Identifying Problems in the Pre-Diss Process

Diane Allen has proposed a gathering of others at the pre-diss stage to talk about the process. In my reply to her email, I identified a number of problems I have been dealing with. I thought I would transpose them into here.

******

What I see happening with my own proposal is that I am refining a kind of logic that should flow

--there is a problem
--I have this question that I will use to investigate something about this problem
--here's what others have said and done related to this problem
--here's what my study should add to our understanding of the problem
--here's my plan for investigating the problem and why I am going to investigate in this particular way

My overall problem or challenge right now is to tie all this logic together. Right now, I don't feel that they fit and flow together into a kind of cogent narrative.

One large problem I've been wrestling with is the framework of "the problem" as defining research. I believe we talked a fair amount about this topic when I took my basic research class because most of us tend to gravitate to a question rather than a problem. Does all research need to be focused on a problem!??? By using the framework of "the problem," it structures how we see research and how we do it. The Problem Frame in Research. (That sounds like a good book topic!)


A second problem I have is in the second section:
Review Some of the Basic Literature Regarding this Problem.

I have interpreted this section to mean a basic literature review on the SUBJECT of my research interest. It is dawning more and more on me that I don't need to summarize all the literature written on the general subject I am writing on; instead, I think I need to be more focused. My personal problem, however, is that there isn't really anything focused exactly on what I am focusing on. I also feel that if I don't have this large lit review-lite, that I won't be somehow validating the overall project. It needs this mass of scholarship behind it. I'm thinking about trimming out the lit review on the SUBJECT of reflection into a kind of appendix to the proposal that I can refer to.

The third underlying problem I have been facing is to determine in a broad sense how I will research--my methodological approach. Part of the logic I think needs also to be this:

--I have "this" understanding about knowledge and how knowledge is created
--I have this problem I am seeking to make knowledge about
--Out of all the tools for making knowledge out there, I am choosing this approach that fits best with my view of knowledge claims and my particular subject of study

For me, this has involved learning more about grounded theory. The more I think about it, the more I see that this month reading and learning about Grounded Theory has not been in vain. I am seeing much more about what GT is and how it fits for my project.
...more about that in another post.

Resolving these problems as best I can is my goal for version 3.0 of the proposal.