We had a general discussion of qualitative methods with a focus on what kinds of questions they are best suited to answering, what kind of information they can produce, and how the different qualitative methods frame different kinds of knowledge. I managed to unintentionally delete the study guide I wrote for Chapter 8, but hope to post it before next class.
Eric's discussion of "Community Literacy" highlighted to inherent problems of the transformative paradigm: speaking for the other, conflicts between researcher-research subjects' worldviews (discursive realities); and the dangers of endorsing a standpoint immersed in values and identities that are both politically important and highly contested. Peck et al's work clearly has transformative elements, but as I pointed out (just so nothing stays too simple) it also had a pragmatic basis - both in its setting at a (former) settlement house, in its references to Dewey and James, and in the focus of the collaborative writing projects that were highlighted as the project's central accomplishments. Each of the projects focused on a real-world problem and the writing could be interpreted as solving (working to solve) that problem. At the same time, the essay presents itself as effecting broader social change (presenting a new model for education). So maybe being in one paradigm or another is not really important? From my perspective, understanding the consequences of particular actions/theoretical orientations as they are articulated in terms of the research paradigms is what can help researchers think about the importance, consequences, and flaws of their research designs.
While I chose this study as an example of ethnographic, participatory research - Eric's critique rightly characterized it as a new kind of coercion, where participants didn't really have full choice either in terms of taking part in the work of the project - or in terms of the conclusions they reached. While it is unclear what value the outcomes of the projects had for student-participants, inequalities in power (subjects rights to self determination) were not fully addressed. I think that given the deeply entrenched privileges, blindnesses, and vexed patterns for communication in our education system = truly transformative research is very difficult to design. As Eric pointed out - those with power have to "give up" their power - and we (researchers and teachers) are often more inclined to use it for the "good" of the disempowered - than to work on re-structuring the power dynamics set up by the status quo. I am going to stop here though there is much more to say.
Nic's discussion served as our introduction to grounded theory. Nic also pointed out the difficulties of placing a study within one paradigm and one method. He suggested the approach as constructivist based on the study's recognition of the different meanings for/interpretations of how writing engenders knowledge within different kinds of writing. I complicated this discussion by suggesting that it might also be considered pragmatic - since it focused on the use of writing within a particular profession. My claim was a little on the lame side since pragmatic research is focused on solving a particular problem - and this was "basic research" in that it explored relationships among invention processes, writing, and knowledge making. Nic drew our attention to the methods used both by the researcher (her choice of subjects, data collection, and analysis) and suggested that this might be case study and grounded theory - and I would agree. It announces itself as grounded theory - which referrs primarily to how the author collected, analyzed and theorized data, but as Nic points out - it also qualifies as a case study in that it follows a single, clearly defined case.
We spent the remainder of the class discussing and practicing grounded theory methods. Many, many writing studies researchers use grounded theory methods (or some relative or distant cousin) to work with their data. It provides a set-by-step conceptual system for approaching what can otherwise feel like an overwhelming, disorganized body of unrelated information (that is how many qualitative data sets present themselves). Strauss and Corbin's text is probably the most practical introduction, and if you are stuck, it provides many analytic tools for seeing your data in new ways.
Administrative notes:
Grading practice for reaction papers: Because this class is about learning to be a researcher - not about know how to be one before you came to the course - grades will weight work produced later in the course more strongly than first attempts. For the reaction papers, you may choose to receive your grade for your final essay multipled by 3 - as your grade for all three papers. If for some reason, you did not do your best on the last paper - you may also choose to have a flat average.
Exam I: Your first exam will be during the second half of class March 9. It will be an in-class exam and will cover all work up through Mertens, Chapter 4 and the associated readings. I will give you the question(s) on March 2, and you will write your exam during the second half of class. You may use your text books, but writing should be generated in class (no pre-written text).
Thanks for the good discussion in class - and hope you enjoy the warm weather over the weekend!
Read: Review - ethnographic, case study + phenomenological approaches in Mertens, Ch 8 Qualitative Methods; Remediation as Social Construct,(1991), 783; Uncommon Ground: Narcissistic Reading and Material Racism (2005) 919; A Family Affair: Competing Sponsors of Literacy in Appalachian Students’ Lives (2007) 1600.
Reaction papers: Remediation as Social Construct,(1991), 783; Kena; Uncommon Ground: Narcissistic Reading and Material Racism (2005) 919; Angela; A Family Affair: Competing Sponsors of Literacy in Appalachian Students’ Lives (2007) 1600; Nic
No comments:
Post a Comment