I have completed version 3.1 of the pre-diss proposal, and I thought I would accompany it with some thoughts and comments.
What's different in v3? (changelog)
--research question has been honed down to one question
--inclusion of purpose statement a la Creswell that defines a grounded theory study
--total revamping of section #2: "Review Some of the Basic Literature Regarding the Problem" to align my review of literature with a rationale for my grounded theory study
--the previous versions of this Literature Review section presented a review of the literature on the SUBJECT of reflection, not the subject of reflection in composition or rhetorical reflection more specifically. I still feel this subject review is important, so I have moved it to the appendix of the proposal as a way of still including it
--gap in understanding section has been refined to two clear rationales for the study
--Methods section outlines in more detail the rationale for using grounded theory and how I will go about the study
--
In general, I would summarize the shifts in this draft as revisions to refine the proposal as a grounded theory research project.
My main questions at this point are broadly:
1. Does the draft flow as a coherent rationale for conducting the study? Where are there cracks or discontinuities in this rationale?
2. I am confused by my research design--all I've read regarding grounded theory research studies is that they focus on theory generation, yet my study mixed generation and validation.
************
Some personal reflections on the draft so far--
I am feeling better about the draft. My worry, to a degree, is that I have created a fiction. I suppose all framings of the world are a fiction, but I wonder how fictive mine is. Here is my story in short--
We are having some problems with the pedagogical use of reflection. It works; it doesn't work. Some like it some don't. Some use it some don't. This is a problem. Hmm... Maybe the source of this problem is that the theories we have that guide our practice aren't so good--maybe they don't fit the writing context. As we look at Composition's thinking and practice about reflection you see we indeed have a lot of assumptions about it. A close look also reveals that these assumptions (theories) have been generated from other theories and deductive reasoning (and reflection) from our own experience. We have a beautiful idea of what reflection is and does--but does this idea shape what we see and do regarding reflection. Perhaps this idea of reflection is a bit off. Just perhaps. So riding in on a white horse is a new study--lets cast the theories aside (for a little while) and just look at these reflective pieces and let the data speak. Let's see if we can generate a theory from the data (rather than see the data in terms of another theory). With this new handy theory, then, we will understand better what is going on when students reflect between drafts and we can design activities better. World saved!
What a story!?
Writing this story I can see a bit of a surprising element--my advocacy agenda. I want to reform our perspective on reflection and convert. I think the way I have framed the story highlights this evangelical nature, but I think in practice and the development of my research I will need to take a more ethnographic stance toward my data and the uses of my own work. I will need to describe and understand first. Then later advocate, perhaps.
I'm having some doubts, also, about using just the TTU TOPIC database. I think that I will have to follow my nose as far a theoretical sampling goes, but since I am generating theory and not validating it, I think I could try to get data from multiple sources. I just know how much value there is in interviewing and talking to people. I won't be able to do that with just the TOPIC data. But then, that may be the defining constraint that characterizes my study.
So much for now...
1 comment:
Lennie--
I should think that ALL writing is fictive, in a way. Everything is always a matter of perspective. The best we can do is triangulate and raise the issues so that we don't suggest our work is more definitive without error than it really is. An ethnolography, in particular, especially using grounded theory, is a snapshot. It's not THE best pedagogical recommendation, like you imply, but more about a description and based on that description some plausible ideas can be drawn and considered. This is the science of the humanities, ultimately; nothing is definitive, nor does it really need to be. Must become comfortable with that, yet at the same time try your best to minimize contamination.
In reviewing your current questions doc, here are some considerations:
- The polemic diagram, at its root, includes raw data. I made a similar diagram for myself in my dissertation (which you included on page 4). You can categorize the types of data analysis you'll be doing without doing the analysis, and still be within the grounded theory framework.
- We all have a feltsense (Perl) of what reflection is and does. We have many beliefs, like you say, and those need to be prioritized (a lit review). They also need to be rendered clear; that is, what tacit assumptions do you make as someone trained in reflection in specific ways? That will need to be made clear, as we've discussed, because the lens you use colors your understanding about connections in the data.
- Yes, generating theory out of data is definately the approach you want to take.
- I use traditional grounded theory with specific types of coding: open, axial, and selective. These begin broadly and narrow as connections are made. The raw data is used in each case, but in addition to the raw data, included, is my interpretation of it. So, the data does expand to include both the raw data and my interpretation of it. Interpretation, thus, is layered into the data representation and, as such, with rigorous double-checking throughout, becomes part of the data. This is why grounded theory has always been circumspect, but as we've discussed, it is simply making apparent and prioritizing what we already know: everything is always already interpreted. If that's the case, then why not use that, and why not systematize interpretation?
- I agree with your notion/interpretation of slices of ddata. You could compare interpretations of the data using the same data with different coders. Then, compare the ways in which they've coded the data--what generalizations they make. Or, could take the large data set, and then randomize who is looking at what smaller part of the larger data set (the beauty of using databases). Same data (random selection), yet different inputs. Could then use your "pilot" as really a first pass to compare it to. I would try to use multiple coders.
- With your question 4, yes, the diagram of the comparitive analysis seems correct. You'd be comparing interpretations of the data to validate your interpretation (or not). In fact, how people understand reflection would be illuminated by their interpretation of the data.
- A later study could use the coding guide you develop as part of this study in different contexts in order to further validate the coding guide. Your guide would be a way for instructors to more readily understand/see if their students are achieving the type of reflection the teacher wants or not.
- I don't see a problem with similar studies--you clearly came to your study in your own ways. I don't believe developing theory and verification within the same study is necessarily beyond grounded theory. My committee was most concerned about the rigor of the method...making sure I use the cyclical process to validate results as objectively as possible. Theory tends to come AFTER that point rather than through it, so when I read your work I'll be looking very closely at if you have been making presumptions or if the theorizing comes directly from the data generalization.
- Verification needs to be within the study of grounded theory, definitely. I would avoid using a scoring guide at first directly, but we can't NOT keep in mind all the things we've seen in the past.
Some notes on your pre-dissertation proposal 3.1:
- Instead of "teacher-prompted rhetorical reflections" performed... might use another word. Students aren't performing the reflections; they're composing answers to the prompts. A little confusing. Clarity is key in a dissertation question.
- Be more clear about what you mean by a comparative analysis in your proposal. What is being compared, and/or who is doing the comparing?
- I'm sure Yancey talks about adequate definitions of reflection, doesn't she? Perhaps the discussion, itself, hasn't been adequate...
- Reflection was being used in the 60s a lot, but not widely used until the late 70s and early 80s, like you say.
- Another point you might be able to add is that CMC changes the nature (immediacy) of reflection. Yancey really doesn't do a good job (yet) of addressing that, and certainly didn't have computer-enhanced reflection in mind when she wrote her seminal books in the late 90s.
- No case-study interviews for triangulation, too? Even if not the same students, could interview the WPA director...
- Could use a little more about how your findings will be applied to other contexts.
As always, let me know if you have questions. I think this draft, Lennie, is ready to share with your committe. Thanks.
Post a Comment