Saturday, June 26, 2010

We fall down but we get up.....

No one said that being in a doctoral program would be easy. I had a huge blow to my ego today! Without getting into all of the excruciating details, I have 3 ½ weeks before I go back to my doctoral seminars and I realized that I have done 3 major assignments wrong. I misunderstood the directions and now I have more work than I planned for. I’m not sure I can get it all done in time.

How could I have been so careless!! I am not sure what will happen now with my assignments or my class standing. I will have to try and re-group with a new assignment timeline but most importantly re-group emotionally. The only way I can recover emotionally is to reflect on lessons learned from this experience.

• Read my syllabus often throughout the semester and multiple times when working on each and every assignment. I thought reading the syllabus at the beginning of an assignment was enough but I missed details that turned into huge problems for me.

• Check in more often with professors and classmates when working on assignments to make sure I am headed in the right direction. It is so frustrating to put so much work into an assignment only to find out you’ve done it wrong.

• Lastly, remember to be kind to myself! I have made this a difficult day for myself. We all make mistakes and I AM SURELY NO EXCEPTION. I can only try to correct the mistake I made. Lesson learned!!



This photo is what "correcting my mistake" looks like. Which means I am up late at Denny's
(pass midnight on a Friday night) ....Ugh!
with my computer, books, highlighters & pen, and a lot of coffee.

Monday, June 7, 2010

Summary and Reflection #2



 Analyzing and Writing up qualitative research
(Learning Log #2 assignment for HED 742)

My second entry includes summaries and reflections of a current study I am conducting and particular sections of four books. The books I am reading are Creswell’s Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (chapters 7 & 8), Nathan’s My freshman year: What a professor learned by becoming a student (chapter 6 - afterward), and Wolcott’s Writing up qualitative research (chapters 3). I will also include my reflections on a book titled, Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (chapter 7) by Irving Seidman. While this last book is not a required text for this assignment it has been an additional resource for my current qualitative study entitled, The experiences of a former foster youth at a four-year university. As in my previous entry, I have included the references for the material I am reading at the end of the document.

The purpose of my current qualitative study, The experiences of a former foster youth at a four-year university, is to understand the experiences of a former foster youth student at a four-year university. I use a narrative approach because I want an in-depth understanding about the personal and institutional factors that support the success of a former foster youth, who is a graduating senior, a public four–year university. As a researcher with a critical theorist perspective, I want to know what can be learned about the experiences of this participant that could inform individuals, groups or institutions interested in improving the educational outcomes of former foster youth in higher education. I have a particular interest in this topic because I am a former foster youth and I have committed my professional and academic work to supporting former foster youth and other historically disadvantages students in higher education.

One of the many resources that aid me as a new researcher is Creswell’s Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. In chapter 7, Creswell addresses different components or activities in the data collecting process. The activities include a researcher’s approach to data collection from locating a site or individual, gaining access and making rapport, sampling purposefully, collecting data, recording information, exploring field issues and storing data. In chapter 8, Creswell discusses the various approaches to data analysis and researcher’s representation of data. Since I am in the data analysis phase of my project, I am experimenting with different strategies that can be used to analyze a narrative approach. I am unsure if I want to analyze the data by using the five elements of plot structure advanced by Yussen and Ozcan which identifies characters, setting, problem, actions, and resolution. Or should I analyze the data from a three-dimensional space approach of interaction, continuity, and situation, advanced by Clandinin and Connelly?
In my dilemma of deciding which approach to use with sorting and analyzing data, I found comfort in Seidman’s book, Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. This book is intended for doctoral candidates and more experienced researchers interested in seeking a resource to support the interviewing process. In chapter 7, Seidman writes about the “dark side” of sorting data. Many researchers experience self-doubt in their ability to sort out what is important. Seidman notes that the apprehension is something researchers should get used to and they must learn to affirm their own abilities (pgs. 117 -118). Knowing that self-doubt is a common issue for many qualitative researchers eased my own anxieties of sorting and analyzing the data from my interviews.

As I embarked on the task of sorting data I had many questions. The process seemed difficult for me to conceptualize. How do I actually sort the data? What does this process “look like?” I found the tangible example I needed of Wolcott’s Writing up qualitative research. This book provides strategies and approaches to writing up qualitative research. According to Wolcott, in chapter 3, the sorting was a literal process:

“One sat at the table (or on the floor) and physically sorted a stack of data ‘papers’ by putting them into smaller piles according to the categories that allowed a first run at the organizing task (pg.38).”

This strategy was exactly what I needed! This activity really helped simplify the process for me. While I am sure there are more efficient ways to sort data with the technology that is available - this activity helped me to conceptualize the sorting process and to get started.


An additional resource in my studies has been My freshman year: What a professor learned by becoming a student. The author, Rebekah Nathan (pseudonym name), is a university professor who goes “under-cover” as college student and conducts an ethnographic study to learn about the culture of today’s undergraduate freshmen. Reading the chapters and the afterward of this book brought up similar concerns I shared with Nathan. In chapters 6 – afterward, Nathan offers her findings, observations and lessons learned during the study. Nathan writes specifically in the afterward about ethical considerations and the representation of her data. Nathan’s ethical consideration of representing data is different from my own concerns because of the difference in our studies. Nathan conducted an ethnographic study while my study only had one participant and utilized a narrative approach.

My primary ethical concern is disclosing any information that would reveal my participant’s identity. An additional concern - Should I share any findings or provide any recommendations since the study was conducted at my home institution? Lastly, how do I retell the participant’s story in a way that best represents the participant’s voice? What do I include and what do I leave out? I want to make sure I represent the participant’s authentic voice and do justice to the person’s story and experience.

I am excited and nervous to continue onto the next part of this journey in my study. No matter the outcome, I am confident that I will learn a great deal more about the process of reducing text, sorting and analyzing data in a qualitative study. I look forward to any questions or comments…..


References:

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lopez, K. (2010). The experiences of a former foster youth at a four-year university. Unpublished [manuscript in preparation].

Nathan, R. (2005). My freshman year: What a professor learned by becoming a student. New York, NY: Cornell University Press.

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (3rd Ed). New York: Teachers College Press.

Wolcott, H.F. (2009). Writing up qualitative research (3rd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

I am not half....

I am not half of anything but I am full AFRICAN-ASIAN AMERICAN. I no longer choose to identify as half Black and half Filipino but rather claim MY FULL identity that embodies, embraces and celebrates my mixed hertiage. I would challenge any others with mixed heritage to make a shift in the way you self-identify. We are a whole people with full rights and privileges to both or multiple cultural groups. Blessings!

This is a picture of me and my beautiful, multi-ethnic daughter.

Friday, June 4, 2010

Summary and Reflection #1

Summary and Reflection #1
(Learning Log assignment #3 for HED 742)

Greetings!
Summary and Reflection
In chapter nine of Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches the author addresses issues of writing up qualitative research within the five approaches. According to Creswell, the issues one should consider when writing qualitative research include the audience, encoding for the audience, the use of quotes, and reflexivity and representation (p. 198).
As I began to read chapter nine, the issue that stood out to me was the discussion about reflexivity and representation of the writer. Creswell writes, “Qualitative researchers today are much more self-disclosing about their qualitative writings than they were a few years ago” (p. 178). I immediately noticed a strong connection with this issue of self-disclosure in my readings, It’s all about Jesus!: Faith as an oppositional collegiate subculture (an ethnographic study of an Evangelical student organization at a public university). This book was published last year and the authors do a significant amount of self-disclosure in the first few chapters, particularly in chapter three. Gross, who is the co-author, (2009, p. 40) states:

“Like Peshin, we realize that to casual readers, these stories appear to be about the SCC – its staff, its students, its programs, and its relationships with peers. Yet ultimately and unavoidably these stories and interpretations are about us – the researchers and authors. It is for this reason that we devote the remainder of this chapter to sharing our life stories. We share these stories not as self-indulgent but as a necessary prerequisite to understanding our meaning making.”
This idea of understanding the writers meaning making through disclosure aligns closely with my own epistemological philosophy. I hold a constructivism view about how knowledge and meaning are discovered which is subject to human construction through interactions with one’s environment. I agree that with qualitative research a writer’s self-disclosure is an important part of understanding how the researcher analyzes or “makes meaning” of the data. I also ascribe to the idea that the researcher and participates are both affected by the study. Both Magolda and Gross admit to a “self-discovery process” while conducting the research. I am interested to see how the researchers’ journey unfolds as they study this faith-based organization.

I had recently spoken with one of my professors and we were discussing why researchers study particular topics. One of my professors area of study has to do access and resiliency for under-represented groups in higher education. He told me that he has been accused of researching these kinds of topics because he is trying to “resolve his own issues.” To my surprise, he quickly accepted these accusations and owed them without shame or excuse. This was profound to me because if I really stop to think about the topics I study and the professional work I do, it directly or indirectly helps me to resolve my own issues. My assumption is that this phenomenon happens with most researchers whether they are cognizant of it or not.

So as I continue to read It’s all about Jesus!: Faith as an oppositional collegiate subculture and unfold the researchers’ journey, I wonder if it affirms or reconciles any of their personal faith beliefs or issues?
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Magolda, P. & Gross, K. E. (2009). It’s all about Jesus!: Faith as an oppositional collegiate subculture. Sterling, VA: Stylus.