Wheels turn, but I always find myself behind

While I posted last night on narrative analysis, I thought I would also update with a note on phenomenology.  I did read the section on phenomenology in Madison's book (2005) this weekend, and I didn't find any spots of contention.  Indeed, I agree "the perceiver determines meaning, and therefore it is human perception, not external influences or objects of the material world, that is at the core of our analysis" (p. 57). While I do believe there is a tree out there no matter how or if we perceive it, our reality is in some part constructed by an interaction of our own minds and what is out there (Grbich, 2013).  I believe this is called constructivism.  I further cannot disagree that "subjectivity is historically produced within different contexts" (p. 61).  That is, there are no two people on earth with a history of identical experiences, and so we vary in our perceptions. However, I tend to think that the degree of similarity in our experiences influences our similarity and difference to one another.  Thus, I don't have a problem with the composit experiences some phenomenological researchers have generated (Moustakas, 1994). 

Further, Lacan (as cited in Madison, 2005) does make sense in asserting that language colors our experiences.  I do agree to a large extent, but I feel there are some things that can be communicated without language.  Maybe I'm a little murky on this, and I really would like to avoid this study of language or picking apart words that some people incorporate into their research.

Also, today I began looking at Moustakas (1994) and read through the first chapter.  Some things were familiar, but I paid particular attention to what Moustakas refers to as empirical phenomenological research and heuristic research.  This empirical phenomenology seems simple enough: read to get an overall sense of things, and then read more carefully for meaning to surface. Further, I was interested in heuristic phenomenology, and I am not writing it off.  I like that the researcher does not have to distance his or herself from the research, and I do like that various artifacts may be included in addition to interviews.  I became concerned, however, when I saw the word narratives. But now I gather narrative accounts do not necessarily necessitate narrative analysis.  Please clarify.

Finally, I regret that I am just now beginning to read the dissertation you suggested, but it does look like it will be the most helpful of all.  I see that the researcher will marry phenomenology and critical theory by studying experiences of rape in hopes of contributing to critical awareness.  A similar approach does sound like a plausible direction for the dissertation areas I'm considering.

Grbich, C. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

          

Madison, S. D. (2005). Critical ethnography: Method, ethics, and performance. Thousand Oaks,   Sage.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Not Embracing Narrative Inquiry

So the hunt for my preferred method ensues, and I am still leaning towards phenomenology.  I am now pretty sure I will not favor narrative inquiry for my preferred analysis.  This is going to be quite critical, but I get the impression narrative inquiry, particularly the sociolinguistic approach (Grbich, 2013), is lost in its own technique. It seems that Labov (1972) and Reissman’s (1993) approaches are of this vein, and I question the fruitfulness of applying narrative inquiry to the study of the narratives of ordinary people.  For instance, “. . . recapitulating past experience by matching a verbal sequence of clauses to the sequence of events which (it is inferred) actually occurred” (Labov, pp.359-360) seems rather unnecessary.  However, I imagine this quintessential “reading between the lines” is entirely appropriate for examining secreted genius of great authors. 

Moreover, Reissman (1993) does anticipate my criticism in stating narrative inquiry “is not suitable for investigators who seek an easy and unobstructed view of subjects’ lives” (p. 69).  But again, I doubt the necessity of the approach.  Perhaps, though, I will soften towards narrative inquiry.  This is just my initial impression.

Moustakas’ book arrived yesterday, and I hope to begin looking at it later tonight or tomorrow and examining the other material you thoughtfully recommended.

Grbich, C.  (2013). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Labov, W. (1972). Language and the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.

Riessman, C. K. (1993) Narrative analysis.Qualitative Research Methods Series, No. 30. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Phenomenology

Being so political I had wanted to focus on critical ethnography, but now I think I must switch. That is, I realize that I am not going to undertake a considerable number of observations and/or interviews in my dissertation.  It’s possible I might return to critical ethnography at some point, but not at this time. 

After completing the readings on phenomenology, which I have completed over two weeks, while I am not in love with the approach, I think it is the most palpable of the alternatives… Or really, I am not sure what to do.  I am very political and don’t want to set that aside. However, Valle and Halling (1989) state, “phenomenological research emphasizes approaching the topic afresh without preconceived notions about what one will find in the investigation (p. 47). Also, as I mentioned last week,  I am not keen on the practice in phenomenology of avoiding subsequent questions, redirecting, or asking spontaneous questions that might actually be good. I just want to collect experiences to the extent that they support my agenda.  Perhaps this is not permissible in a dissertation.  The dissertation writing text arrived today, but I have not been able to look at it yet.

 As for our group project, I am slowly reading the ethnography and enjoying its undertones concerning power.

Maybe Getting Going Now

This week I have been thinking towards an individual project proposal.  Thus, far I have been concerned with familiarizing myself with diverse methodologies, attempting to determine what I prefer.  Drawing from various sources and my understanding of those sources, I outline what I consider pros and cons of each.

Phenomenology

I love that the approach attempts to capture the essence of common experience between interviewees.  I also like that the researchers, at least in one study (Mottern, Davis, & Ziegler, 2013) bracketed out their personal feelings.  Yet, when I consider cons of this approach, at least that of the Hermeneutic approach of the authors, I do not like that researchers may not ask subsequent questions, unless they flow naturally from the course the interviewee takes in providing his or her descriptions.  I do understand that this method seeks to avoid corruption of the essence of the interviewees perspective, but I am at odds with the fact that great information might never come to light without interviewer directed changes in the course of interviews. 

Also, I think it is good to bracket out one’s perspective in doing research, but I don’t think any amount of bracketing will ever result in sterilization of researcher bias.  I see this bracketing as being more useful to inform readers of biases of the interviewer than anything else, and this transparency is useful.

Prior to reading the study by Mottern, Davis, and Ziegler (2013), I read a related chapter in Grbich (2013), and simply based on the chapter, I was most drawn to Heuristic phenomenology.  I would like to investigate what this approach looks like, as I am drawn to what reads like possibly an equal emphasis of the perceptions of the researchers and the perceptions of other subjects.  I like this because it sounds like this approach welcomes the perspectives of the researcher as an integral component of the study.

Critical Ethnography

I do not think I have read a critical ethnography, but I am intrigued by the activist role in the method.  While I might actually abandon an approach like this in the end for privacy reasons and fall back on something like phenomenology, I find it difficult to separate passion from my study.   I am concerned with power issues.  That is, I do not find it necessary to start from the ground and work up as in grounded theory.  That is not the point.  Also, advocacy is honestly more important to me than the essence of experience, though I know one cannot conduct a study without doing some research into subjects or phenomena.

Also, I have read briefly of postcritical ethnography.  This sounds a little like phenomenology in terms of the researcher acknowledging his or her bias???

Autoethnography

I would love to do this, but I know it would be total narcissism and potentially a fast track to disaster.  I also don’t want to reveal that much about myself.

Grounded Theory

Since I’m probably going to take up a study I’m passionate about, it is difficult for me to see myself beginning for the position of not knowing anything.

Feminism and Intersectionality

To me this just seems like critical ethnography from the perspective of feminism or some intersectionality of positions.  This sounds good to me.

In summation, I feel as though I am leaning towards critical ethnography, but I am not sure.  I need to complete further reading.  I have ordered two books on critical ethnography, and I have ordered the book on writing a qualitative dissertation that you recommended, though I ordered the late 1990s edition.  In total these book together were less than $12, and that includes shipping.  Therefore, if I change my mind, there will not really be a consequence.  I would like to propose an investigation of two or three of these approaches for my literature review.  That is what I think would be beneficial for me at this point.  Then, engaging in this investigation and bibliography building would lead me to a preferred method that I would use in the coding phase of the project.

Grbich, C.  (2013). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Madison, S. D. (2005). Critical ethnography: Method, ethics, and performance.  Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/4957_Madison_I_Proof_Chapter_1.pdf

Mottern, R., Davis, C. A., & Ziegler (2013). Forced to learn: Community-based correctional education. Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice and Criminology, 1(2), pp. 317-346.

Methods Trouble

I am disappointed with my own progress this week.  I feel like I am stuck methodologically because I have not established a dissertation topic.  That is, because I do not know what I want to pursue for my dissertation, I feel paralyzed to choose a course of action in an independent project for this course.  I feel like I need to firmly establish a lens before I pick methodology. But I guess a good umbrella for my theoretical interests is critical social theory.  

As for the readings, Kleinman (2007) resonated with me in two major ways.  For one, Kleinman, wrote ‘We’re all in this together . . . might mask, deflect from, or compensate for inequalities” (p. 24), and I think it definitely does.  It angers me when bosses who make double what I do with less education make such statements.  What is more, this for me does not reflect a gender issue.  Rather, as half or more of the bosses I have ever had have been women, this is simply a power issue for me.  

Yet, Kleinman (2007) also resonated with me through gender, as she found the female workers at Renewal held the other women to higher standards of care and compassion than they did the men.  Yet, I find this is typical, and it is one thing I do not like about education.  Because we are a female dominated occupation, we are held to high standards of compassion.  That is, we are supposed to be like mothers (something I will likely never be biologically).  Yet, before the latter 1800s education was nothing like this. Education was a male dominated field (Hoffman, 2003).  I wonder what education would be like now if it had not evolved into a female dominated/care profession. I think education would have been different, but who is to say it would have been worse?

At any rate, I realize I must struggle to avoid a narcissistic trap.  I think that whatever I ultimately choose for my dissertation, it will be heavily influenced by my own experiences. Moreover, my passion does stem from the injustices I have felt.  However, I do think I am one of many, and I don’t find many champions for teachers.  I suppose I am acknowledging an interest in some auto ethnographic element, but I am also interested in critical ethnography.  Yet, I also have an interest in just writing.

Over the summer I did read Richardson’s chapter, entitled Writing: A Method of inquiry in Denzin and Lincoln (2003), but I guess what I was hoping to find was more structure for someone interested in writing a book.  For instance, I had in mind theoretical works such as those of Henry Giroux, and indeed I largely got the impression from professors that I should just imitate books of scholars.  I guess there is not as much literature on writing as method because this approach to method is not a complex concept.  Yet, with this conclusion I had little to say about method in my draft research proposal.  I just feel like something is missing. 

Also, I am concerned about Richardson’s statement, “I write in order to learn something that I did not know before I wrote it” (2003, p. 501).  I am not about to write anything important before I have an outline.  Richardson’s point is that writing with a plan is a methodological construct of modern convention, and that outlines inhibit her creativity.  To that I say, I have just as much right to want as plan as she does to reject one for creativity’s sake.

Hoffman, N. (2003). Woman’s “true” profession: Voices from the History of Teaching. Cambridge:     Harvard Education Press.

Kleinman, S. (2007). Feminist fieldwork analysis. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. (This is an incomplete citation).

Richardson, L. (2003). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N.K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),     The landscape if qualitative research: Theories and issues (2^nd ed.) (pp. 499-541). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.