As a Christian, everything matters...

I am growing increasingly aware of how my identity as a woman of faith, a person of color, and an advocate for equality and social justice has affected my role as a researcher. To be fair, I am also a well-educated, upper-middle class woman who has experienced little, in terms of personal life struggle. While I have seen a great deal of injustice in my short life, I have not been the subject of such inequity. These, too, cannot be eliminated from my identity as a researcher. As a Christian, everything matters. My faith dictates the whole of my life (or so it should). Although to a lesser extent, as a researcher, everything also matters. The rationale behind my pursuit of knowledge, my philosophy on humankind, everything.

For example, I recognize the finite and ambiguous nature of humankind and the inherent value in understanding the perspective of others. Without integrating a community and global perspective into my worldview, my perception of reality will be deficient. I understand that the word ‘knowledge’ defies stringent definition, and individual philosophical renderings are equally as varied. I consider human nature to be fallible, thereby making no human understanding of God, self, or society without flaw. My own philosophical understanding and perception of truth is entirely rooted in my perspective of faith. Our world is rife with paradox. I understand that God has created all humans to be equal, and the inequalities present in our world today have been caused by a lack of understanding this Truth. Truth has nothing to fear from investigation and critical inquiry, though many who know “the truth” fear scrutiny. Knowledge is both fluid and constant. The more I learn, the more I realize I have much to learn. Over the past six months, I have truly come to understand that my individual philosophical perspective of knowledge, truth, and human nature impacts all that I do, all that I study, and all that I am. 

Bricklayer, Bricklayer, Lay me a Brick

According to my husband, I am a bricklayer. I lay one sentence at a time.  I simply cannot move from one sentence to the next, until the initial sentence is perfect. Before I move from one paragraph to the next, I reread the entire paper in its entirety, just to make sure it flows well. Essentially, it takes me a very long time to compose a paper. While this can be a bit inhibiting when I have a great idea or concept that just needs to get from my head onto the paper, I see it as a slow-moving strength.

Well, that is normally speaking. I have discovered that my “tried and true” paper writing technique of semesters past is NOT well suited to quantitative research studies. Typically, I would consider myself to be a fairly strong writer...however slow moving I might be. But this time around? I feel like I am a fish out of water. To be honest, I don’t know if I can clearly identify why this particular paper is so much harder to write. I mean, I have plenty of books and resources that have guided my way. I guess this is really the type of project that you learn by doing…multiple times. And this goes for the whole thing, from beginning to end. The more you interview, the better you get at asking good, productive questions. The more you transcribe, the more you realize it is a task best outsourced (ha!). The more you code, you develop ways to go about it more efficiently. The more you identify themes, the more easily they pop off the page. 

Well, as I head back to APU, I look forward to learning more about actually synthesizing and writing up my findings. Hopefully I will learn how to a) turn the data into bricks, or b) abandon the technique that does not seem to work.

Researcher Bias...

Surprisingly, I found it difficult to define my biases as a researcher. The thing is, I know I have many biases...and I can note them pretty clearly. So why was it so difficult to define them for this qualitative study?

Anyway, here is what I have come up with so far...though it is certainly considered to be a work in progress:

I am Mexican American, and I grew up in a predominantly white environment. My first “real” opportunity to live and learn in a more diverse community was as an undergraduate at Pepperdine University, were I earned a BA in Organizational Psychology and experienced rich growth, academically, spiritually, and intellectually. Upon graduation, I began working in admission, where I was confronted with the disheartening reality of the roadblocks to access and equity in higher education as experienced by historically underrepresented students. Through my continued exposure to such inequity, my research interests in the area of access, equity, and campus climate for diversity at faith-based institutions were born. I am particularly in interested in learning about the experiences of underrepresented students, faculty, and staff at predominantly white faith-based institutions. 

When engaged in the research process, I abandon my role as an administrator at my alma mater and embody my role as a doctoral student at Azusa Pacific University, a faith-based institution in Southern California. As a woman, a student, and a person of color, I felt the participants felt comfortable sharing their experiences with me. For many, it seemed therapeutic to share some of their more trying experiences and feelings of vulnerability.

  

The Story

To say that I am overwhelmed by the amount of data I have after just 7 interviews would be an understatement. I feel like I am swimming in a sea of very interesting and equally important data. As I read and re-read my transcriptions for the zillionth time, new ideas or themes seem to emerge. And I think I can accurately say that I am not very good at the coding process. Why, you may ask? As I begin to highlight a quote that someone says, I find myself continually struck by every word in the particular response. Then, I proceed to highlight the entire passage. 

Surely, I need to get better at discriminating which of the sentences in the passage in question carries the most meaning...but I continually find myself getting lost in the entire story of their experience. One of my colleagues has mentioned her commitment to finding the story through qualitative research. I don't think it was until now that I truly understood what that means. I think it does make it harder, as I am dealing with the stories of seven people--each of whom has rich, valuable, and telling experiences. 

Well, now I must return to the process of distilling those meaningful stories into meaningful themes. Back to coding I go...  

Transcribing...

Now that all of my transcribing has been completed, I have to say, it is my least favorite part of qualitative research. No wonder people outsource this part! 

While I enjoy re-listening to the interviews, as I am always reminded of some gem of a comment someone made, it is quite a tedious task. Oh well...on the other hand, it surely gets you enmeshed with the data. After the first round, I went back through and listened to every interview again as I read through the transcript. I am convinced that this is a necessary part of the process. It was essential to go back through, just to ensure that the written words truly matched the intent of what they were saying. Sometimes, with a break in speech, a confusion of words, misplaced punctuation, etc, the entire meaning of a comment could be conflated. As it is the job of the qualitative researcher to translate the story of the participants, it is essential to accurately portray the intent of their words. 

As I soiree into the data analysis portion of this project, I will seek to preserve the integrity of the words, stories, and experiences of my participants...

Creswell Ch 11 and CQR Ch. 1

Creswell Ch. 11 Conclusion

In the final chapter of Creswell’s book, he “turns the story” by showing how a single case (the gunman story previously presented as a case study) could be analyzed through each of the five methodological approaches presented in his book.

For example, in the narrative approach, Creswell would have focused on a single individual and their reaction to the situation instead of gathering responses from multiple people. The entire study would have revolved around the experience of this one person and their reaction to the gunman situation. From a phenomenological perspective, Creswell would have observed multiple students involved in the case. He would have explored the phenomenon of their fear surrounding the situation. In a grounded theory approach, he would have developed a theory that explained the experiences of the students following the gunman situation. Lastly, as an ethnography, Creswell would explore the campuses meaning-making and cultural experience following the event.

In this practice, he addresses how the mode of inquiry and type of research design will change the focus of the study. Lastly, he recommends that the reader design their study within a particular type of inquiry so that the elements of the design (purpose of the study, research questions, etc) will contribute positively to the methodology.

 

Composing Qualitative Research Ch. 1 

Golden-Biddle and Locke present a helpful framework for the actual composition of research worthy of publication. In the first chapter, “The Style and Practice of our Academic Writing,” the authors remind the reader that we are, as qualitative researchers, writers. No matter what our exact field, area of expertise, or preferred methodological approach, we are writers. Thankfully, I like to write…it is one of my favorite parts of this whole doctoral student thing!

First, they remind that traditional academic writing is simple, straightforward, free from expression, and meant to transfer data from the field to the reader. The author is separated from the data presentation process, thereby leaving out any sort of personal experience with or response to the data. However, “writing up” qualitative data is far more complicated and is simply not simple, nor straightforward. The authors humorously quip, “we never yet have had a piece of data tell us its significance” (p. 13). Truly, qualitative researchers (as the authors note) must decide what to report from the data, as the entire story can simply never be told due to spatial constraints (in articles, for example).

They also remind the reader that we contribute to the knowledge field not just by presenting data in a coherent fashion. Firstly, the knowledge presented in the article must be considered true and worthy by both small and large audiences that are experts in the pertinent field of study.

Lastly, the author identify the four components of the writing task: 1) articulate relevant insights gained through research and study, 2) develop a “theorized storyline” for your work that connects the field work to the academic side, 3) address a current limitation in the research with your findings, and 4) be an academic storyteller.   

Faith Reflection

In a sermon demonstration I heard today, the preacher noted our need to abandon ambition in the name of our commitment to Christ. Now ambition is not bad...not at all. However, ambition can move from being what we think is God's will or promise for our life into our singular dream...an idol...where everything we do is to move toward that goal. We ask, "what can I do to get from here to there?"

We have dreams...worthy ones, even. I have a dream of sharing the beauty of God's creation, in both human and natural form, with students. My own study abroad experience as a sophomore in college was a life-changing and eye-opening experience that widened my horizons, challenged (and grew) my faith, and made me keenly aware of the seemingly normal materialism rampant in my life, my community, and beyond. The spiritual and emotional growth that occurs while outside your own country, state, and even zipcode is immense and I want a career that would allow me to share these opportunities with students. 

With a PhD, I am a few steps closer to this goal. As a result of my hard work, I am a few steps closer to achieving success. 

It is the American Dream to work hard and do the things necessary to achieve success. But I think we can confuse these ideals with "what God wants for me and my future." 

The preacher quoted C.S. Lewis: "He who has God plus many things has nothing more than he who has God alone."

It was a humbling reminder that I am the same in God's eyes, with or without a PhD. While I may be more educated, I am still a broken child of God. I have no more value than a faithful day laborer who toils in the fields to provide for his family. 

My Freshman Year: Chapters 6 & 7

Reflective Reading Log #4, part 2

In the sixth and seventh chapters of My Freshman Year (2005), Nathan details the cultural normalcies of the typical college student at AnyU, and leaves the reader with her most memorable lessons from the field as a freshman.

As I read the sixth chapter, “The Art of College Management,” I often found myself chuckling at the similarities I could draw from my own experience as an undergraduate. Though I attended a small, Christian school that was vastly different than a large, public, research university, I found much solidarity (maybe embarrassingly so) with the students whom Nathan interacted (except in regard to the cheating).

Nathan speaks of the programming that occurred during Welcome Week that promulgated the mantra necessary for college success: “Effort and good planning. If you plan your time well, you can have it all” (p. 111). She detailed the balancing act that students must engage in (classes, work, homework, commuting, social life, etc) and what they must do in order to manage it all. Building the perfect schedule was a part of that balancing act. As Nathan described, I remember penning an ideal schedule within the first week the class lists were released for the following term. No classes before 10:00am, no classes on Fridays, and time to eat lunch every day. I avoided the professors that my older peers had warned me against. By my junior year, each semester I attempted to integrate at least one “easier” class that would help lighten the load and allow me to focus on the more difficult, major classes. As one of Nathan’s interviewees said, “you have to have some easier courses so you don’t get burnt out” (p. 115). I would wake up at 6:00am on registration day in order to achieve said schedule, and was prepared to petition faculty members if I did not make it into a particular course. Here, here, Nathan—for seeking to understand (and almost defend) the undergraduate rationale to create a perfect schedule!

Nathan also speaks to the student reality of simultaneously managing a multitude of rules, expectations, and assignments from several professors. She also details the advice upper classmen give to new students on the importance of building relationships with professors. Interestingly, this advice lends itself to the opposite of professor as mentor or future-recommender-writer. Instead, the advice focuses on the unintentional (in most cases) ways to manipulate the professors. “Sit in the front so profs can see you.”  “Go to class and talk to your profs.” “Give them what they want and you’ll get what you want too.” (p. 117). “If they know you, they will be more likely to help you.” Students even admitted to taking a particular stance in a paper that mirrored the opinion of their professor instead of their own—in attempt to receive a better grade.

Cheating and class-ditching are also given their due diligence, as Nathan explored the college student normalcy of doing what is necessary to get by. During her year as a student, Nathan occasionally shared “solidarity” with her fellow peers by ditching the occasional class. Even in reference to cheating, Nathan’s heart almost softened as she grew aware of the grand spectrum between working on homework with someone else and utilizing someone’s words without proper citations. While she did not minimize the problem of cheating, Nathan notes the cultural relativism associated with the issue. Increases in cheating “reflect not only students’ personal ethics but also the shifting societal tides that church the waters through which students navigate” (p. 129).

Finally, in Nathan’s concluding chapter, she notes some of her most poignant lessons learned. She recognizes the hierarchical differences between students and professors: while students have no idea how long it takes professors to prepare for class or what goes into research, publication, and career advancement, neither do faculty understand (or remember) the complexities of the undergraduate experience. Nathan considers the ramifications her research will have/has had on her own teaching. In brief, she has resolved to be more compassionate toward her students.

Finally, Nathan ends with a question regarding “what is worth learning” (p. 156) if students really do forget the details of what they learned and the intricacies related to their major will be obsolete five years after graduation. Personally, I believe the learning that occurs in college—academically, socially, personally, and spiritually—is challenging, valuable, and wholly beneficial. And believe it or not, while I may have forgotten something for the time being, I am always surprised in the moments when I recall details from a class I had taken years before. 

Creswell Chapter 10: Standards of Validation and Evaluation

Reflective Reading Log #4

In Creswell’s tenth (and possibly most boring) chapter, he discusses the various standards of validation and evaluation in qualitative research. While he notes the varied and numerous viewpoints on validation and summarizes the key perspectives and terms used by various researchers, he details his own “stance” on validation. He considers “validation” as a “distinct strength of qualitative research in that the account made through extensive time spent in the field, the detailed thick description, and the closeness of the researcher to the participants in the study all add to the value or accuracy of the study” (p. 207). As such, he identifies several validation strategies that will assist researchers to assess the accuracy of their research.

It is essential for the researcher to spend “prolonged” and “persistent” involvement in and observation of the field of study. They must develop trust among their participants and enhance their understanding of the culture. Researchers must engage in triangulation, where multiple sources, methods, and theories (etc) are utilized as evidence to support the outcome. External checks (such as having a peer reviewer) must be in place to “keep the researcher honest [and] ask the hard questions about methods, meanings, and interpretations” (p. 208). The researcher must clarify their biases and assumptions that they have, as they will contribute to the way the researcher has approached and interpreted the study. In order to allow the participants the opportunity to assess the accuracy of the data, interpretations, and conclusions, member checking is an essential part of the process. Rich, thick descriptions must be utilized, as they provide insight into case transferability. Lastly, an external auditor that has no connection to the study should assess whether the connection between “the findings, the interpretations, and the conclusion is supported by the data” (p. 209). Creswell recommends that researchers engage in at least two of these strategies for validation.

Though Creswell acknowledges that it is difficult to break down how measures of validation can be broken down in each of the five methods of study, he defines several questions the researchers should ask and outlines the characteristics he would look for in each of the five types of studies.

One down, one to go!

One week from today, Chris will defend his dissertation!  This is quite a feat, and worthy of celebration. Over the past several years, he has spent a great deal of time, heart, and energy to write a massive work of 200+ pages. His "big paper," as I like to call it, is called "Higher Education and Knowledge for Nation-State Development: The Role of the World Bank and U.S. Universities in Poverty Reduction." 

To say the least, I am quite proud of him. It has been a pleasure to walk along side him as he has traveled, studied, interviewed, compiled, analyzed, written, and presented. In fact, I have edited every page of his dissertation! Many people say that the dissertation is composed of a lot of research and an even greater amount of blood, sweat, and tears.  I am thankful that this process was intensive and challenging, but certainly not miserable. It has helped me mentally define how I hope the process goes when I reach that point. I have no doubt that it will be more difficult for me, I am incredibly blessed to have such an understanding and helpful husband walk by my side.  

Alas, one PhD down, one to go!

A few things I have learned along the way...

While only halfway through, the journey has been quite fascinating and eventful. I have learned a great deal, both in reference to higher education and otherwise. I have learned to be patient with others (which is usually quite easy for me) and myself (which is not usually as simple). I have learned to budget my time, plan accordingly, and build in extra days for things like colds, surgeries, and unforeseen work tragedies. I have learned what happens when exercise is the thing that gets omitted from my routine. I have learned that good food is energizing to both my body and my mind. I have re-learned that television is a waste of time, and getting rid of it was one of the best decisions we could have made. I have learned that I am resilient, optimistic, and positive, and my various strengths will carry me far. I have learned that loved ones do not always understand why I have chosen to do this, and that is okay. I am learning to recognize and embrace the strengths of those around me. I have confirmed my love for and my commitment to the field of higher education. Most importantly, I am learning to value both the challenges and the gifts my sweet God has granted me.  I am blessed beyond measure to even be on this journey. While I am eager to see what is ahead, I am certainly enjoying the learning process.

Creswell Chapter 9: Writing a Qualitative Study

Reflective Reading Log #3 (part 2)

In Creswell’s chapter that details several different ways to write a qualitative study (even with the same type of data), it is clear that there are countless ways to do so.

In terms of responsible data representation, I love the questions that Creswell asks the reader to consider: “Has my writing connected the voices and stories of individuals back to the set of historic, structural, and economic relations in which they are situated? Have I backed into the passive voice and decoupled my responsibility from the writing” (p.180)? And particularly, “How far should I go in theorizing the words of participants? (p. 180)?  As the qualitative research seeks to use the voice of participants to learn about a situation, experience, or phenomenon, they walk a fine line as they serve as interpreters for different people with different voices, perceptions, and experiences, and presenters of cohesive and composite set of information. 

Creswell also recognizes that researchers must acknowledge different audiences in their writings. Sometimes, the same data can be presented in a multitude of formats to varying groups of people: practitioner workshops and conferences, academic journals, digestible books, etc. For example, I am confident that Rebekah Nathan, author of My Freshman Year, presented the data she garnered from her year as a student in a variety of formats. The book, meant for a more public, non-academic audience, was certainly less researchy (for lack of better words) than most “studies.” However, that in itself, does not make it any less academic or rigorous.

As Creswell outlines various ways to write up the data, as according to various research designs, I found myself to be a little overwhelmed. I felt (unprovoked) pressure to select a favorite way, a preferred model, or the best way to present quotes. Long quotes? Embedded quotes? How much analysis around each quote? To use vignettes or not? Then, I relaxed…and remembered that I don’t pick the format (in a sense), as the format picks me. The actual data (and research design for that matter) will help to dictate how the research is presented. It is akin to doctoral students that say, “oh I am doing a qualitative dissertation” before they have even identified a research problem and question. In fact, the type of question and the way that it is asked will dictate what type of dissertation a student will do.

According to Creswell, “How we write is a reflection of our own interpretation based on the cultural, social, gender, class, and personal politics that we bring to research” (p.178). In qualitative research, the researcher is expected to identify their background and biases, as these areas certainly contribute to the way the data was garnered and the way it is presented. This, in fact, is my favorite part of qualitative research. The author, admittedly, is a part of the research. We can pretend that quantitative research is more subjective and less biased, but the researcher still selects the topic, chooses the instrument, decides what statistics to run and what responses to delete (as they might bring down the “validity” of the results), and finally, writes the results. However, such research does not so rigorously require that the researcher report and record their biases. While I appreciate (and even like!) quantitative research, I truly value qualitative research as it can actually provide a tangible voice for the voiceless.

 

My Freshman Year: Chapters 4 & 5

Reflective Reading Log #3 

In the fourth and fifth chapters of My Freshman Year (2005), Nathan details her construction of an American college experience, as seen from the outside perspective (i.e. International students), and the fanfare (or lack thereof) that surrounds the academic portion of said experience. Not surprisingly, her stories are fascinating and her rich descriptions are compelling.

Nathan is quite clear about the kinship she experienced with several international students, as they simultaneously fit into the same category of student and outsider. As her relationships with those students flourished, she had the opportunity to engage in insightful conversations regarding their perceptions of the American college experience. Such interactions were particularly helpful, as “culture can be invisible to its natives—so taken for granted that it seems unworthy to comment” (p. 67).

According to the international students with whom Nathan spoke, the American college student could be characterized as very friendly. However, international students were struck by the lack of substance in their relationships with American students, and the lack of care such students seemed to have for the international student’s background, success in class, or social integration. According to Nathan, “International students learned quickly that being a student…dorm mate…classmate—none of it automatically qualifies you as a ‘member of the community’” (p. 69). According to one student, sharing a hobby was the key to building relationships with Americans. International students also noted that their American counterparts seemed very independent (especially from their family), always busy, preoccupied with getting drunk, disrespectful in the classroom (as evidenced by their casual dress and eating in class), ignorant about global politics and world issues, and ethnocentric.

While the international students were impressed with the level of attention and care they received from faculty members, they were surprised at the level of academic rigor. Many compared their first two years of coursework to their high school. Multiple choice tests, numerous quizzes, chapter outlines, and group work were unfamiliar territory.

In the next chapter, Nathan explores the American student’s response to the academic portion of their college experience. As a professor of anthropology and one who believes in the power of education, Nathan was surprised to learn “how little intellectual life seemed to matter in college” (p. 100). Overall, the students seemed to have an apathetic attitude, at best, about their coursework. In fact, classes seemed to get in the way of student’s active social lives—as, according to Nathan’s informal survey, the average student claimed 65% of their learning occurred outside of the classroom. In fact, only a small number of students claimed that classroom learning contributed to 50% or more of their education.

As it quickly became clear that students were not engaging in philosophical and intellectual discussion outside of class, Nathan explored what it is that students actually do talk about. Not surprisingly, topics of sex, relationships, body image, personal history, movies, and TV emerged.

As I read Nathan’s account of the comments made in class prior to the teacher’s lecture, I was immediately thrown back into college. I so vividly remember the exchanges: “Did you do the reading? I didn’t!” “I can’t believe it has been three weeks since that test and he hasn’t handed it back yet.” “What did you put for that second one? I had to b.s. my way through it.” “I had to pull another all-nighter to get this done!” Nathan believes that while students might care about their education (and several did note that they did care about it), it was clearly normal and socially acceptable to speak negatively about class. In my own experience as an undergraduate, I would definitely concur. While I was able to engage in discussion about what we were learning with my social group, I still heard (and was occasionally a contributor) to the comments noted above.

I found these two chapters to be particularly fascinating—especially in conjunction with one another. In fact, I felt that the international student’s opinion of their American counterparts was mostly substantiated in the following chapter. 

Frustrations of a Novice Interviewer

Methodological Memo

At this point in my academic career, I have engaged in quite a few interviews for various projects. While I would never have considered myself to be an excellent interviewer, I would hardly consider myself to be a novice. Unfortunately, when I interviewed Sydney that is how I felt. I was nervous, my voice cracked, and I felt as if I incessantly jumbled my questions. Furthermore, as I was nervous, I literally read most of my questions straight off the interview protocol. Doing such made me sound canned and artificial. Twice, I asked a follow-up question, and then realized it was close-ended the second it left my mouth. To somehow “fix” my mistake, I would add a pithy remark like, “in a few sentences” at the end. Once, I accidentally walked Sydney into the response for which I was looking. Thankfully, as I asked her to provide an example to elaborate on the issue, the exchange had a satisfactory outcome.

As I reflect on my first interview for a “real” qualitative project, I embrace this experience as one of great learning. Overall, the interview was great. There were a number of contributing factors that made it seem more unusual. Firstly, the interview was conducted over the phone. Though Sydney and I have not yet met in person, this was our first phone conversation as well. Secondly, as I am accustomed to providing non-verbal cues to demonstrate that I am listening, I struggled with how to do so over the phone. Hence, I almost “spoke over her” with my audible and much-too-often “mm hhhms.” I have to say, transcribing for me was a rather painful process—and it wasn’t the actual transcribing part I found difficult—it was listening to how stupid I sounded! 

Creswell Chapter 8 - Data Analysis

Reflective Reading Journal #2 (part 2)

In Chapter 8, Creswell covered the “basics” of qualitative data analysis:

• Prepare and organize the data
  
• Reduce (through coding and condensing) the data into a manageable set of themes
  
• Represent the data in figures, tables, or discussions
  

Most qualitative research centers on these basics. However, different researchers integrate various types of additional procedures.  For example, in terms of code identification and reduction to themes, Madison, Huberman and Miles, and Wolcott all note the need to identify meaningful patterns and themes.  However, Madison, the critical ethnographer, also recommends that the researcher identify a critical/theoretical point of view that is central to the analysis. Wolcott, on the other hand, highlights the need to form  description of the data that is relatable to the literature or culture.  

Creswell discussed the “spiral of analysis,” where he detailed the various iterations of qualitative research. He begins with the gathering of data, and moves into data management, the importance of writing, reading, reflecting, and memoing, then on to the art of describing, classifying, and interpreting, categorizing, and comparing, and finally, representing and visualizing the data.

Creswell gave brief descriptions of unique steps to data analysis for each of the five included research models. In addition to the “spiral,” each research method has distinctive characteristics of analysis.

For my qualitative project, I will be conducting my first case study. I will have to describe the case (campus climate for diversity) and its setting (West University). The setting description cannot be confined to location of where the case occurred – rather, it must include and integrate a much wider area, possibly transcending the boundaries of the community or campus. For example, in addition to describing the campus and the demographics of the school (faculty and staff), I will need to describe the school’s location, community demographics, etc. For case studies, some recommend that the researcher considers a collection of incidents, stories, etc, allowing the meanings to emerge. Others look at a single instance and draw meaning form that one experience (direct interpretation). For my project, I will consider a variety of stories, experiences, and locations. Regardless, patterns across different categories will be identified. Such patterns can be represented in tables, charts, categories, etc. I must also not forget the facts—for my study, I will need to identify the major players, the facts, the circumstances, the activities, and the locale. Eventually, I want to do multiple case studies to allow for cross-case analysis—this way, I will be able to develop naturalistic generalizations through my data analysis.

Lastly, Creswell described several computer programs that aid researchers in the pursuit of data analysis. NVivo is the only computer program that I have seen in action – while it can certainly do a great deal of very cool things (and it offers a fabulous way to store and organize data), I don’t think I, as a researcher, will utilize such software. To me, it seems as if such software tries to quantify qualitative data. Creswell mentioned that some researchers (not himself, J of course) will count the number of times certain codes are found in the data, etc, to make it seem more rigorous or scientific or, I don’t know, viable in a quantitative world. I believe in qualitative research – and yes, a computer program would certainly help me to organize, I do not think it is necessary to create quality qualitative work. Is that a double entendre? 

My Freshman Year...a Reflection

Reflective Reading Log #2

Written: 2/14/09

In My Freshman Year, Nathan (2005) curiously situates herself as a college freshman.  It is another village experience for a seasoned anthropologist who has spent considerable time overseas, studying cultures vastly different from her own.  In her description of this experience, she gives valuable insight to: 1) the practice of anthropology, 2) methodological intricacies and difficulties, and 3) the American college.  As a middle aged female, she begins with what she calls a “delicate balancing act between truth and fiction” (p. 6).  This is a key question for the anthropologist, but comes to fore when the research site is actually your home. 

            The research is sound and the writing is clever.  It seems whimsical to enter college life as a freshman, but Nathan provides insightful comparisons to her own overseas experiences and even those of renowned researchers like Clifford Geertz.  She describes entry into the setting through getting in trouble, playing sports, and living in the dorms.  In the midst of intriguing descriptions, she offers sound methodological realities and philosophical foundations for this kind of research:

One can never really “go native” or expect that one’s own experience is indicative of the experience of others born in the culture.  At the same time, it is the experience of living village life that offers insight and vantage point needed to ask relevant questions and understand the context of the answers given.

While Nathan include national statistics for purposes of comparison, she reveals the brilliance and depth of anthropological research that cannot be captured through quantitative survey data.  Although ethnographic methods are often thought to be less generalizable, this study intimately connects with the American college phenomena and provides insight into the experience.

            Ranging from mapping physical spaces, to noting advertisements like “get involved” and rape and sexual assault methods, Nathan adequately paints a picture of the messages being communicated and then how they are received by the students.  She is able to uncover “underlying values” expressed by the students through dorm decorations, common images, and language use. 

            In terms of insight, Nathan pinpoints that the real experience of college life, “was in the variation—in the sense that it was also considered normal to stay up past 2 AM or to awaken after noon” (p. 35).  Her description for the university is “overoptioned” and her focus on community in Chapter 3 reveals the paradoxical desire and resistance to community and the value of individualism, spontaneity, and choice.  Noting that some university events geared at community fail and that many dorm lounges are empty, Nathan unveils that community, for many students, means a network of close personal friends—an ego-centric social group of students with intense reciprocity.  Individualism, community, networks, and reciprocity are difficult to define, understand, and research.  However, five months in a university cafeteria monitoring that pattern of traffic and eating groups has produced research valuable to students, faculty, administrators and other researchers.   

Notes on Five Methods of Qualitative Research

Methodological Memo #1 

Written 1/14/09

Narrative: studying a single life or experience, or a small group

•            Challenges: need a clear understanding of context, know your own personal biases as it impacts your ability to retell the story

•            Why is a narrative important? It may be difficult to write on the doctoral level. These should not be conducted as a first study.

Phenomenological: study a shared experience, moment, or epiphany 

•            Event does not have to be spectacular – in fact, many like to study a phenomena that is mundane (a long line at Starbucks, etc)

•            Must put aside own experiences and biases

•            Challenges: it is impossible for the researcher to separate themselves from the text, their own biases, etc

•            Alex does these, while some consider his to be more narrative in nature

Grounded Theory: Review the literature, interview participants, and see what emerges

•            If there is a gap in the literature, grounded theory is used

•            Finding a voice for the voiceless

•            Zigzag motion of gathering research, analyzing, going back to the literature, checking and rechecking, getting more data

•            Saturation: when the interviewees start to say the same thing

•            Challenges: difficulty of determining when saturation is reached, identifying a theory

•            Systematic approach to research

Ethnography: the study of culture

•            Uses observation instead of interviews, looks at shared patterns, life histories, etc

•            Researcher immerses themselves in the culture, studying the Other, understanding culture, finding a gatekeeper into the culture

•            Social justice oriented

•            Fieldwork

•            Reciprocity is important – the researcher has a voice, but there is a certain amount of respect for the Other

•            This should never be a colonial approach

•            Emic: view of the participant

•            Etic: the researcher’s interpretation of the views

•            Challenges: time, how does one really understand another culture?  

Case study: an exploration of a “bounded system” or “case” over time

•            Does it have to be about an extreme case or about something spectacular? Yes, but not every time.

•            Challenges: researcher must identify the cases, should one do single or multiple case studies?

Creswell Chapter 5...a review of 5 different studies

Reflective Reading Log #1

Written: 1/28/09

Through detailed description of 5 different studies, Creswell provided further clarification for different methods of qualitative research.

A Narrative-Biographical Study: Angrosino tells the life-story of Vonnie Lee, a man with mental retardation and a colorful criminal record. Vonnie Lee, currently transitioning out of a rehabilitation center called Opportunity House into a sort of employment half-way house. Presented through the eyes of Angrosino, Vonnie Lee tells his life story around and through complex descriptions of the city’s public transportation system. Through his 1.5 hour bus route to work, Vonnie Lee finds stability and empowerment. As a narrative-biographical study, the author tells the story of a single individual, reconstructs conversations and stories into a “life experience,” tells of the subjects’ “epiphany” (the bus route, in Vonnie Lee’s case), describes the surrounding context of the epiphany, and acknowledges his own presence in the study.

A Phenomenological Study: The authors studied 58 men and women with AIDS. Through an exploration of the patient’s experiences and cognitive representations of their disease, the authors attempted to understand how the patient’s emotional response to the disease could lead to improved therapy and quality of life. The authors systematically analyzed the data (which included multiple interviews and actual drawings that represented some of the patient’s image of their disease) which led to 11 themes, created exhaustive descriptions of the data, and described the unique cultural phenomenon of how individuals experience AIDS. While reading the studies, this one seemed the least clear. It was not until I completed the chapter that I felt more comfortable with the difference between this method and ethnography – initially, they seemed pretty similar. They certainly bear some similarities, but now I recognize the differences.

A Grounded Theory Study: In response to two open-ended questions, 11 women who were victims of childhood sexual abuse spoke of their experiences and how they have survived. With the sensitive data from interviews and focus groups, the authors formed categories of information and systematically related them in a visual model. The visual model depicted the two phenomena (or theory) that emerged, in terms of women’s coping strategies: keeping from being overwhelmed by threatening and dangerous feelings, and managing helplessness, powerlessness, and lack of control.

An Ethnographic Study: The author studied the culture-sharing group involved in the straight edge (sXe) movement, a punk rock inspired movement to abstain from drug and alcohol usage and casual sex. The author interviewed 28 people, attended 250 punk rock concerts, and participated in the movement for 14 years in order to describe the core values and beliefs of the unique subculture. He described the group, explored five themes about the subculture, and ended the study with a broad picture about how the subculture existed. From the perspective of a critical ethnographer, the author described how the complex group resisted the dominant culture through a variety of multilayered and transformative qualities found within group members.

A Case Study: The authors described how a campus reacted to a situation where a student with a gun attempted to shoot students. Through analysis of interviews, observations, and detailed (and thick!) descriptions of the events, experiences, and responses surrounding event, the authors saw several themes (denial, fear, safety, campus planning, etc.) and two overarching responses (organizational and psycho-social) emerge. They broadly interpreted the situation and identified the problem, the context, the issues, and the “lessons learned.” Finally, they formed questions to help the university in its response-planning for future experiences of campus violence.

I appreciated the individual studies, as they helped me to envision both the varied intricacies and the similarities between each type. I also liked Creswell’s figure that visually represented the different approaches of foci in each case – that helped to further clarify the differences. I am excited about the upcoming research project – where I actually get to utilize one of these methods of research!

If I had to select my “favorite” research method, I would waiver between ethnography and grounded theory. As a cultural study, I like that ethnographies describe and explain the particular experience of a group of people, and they are often connected with an issue of social justice. However, I love the concept of allowing theory to emerge from the data, as such in grounded theory. Here, it seems as if you are giving a voice to an experience that was previously untold or undocumented. Essentially, I am eager for my research to mean something…