercise was interesting for me in terms of how we put together patterns of thought in the process of communicating and use all these domains to construct images that express what we sant to say. Alex is a good study for this since he uses a lot of imagery in his speech.

__10/1__ =Politics of Evidence (cont.)=

I just finished reading the Lincoln article and am more impressed than when I first scanned it. There is a lot in the article, especially if we can follow up on some of the references she provides at the end of the article. Since she provides four questions, we could split up the references for the various sections (if anyone thinks it is worth doing) and see what we find with respect to the four questions that provide the framework for this article.

Her last question re: "The "politics" of evidence seems to me more to be the "politicization" of evidence. On the one hand, this seems almost extraneous to the issue that I think we are trying to address; on the other hand, it is like a worst-case scenario of the application of the "politics" question. Besides the ramifications it has with respect to funding concerns, it's an example of the diversionary tactics that keep us from looking at other issues that probably are of more substance (Yes, I realize that is a value judgment on my part). We seem to do this regularly in the political arena, and, apparently, it spills over into other arenas that are impacted by those political processes -- e.g. considerations of what constitutes evidence in the ways we study the world in which we live; and ways in which knowledge is constructed (or interpreted).

The Collins' quotation that leads into the Lincoln article discusses the paradigms we use to interpret and measure "reality". It seems to me that is the crux of our conversation -- shaping the paradigms by which we understand and speak about our "reality". What evidence is there for holding on to, or surrendering, the paradigms that help us to make sense of the world? I'm intrigued with this question from a couple of vantage points: I work in the behavioral sciences, which often are referred to as "soft" sciences. That old dualism of "hard" and "soft", however, is the same false dichotomy that feeds the polarization of quantitative as distinct from qualitative research, "measurable" data as distinct from "interpretive" data, and facts as distinct from stories. New paradigms will be necessary that can help bring these various "ways of knowing" together instead of pushing them apart.

In addition to some of the quotes Karen provided earlier from the Lincoln article, I also liked these: > Much of what we call "data" is itself phenomenological -- that is, socially constructed and "there" only becasue we are attuned to looking for it. (p. 3) > No "evidence" is evidence until we see it from some theoretical, paradigmatic, or metaphysical framework ... Thus what constitutes evidence, and therefore, what justifies it, is the result not only o fwhat questions are posed, but of the framework within which they are posed. (p. 4) > One of the sharpest and most cruel realizations of the postmodern critique has been that all knowledge is partial, incomplete, standpoint-determined,and, therefore, suspect in its claims to universality ... A second painful realization from the postmedern critique has been the growing understanding that some knowledges ... are more equal than others. (p. 8) > The issue of validity in qualitative evidence has taken on the qulaity of heavy freight ... (some) have called for an end to the cult of "criteriology" all together ... The entire question of validity, however, is far more complex than merely assigning new criteria to new methods ... different criteria of rigor and relevance apply when judging the nature of evidence ... Valid knowledges, it seems to me, have less to do with exclusivist, technical admissiblity criteria than it does with inclusionist, accessible knowledges and experiences. (p. 9-10) > Two characteristics of qualitative work mark it also as evidence, in and of itself: findings must be grounded in the situation examined, and if possible, comparisons will be created, and findings from one study should be 'translatable to other studies, theories or problems ... she does not call for "generalizability" but rather for "translatability" ...I would argue that it is possible to have both rigor and vigor in our qualitatve studies, but that frequently, trade-offs will have to be made." (p. 12) > The more dialogical the evidence, the likelier it is that multiple social constructions have been systematically collected, analyzed, and included in any research report. (p. 13)

__9/28__

=__Politics of Evidence:__=

Gary: Hi folks, I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but this article, entitled "On the Nature of Qualitative evidence", looks like it might be helpful -- http://www.usc.edu/dept/chepa/pdf/ASHE_lincoln.pdf. It looks packed with the kind of info I think we're seeking.

I also found the introduction of our CIQM book to have some good stuff, talking about the differences between qualitative and quantitative research and how the nature of "evidence" differs as a result of those respective frameworks. "Qualitative research is many things to many people. Its essence is twofold: a commitment to some version of the naturalistic, interpretive approach to its subject matter and an ongoing critique of the politics and methods of postpostivism" (p. 13). They go on, "...qualitative implies an emphasis on the qualities of entities and on processes and meanings that are not experimentally examined or measured (if measured at all) in terms of quantity, amount, intensity, or frequesncy. Qualitiatve researchers stress the socially constructed nature of reality, the intimate relationship betwwen the researcher and what is studied, and the situational constraints that shape inquiry ... quantitative studies emphasize the measurement and analysis of causal relationship between variables, not processes" (p. 13) They continue by differentiating the two types of research on the bases of five comparisons: uses of postivism and postposititvism, acceptance of postmaodern sensiblities, capturing the individual's point of view, examining the constraints of everyday life, and securing rich descriptions. these five comparisons, "reflect commitments to different styles of research, different epistemologies, and different forms of representation" (p. 16).

In reading that section of the CIQM book, it struck me that comparisons between these ways of doing research, on one level, make no sense at all because they are "measuring" (or "attesting to") completely different phenomena. Quality and quantity are not just alternative ways of viewing the same thing; they are different properties. At least on that level, it seems to me that the discussion of "the politics of evidence" belies this fundamental difference and conflates two properties that are foundationally different into comparable characteristics of the same phenomena. I suspect some of the urge to hold these two together is related to the history of qualitative research "having to prove itself" -- achieving its scientific stripes, as it were. The very act of engaging in that battle, however, violates the distinctiveness and valididty of each of the approaches as it stands on its own. One semantic consideration that helps me in looking at this issue, as it relates to qualitative research, is to think about the use of the term "evidence" not as a noun, but rather in its verb form -- "Evidence: 1. To indicate clearly: EXEMPLIFY; 2. To support by testimony: ATTEST" (Webster's Dictionary).

Some thoughts taken from Darby's Chapter 3 (using symbolic interactionism): > "Symbolic interaction emphasizes the meaning people attach to their social interactions and the world around them" (p. 68). > The Chicago School of thought (Blumer) believes, "the meaning people ascribe to the world cannot be standardized and that the self is continually evolving as it interacts with the world" (p. 69). "Participants use symbols such as language to understand their environment ... threee guiding principles (to this theory): 1) Human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that the things have for them; 2) The meanings of such things is derived from, or arises out of, tha social interactions that one has with one's fellows; and 3) these meanings are handled in and modified through an interpretive process used by the person in dealing with the things he or she encounters" (p. 69).

More from that piece tomorrow. Enough for today.

__9/28__

Gary: Hi group, I had a productive meeting with KB today. I'm going to be doing some reading about symbolic interactionism so I'll try to produce some info about evidence as it relates to that area. I think if we come up with evidence regarding the various methods we're planning to consider for our projects, we should be able to put together some useful info for this assignment as well. The Chapter 3's KB provided on the website can be helpful tools for looking at how these methodologies approach the issue of evidence. Any takers?

__9/28__

=__Research Question Brainstorm:__= the purpose of this research is to explore the role of professional experiences of instructors in higher education in manifesting their identity we teach who we are how they perceive themselves as a human being what they understand about themselves what motivates them spirituality - being - living in the most full way that they can in terms of the values they developed in terms of how they decided what is important in terms of being part of the human community how i can best love and be loved

what makes these experiences meaningful

why do you want to know this? we teach who we are there are a lot of barriers - we get into systems that don't necessarily support or feed people being able to express who they really are as a teacher, people being able to make connections so that they can learn in a transformative way

transformative way learning that helps people change learning that helps people let go of some of what they brought to that moment and proceed in a different way with a different sense of themselves and that their actions down the road are probably changed as well

what sorts of professional experiences inform instructors in higher education about their teaching philosophies where does that teaching philosophy come from? what particular aspects of that philosophy is important to them?

the purpose of this research is to explore how instructors in higher education inform their teaching philosophies through their professional experiences. furthermore, this study will also explore aspects of professional experiences that can be perceived as potentially transformative for instructors in higher education
 * Research purpose**

operationalize: professional experiences teaching philosophies transformative

1. In what ways do higher education instructors inform themselves about their teaching philosophies from their professional experiences? 2. What aspects of the professional experiences of higher education instructors create transformative learning experiences in terms of their own teaching?
 * Research Questions**

1. could u tell me about an experience as an educator that informed who you wanted to be as a teacher 2. can you think of a time in your experience as an educator that really changed how you viewed yourself as a teacher 3. can you think of a time in your experience as an educator that really reinforced how you viewed yourself as a teacher
 * Interview questions**

__9/26__

=__Comments on Others' Field Notes:__=

The first thing that jumps out at me is how different people's styles of note-taking and commentary are. That may be a study in itself. Observing the different styles encouraged me to let myself be more spontaneous and creative in taking on these kinds of tasks.

I thought Jennifer did a good job of staying close to the question she was studying. Since we kind of had the same question, I was struck by how well she stayed on task, capturing the interaction between the parents and children that had a direct impact on how they selected the items they chose to buy. She also got close enough to capture some of the verbal exchanges that fed into the decision process. I'll have to check how she got so close without raising peoples' suspicions.

I thought David was very thorough in capturing a lot of information. The span of situations he covered (not to mention the span of the mall itself) was amazing. He captured a lot of dynamics in a very short timeframe. I haven't seen his narrative yet, but think it will be interesting based on the span of his observations.

I liked the way Sandy used columns for notes, impressions, and themes to lay out his work. This made for easy reading and ease in connecting impressions and themes to the observations more readily. He didn't have to keep backtracking and having to re-describe who it was he was talking about since it was all laid out so nicely. It appeared that he was quite observant, capturing much of the environment that provided the context for his observations of the people themselves. Reading his impressions gave me the sense of a running dialogue that supplemented the observational work.

I also liked Karen's portrayal of the experience. Her willingness to provide information in various formats, I think, gave the reader different ways of thinking about what is being described. I also liked her willingness to discuss her personal reactions to what she observed. For me, this helped make the material more interesting and meaningful. Finally, I think she did a good job of thinking through how she would proceed beyond the short experience we undertook. This, again, helped broaden the experience beyond the narrow confines of a random assignment and helped me see how this fits into the broader framework of qualitative research.

I was amazed at the detail that Anita was able to capture in such a short period of time and how well she was able to expand on those details. I don't think I could have written fast enough to get all that she did in her report. I liked some of the questions she developed as a result of the experience -- e.g. how to decide on the field of study - attempting to capture everything or focusing on a couple of situations. Her questions about how to label people was a good reminder to think through some of these situations before doing the observation. I suspect one's way of handling these questions would improve as one became more experienced.

As for my own narrative -- reading it now after seeing what some of my classmates were able to do -- it feels too rote. Yes, I was able to observe several situations that gave some contrast about how people shop, but it feels stiff. Like the man I observed who I said was "on a mission" to buy a card, my report feels like I was "on a mission" to write a narrative. There's not much personality in the document. I also need to come up with a better way of "naming" people in the script so I don't have to keep re-describing who it is I am talking about. The main thing that I liked about what I did was that I think I was able to capture some of the contrast of four very dissimilar styles of shopping.

__9/25:__ =Class Project / Questions=

I’ve been struggling with the issue of how to move forward on the class project and potential dissertation topic. When we wrote some of our questions in class a few weeks ago, you spent some time helping me to formulate questions around the broad issue of spirituality in teaching. The questions didn’t feel comfortable to me, however, and I think I’ve figured out why. We ended up focusing on what teachers do in order to be good teachers. Although that is important, the piece I’d like to look at is how what they do speaks to them about who they are (as a teacher, but also as a human being) – how teaching gives expression to the ways in which they understand themselves as persons – how teaching has become an avenue for them to express their identity (as they perceive themselves to be).

The situation that got me going in this direction was reading one of Parker Palmer’s books (//The Courage to Teach//) for another course. He says things like, “We teach who we are” and, “We did not merely find a subject to teach—the subject also found us,” and, “Knowing of any sort is relational, animated by a desire to come into deeper community with what we know.” I’d like to know what people who are educators think about those kinds of statements. How do these concepts make sense in the experiences of people who are educators? We talk a lot about the importance of learning being transformative; has teaching been transformative for these teachers? I think those would be important stories to tell.

Given the above, I’m thinking I’d like to provide some of these kinds of comments to a participant prior to the interview to give them time to reflect on pieces that they may consider worth reflection. Then, in the interview, in addition to getting feedback about their reactions to some of these remarks, I would have questions like the following:

· Could you describe what experiences in teaching (if any) have most enabled you to express what you understand about who you are as a person? · Could you describe what experiences in teaching (if any) have most enabled you to feel connected to life in any larger sense? · Could you describe what kinds of language (if any) you have used to communicate these experiences to yourself and to others? · Could you describe what experiences in the field of education (if any) have hindered these experiences from occurring more readily or more intensely? · Could you describe ways (if any) in which you have been able to build on these experiences in your personal and professional growth? · Could you describe ways (if any) in which these experiences have changed for you over time? · Could you describe ways (if any) in which teaching has been transformative for you? · Could you describe ways (if any) in which your identity or integrity has been compromised or violated in being an educator?

These types of questions feel closer to where I think I’d like to go in studying this issue. Do they make sense in the context of good qualitative research?

__9/24__ =__Narrative for Field Notes:__= Question: How do people select an item to purchase at a store in the mall?

Originally, I planned to observe people making purchases in a store that specialized in athletic footwear, but there were no customers there. I quickly shifted my attentions next door to the card shop.

I don’t know that I had the above question specifically in mind as I did my observation. I wasn’t so much interested in how customers selected one item over another, but rather what different shopping patterns customers would exhibit in selecting items in a card shop.

When I first walked into the store, I was glad to see a couple of customers there. I quickly moved past the sales staff who were near the entrance of the store and focused my attention on the two customers. Initially, I had no idea that the two customers were together since they were in different sections of the store. It was only as they came together in the Christmas ornament section and began to converse that I realized they were shopping together. It appeared that they probably were a mother and daughter spending some time together. Although they both had some cards in their hands, it did not appear that buying something was their main goal in being there that night. Rather, the way in which they wandered from section to section – at times together, at times individually – made it appear that they were just spending some time together around the context of a shopping trip.

Other customers who came into the store seemed to have very different agendas for being in the store – and, consequently, very different patterns of behavior. The second pair of women (¶ 3) (who also appeared to be a mother and daughter) moved decisively among three sections. They appeared to be seeking a specific type of gift, and they left fairly quickly when, apparently, they did not find what they were looking for. The third pair (¶ 5) (who appeared to be a mother and child) came and left so quickly I almost missed them. They looked like they had been shopping elsewhere in the mall (e.g. the mother had a large Macy’s bag with her) and were just stopping in to make a quick purchase of a card probably before rushing home. It was, after all, a weeknight and it was getting late for the young child. The man (¶ 5) who came into the store also didn’t stay long. He appeared to be on a mission. He went directly to one section of the store, found one item in that section to buy, paid for his purchase and left the store – all within about 3-4 minutes.

The behavioral patterns of the original mother-and-daughter (¶’s 2, 4, 6) stood in stark contrast to the backdrop of those more focused shopping patterns. These two women would pick an item up then put it down; pick another item up and put it down – over and over repeatedly in the sections for cards, for ornaments, and for various types of giftware. They seemed to be in no hurry and appeared to be enjoying just looking at the merchandise. Some items they picked up more than once, especially those items in the ornaments section about which conversed. The fact that they asked the clerk about something made me think that they had an interest in finding a specific item, but even when she returned and didn’t appear to have what they were asking about, they remained in the store and continued to view other items that were in the various displays.

My perspective in making my observations was as another customer in the store. I acted like I was on my cell phone and was making notes related to my phone conversation. I moved around pretty freely, occasionally stopping and using the top of a display to write a quick note. A couple of times I walked by the main participants and let them hear me talking on the phone, hoping that would lessen the suspiciousness of my behaviors. I may not have been as good an actor as I had hoped however. At one point, one of the clerks approached me and asked if I was all right. (What’s more, after class was over I went back into the store to make an actual purchase and a couple of the clerks asked similar questions. I think they may have thought I was casing the joint).

One thing that might have helped the process of my observation would have been if I could have moved close enough to have heard some of the conversation between the participants. I didn’t do this for fear that it would be obvious that I wasn’t actually on the phone, but even if I could have overheard a few snippets of conversation it might have helped to flesh out what I thought I was observing visually. Another factor that probably impinged on the observation is that I don’t like to shop. This distaste very possibly contributed to a lack of ease that made my observation more awkward and kept me further from those who I was observing. If I had felt more relaxed, I might have felt more comfortable “shopping” near the participants in such a way as to have a clearer idea of what they were doing in the store.

__9/20__ =__Field Notes from Observation Exercise__=

My site was a greeting card shop, where I hoped to observe differences in buying patterns of the various customers who came into the store during the course of the observation. The store was well lit, with a pleasant aroma, and with light contemporary music playing in background.

Initially, there were only two customers in the store – one a 60-ish Caucasian woman, comfortably dressed, with a purse over her arm and a few cards in her hand; the other a 30-ish Caucasian woman dressed more casually, also with a purse over her arm and a few cards in her hand. The older woman was looking at some stuffed dolls and the younger woman was looking at greeting cards. After about five minutes the older woman moved over to a different section to look at Christmas ornaments. A couple of minutes after that, the younger woman also moved to that section and they began to converse about various ornaments that were displayed.

About the same time two other women (one 50-ish, one about 25; both Caucasian) entered the store. They both were dressed casually. They moved relatively quickly, viewing gift items in three different sections of the store -- stationery, photo albums, and religious gifts. They both had packages under their arms. They stayed 7-8 minutes and left without buying anything.

The original two women continued to look at various items, moving to other sections of the store, but then returning to the Christmas ornaments. At times they were together and engaged in conversation; at other times, they moved apart and shopped in silence. About 10 minutes into the interview, the older woman went to a clerk and asked something about the Christmas ornaments. The clerk responded and then began to examine stock below the ornament display. Eventually she went to the back of the store and then came back and spoke to the women once more. The women didn’t show much expression in response to the clerk’s comments.

A couple of minutes later a Caucasian woman (30-ish) and a Caucasian child (about 8) entered the store. The mother was carrying a number of packages. They quickly selected a card, paid, and left the store – all within about 5 minutes. As they were about to leave, a Caucasian man (50-ish) entered. He went to the sympathy card section and made a selection within just a couple minutes. His total time in the store probably was no more than 3-4 minutes.

The original two women continued to view various ornaments. Some of these were traditional types of ornaments; some more contemporary. A couple of times they picked up small boxes but then returned them to the shelves. A couple of times they moved toward the front of the store as though they were about to pay, but then re-engaged in looking at ornaments, other gift items, and cards. Finally, just before the end of the observation period, each of them selected a box from below the ornaments. They moved to the cash register to pay. Each of them put her box and a number of cards on the counter. The older woman pulled out a coupon of some type and proceeded to pay while the younger woman moved away from the counter and went to look at Halloween items in the front of the store.

9/20

=Response to Feminist Interview__:__=

This interview certainly was different than the one I viewed last week (even though, like others in the class, I viewed the introductory clip for that assignment rather than the in-depth interview). For this interview, KB was more overtly in the middle of the process – talking a lot more; sharing much more of her own experience; going on for extended periods of time with her story; at times even contrasting his experience with hers. It was interesting to hear from Alex, at the end of the interview, that he felt more relaxed during this exchange. I wondered whether that ease was due to the format of the interview or the amount of time he and KB had been involved in addressing these concerns. I noted that he asked her some questions in the process, as well, which probably helped equalize some of the power differential of the interview process.

This interview had more of a feel of being a co-constructed dialogue. Alex’ experiences were the subject of the conversation, but there was more permission for KB’s experiences also to be part of the conversation. Nonetheless, in spite of KB interjecting more of herself into this process, she seemed able to use her story as a means to lead back into Alex’ story. This dynamic gave direction to the interview, reinforced the boundary that made this distinct from casual conversation, and sustained their respective roles as interviewer and interviewee.

=Response to Phenomenological Interview__:__=

This was a hard interview to watch. It seemed to go on interminably without much focus or direction. The first thing I noticed was how passive KB seemed – just sitting there letting Alex go on indefinitely. As a result of such minimal exchange, the questions didn’t seem to flow. In fact I was surprised when half way through the tape KB said she was trying to get at the essence of what Alex was about as a writer. The questions that preceded that remark had seemed so random that I didn’t realize anymore than Alex did where she was trying to go in the interview. I did note that she used a lot of, “Can you tell me about a time …” type of questions throughout this interview. On the one hand, this left Alex very free to tell his story; on the other hand, it didn’t provide much direction to the interview.

This lack of direction continued even after KB stated that she was trying to get at the essence of Alex’ writing. At least part of the reason for this was that he didn’t always respond directly to what I thought she was asking. Stories are good, but sometimes they can take people off into other subject areas that don’t really answer what is being asked. Even after the mid-tape re-direction, I still didn’t feel like I learned much about the essence of Alex’ writing. I realize that KB has acknowledged that this was a difficult interview for her because she doesn’t really accept the foundational existence of “essence”, but I am not convinced that the problem was her technique or discomfort. Rather this form of questioning didn’t seem to do a good job of helping Alex go deeper in his story.

=Response to In-depth Interview:=

This interview was easier for me to follow. It helped that KB outlined the plan of the interview at the very beginning. Throughout the interview she used mostly descriptive questions to get Alex to tell his story. A few structural questions were mixed in to follow up on questions and to try to get Alex to go deeper with some of his responses. This interview felt less conversational than the Feminist but more structured than the Phenomenological interviews. It seemed exploratory, with KB guiding the process but still leaving Alex plenty of room to go in whatever directions he chose.

One technique that stood out to me in the interview was KB’s repetition of questions in seeking to get Alex to go deeper, as well as her ability to re-phrase questions in other ways to help him explore an issue from a different frame of reference. I thought it was important that KB asked about various types of writing in which Alex engages. Equally important was her questions about the issue of writer’s block. This was an example of helping him explore an issue from different points of reference.

KB’s careful following of Alex’ words gave me the impression that she was attending closely to his presentation. I think this also communicated affirmation of his experience. He seemed relaxed and able to go deeper than what I heard in the other interviews (although this may have been more related to the fact that this was the last of the interviews than the particular format). I did feel that this interview came closer to approaching the essence of Alex’ writing (whatever that may be) than did the Phenomenological interview.

Of the three interviews addressed above, I think I liked the In-depth Interview the best. As I said above, KB seemed to be able to help Alex go deeper in this interview than with the other formats. I liked the conversationalism of the Feminist Interview, but I think that one would have to be careful not to get in the way of the interview process by getting carried away with one’s own story – to the exclusion of the interviewee’s story. The Feminist Interview seemed a very active format and the Phenomenological Interview a very passive format, with the In-depth Interview seeming to be more of a moderate track to follow. I’m not clear yet on what my project will be, but I suspect I will follow the In-depth motif more closely than the other two formats.

=A quick and dirty overview of the reading material (PO):=
 * Participant Observation:**

Step 2: Doing PO

2 purposes: Engage in activities appropriate to setting Observe people, activities, and physical aspects of situation

Become aware of things that are usually blocked out due to overload Heightened awareness and wide-angle lens Experience takes on meaning because we are inside the situation Insider and outsider simultaneously Introspection is very impt Detailed record of objective observations and subjective feelings

5 types of participation Non-participation Collect data by observation alone Passive part’n Present at scene but no great interaction with others Moderate part’n Characterized by balance between being insider and outsider Active part’n Do what others are doing I order to learn the culture from inside Complete part’n Study situation in which fully a participant

Step 4: Making descriptive observations

Basic unit of all ethnographic inquiry is the question-observation: //What is going on here?//

Descriptive ?’s lead to descriptive observations Treat self as an informant – actions, thoughts, feelings

Grand tour observations 9 major dimensions of social situations: (p. 78) Space Actor Activity Object Act Event Time Goal Feeling

Mini-tour observations Same types of info but re: smaller units of experience

Matrix of grand tour and mini-tour questions – p. 82

_

Step 3: Making an ethnographic record

Includes field notes, tape recordings, pictures, artifacts, etc.

What language is used in making the field notes? Be careful not to translate or simplify

Language identification principle Identify the language used for each field note entry Want to reflect same differences in language uses as in the field

Verbatim principle Helps distinguish between native and observer terms

Concrete principle When describing observations, use concrete language

Condensed account Notes to self in the field Expanded account Fill in details quickly after the observation

Fieldwork journal The personal side of the work Date every entry

=A quick and dirty overview of the reading material (EI):=


 * The Ethnographic Interview**

Step 4: Descriptive ?’s:

Ethnographic interviewing – 2 processes: Developing rapport and Eliciting information

Rapport process: Apprehension, Exploration, Cooperation, Participation

Usually one will also be doing participant observation at the same time.

Apprehension: Most impt, get the person talking Descriptive ?’s especially helpful to get things started

Exploration Make repeated explanations re: process Restate what the informant says (Do not reinterpret) Don’t ask for meaning; ask for use

Cooperation Both interviewer and interviewee share in the def’n of the interview Mutual trust

Participation Doesn’t always occur Informant takes on role of teacher and analyzes own culture from that frame of reference

In ethnographic interviewing, both questions and answers must be discovered from the informant. There are three main ways to uncover these questions: Record the ?’s people ask in everyday life Inquire directly about the ?’s used by participants in a cultural scene Use descriptive ?’s to get them to talk about a particular cultural scene

Descriptive ?’s Expanding the question tends to expand the length of the response

Grand Tour ?’s Uses space, time, events, people, activities, or objects to construct a tour Mini-tour ?’s Same as above but deal with smaller units of experience Example ?’s Even more specific Experience ?’s Asks for experience in a particular setting Native-language ?’s Learning the language of the culture

Direct-language Hypothetical interaction Typical sentence

Step 7: Structural ?’s

Need to be adapted to individuals Used skillfully along with other ?’s Repeated over and over

Concurrent principle Use concurrently with descriptive ?’s Explanation principle Often these require an explanation Good for better understanding native language, but remind informant that you want to understand better – try to include their terms Repetition principle Repeat the question in various ways to explore from several directions Context principle Helps provide a context for how you understand something – good for checking out understanding and for helping informant feel comfortable Cultural framework principle Try to re-phrase ?’s in cultural terms

Verification ?’s Confirm or dis-confirm a hypothesis about a folk domain Cover term ?’s These are most common Included term ?’s Best when you have several terms that you want to be sure tie together Substitution frame ?’s Can another term be used in the same way? Card sorting structural ?’s Step 9: Contrast ?’s:

Basic capacity of humans to discover meaning

Informant has more tacit knowledge about the culture Interviewer often has more explicit knowledge about the culture

Relational principle Meaning of a symbol can be discovered by finding out how it is related to all other symbols. Use principle Meaning of a symbol can be discovered by asking how it is used rather than what it means Similarity principle Meaning of a symbol can be discovered by finding out how it is similar to other symbols Contrast principle Meaning of a symbol can be discovered by finding out how it is different from other symbols Restricted and unrestricted

7 types of contrast ?’s: Use cards to help sort through info Apply same principles as for structural ?’s

Contrast verification ?’s Confirm of disconfirm differences Directed contrast ?’s Use one term to inquire whether another term applies Be sure you are asking about contrast within the same contrast set Dyadic contrast ?’s Asked without suggesting any differences to the informant Triadic contrast Which two are alike, and which one different? Be careful not to give into //test ? response// Contrast set sorting ?’s Use cards 20 ?’s game Yes/no answers to zero in Rating ?’s Seeks to find out values placed on sets of data

=__Topics, assignment schedule, and questions for EDPR 8562__= (Assignments to be turned in bold print)__

I don’t know if this will be of help to anyone else, but I went back through the syllabus to sort out when various assignments are due. Much of it repeats the syllabus, but I am a visual person and it helps me to lay it out in my own format (although Wiki is not cooperating about maintaining that format). Anyway, if it can be of use to anyone, here it is: 9/6 Types of questions

9/13 Observation

9/20 Observation at the mall Using simulated case study (which will be used repeatedly in future weeks)

9/27 Analysis Documents Visual methods Domain Analysis of simulated case study

10/4 More analysis Methods Taxonomic Reflections on simulated case study


 * First set of Wikis – re: various kinds of analysis**

10/11 Grounded theory More on taxonomic analysis Applied to simulated case study


 * Have completed at least one interview**
 * Turn in inventory and project proposal**

10/18 Narrative approaches Analysis Configuration Applied to simulated case study

10/25 Phenomenological research


 * Inductive analysis project due**

11/1 Resistant practices Poetics


 * Second set of Wikis – Reflection on processes and experiences**

11/8 Ethnodrama and autoethnography

11/15 Computer assisted data analysis

11/22 Feminist analysis and representation


 * Second analysis project – Using one form of analysis to analyze my data**

11/29 Writing up research and analysis


 * Final set of Wikis –** Topic ?? Not part of grade ??

12/6 Wrap-up


 * Final paper**
 * Conference proposal**

12/11 **Final paper and/or conference proposal** can be turned in on this date instead

9/13 =Gary's comments (second attempt):=

It appeared that the skeleton for this interview was built on the descriptive questions KB used to guide the interview -- e.g. "Talk to me about what it was like ..."; Talk to me about the process when ..."; Walk me through ...". These descriptive questions were interspersed with several structural questions that KB used to help Alex expand on some of his intitial response to the descriptive questions -- e.g. "When you said things, what made you say something"; "Can you give me an example ..."; "How did that go". I think I only heard a couple of contrast questions -- "Was that kind of the same ..."; What kinds of things are you doing as compared to then ..."

It seemed that the type of knowledge being generated was that of mutual discovery -- KB learning about what it is like for Alex to be a writer even as she helped him look at that role in ways he, perhaps, had not considered previously -- at least not in the same way as when he was aksed to respond to these questions. There was a gentle prodding here to go deeper.

The interview portrayed well the give-and-take of KB having to both guide and follow in the process of doing an interview. It seemed that she had some particular questions she wanted to introduce in guiding the interview, but she also followed Alex' lead by picking up on words he used to ask follow-up questions. I suspect this type of "following" helped assure Alex of KB's interest in what he was saying even when he had trouble answering the follow-up question and, thus, encouraged him to try to go deeper in answering her questions. This process of guiding and following demonstrated the fact that good interviewing is both an art and a science.