How can you connect the disequilibrium you felt in class as
we developed research questions and played with the three paradigms to the
messiness of qualitative research that Cook discusses?
AND
What questions does reading Wolcott offer? He
describes three different processes—descriptive, interpretive, and
analytic. How are those useful to keep in mind when writing up
data?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCook (2009) explained the importance of disrupting traditional ways of thinking when she wrote,
ReplyDelete“When the general picture enjoyed by practitioners is punctured, and the articulation of the almost known becomes imperative, the ‘messy area’ provides the space for clarification of the already known (explicit knowledge) and what is nearly known (transformational knowledge” (p.282)
In class on Thursday night, we were all stricken when we realized it was 6:00 and we had spent nearly 1.5 hours participating in the messy space. As a result of the time spent, we began to develop new understandings that would serve as guide for creating and revising our research questions. In the beginning it was clear that we all wanted to stay in the safe area of what we already knew (explicit knowledge), but as the conversation continued and we ventured into what was nearly know (transformational knowledge) we knew we were getting closer to achieving our goal of developing a worthwhile qualitative research question. I was particularly interested when Julie brought up the point of asking who holds the power in the question. Does the researcher hold the power? Once I started to consider this new perspective the messiness of the qualitative perspective developed yet another new understanding for me as a researcher,
As I read the Wolcott article it was easiest for me to think back to my own qualitative study I completed in Pete’s class. As Julie mentioned, as a researcher I seem to want to see things through my own personal lends and remember my own experiences so I need to own that. I remember how I struggled with what Wolcott (1994) refers as the “dump truck” approach (p.15). I thought I have all this data, so I am going to put all of it in there. After a review with Pete Adamy I was able to go back and look at the details and ask myself the same question Wolcott is asking qualitative researchers to ask of themselves: “is this relevant to the account?” (p.15). Wolcott suggested that there is no magic formula for knowing what descriptive details to include, but he offered this advice: “make judgments in terms of sufficiency and to screen all description in those terms, and the data to be excluded as well as the data to be included” (p. 15).
Like Kristen, I appreciated the class exercise because it provided a messy area that was supported and safe. As I attempted to articulate my question, I found myself frustrated. I was banking on previous knowledge rather than exploring other phenomenon and possibilities.
DeleteAlthough Kristen believed her data collection in previous research was excessive, Wolcott’s comments about the data “dump truck” balanced by a selection process would be acceptable. I also thought about the abundance of data that Julie has collected and the wealth of information that might inform our inquiries.
Struggling in class to develop research questions with limited information regarding data connects us to the "messiness" of qualitative research, described by Cook (2009), because we were able to experience the uncertainty of the outcome. Through the qualitative research process, and in my experience in the class exercise, individuals can feel uncomfortable the answer is not straight forward. The answer lies within the process and how individuals make meaning of experience. I particularly appreciated Cook's description of "ways of seeing" through the lens of collaborative/participatory research in which she explains how capturing multiple perspectives is like a kaleidoscope. Like a kaleidoscope, multiple perspectives allow different views which can come together and create something new and unexpected (p. 282). Cook continues to describe "the messy turn" during which "participants had to let go of some their beliefs and understandings to make room for the new meanings revealed through collaborative critique and reflection on their actions" (p. 284). For me the messy turn, was the group allowing me to ask a simple question about a research question that had already been processed through. Through the group process, I was able to understand the evolution of and rational for the new question; thus, shedding new light on thinking behind how to ask qualitative research questions.
ReplyDeleteThe Walcott article (1994) offers the biggest question of how much data and what do with the data. He provides insight by both defining and describing strategies for the "three primary ingredients"(p. 51) of qualitative research: Description, Analysis and Interpretation. Walcott's guidance is useful for novice researchers because it provides a direction to support the researcher to think about the purpose of their research and make decisions about how to proceed in description, analysis and interpretation of that data.
Amy noted her messy turn in class during group discussion. I foresee more messiness for as long as I am involved in research. As long as messiness is recognized as a form of rigor, I can comfortably proceed with qualitative research.
DeleteHow can you connect the disequilibrium you felt in class as
ReplyDeletewe developed research questions and played with the three paradigms to the
messiness of qualitative research that Cook discusses?
I connected with Cook’s discussion of messiness particularly when considering the dangers of preconceived notions that result from many years of teaching and practicing. I have become uncomfortable with espoused theories that are not being adequately represented, questioned, and/or practiced. That was clear as I struggled with formulating research questions. I felt unable to articulate or verbalize intentions. I concur with the author regarding the role of messiness and the importance of articulating mess.
Cook (2009) describes the transition from implicit to explicit as linear whereas I see the two as recursive and perhaps more messy. Implicit knowledge, depending on events, turns explicit in a relatively short term reverting back to implicit knowledge. The messy turn is facilitated by contesting knowledge and therein lies a problem. I believe professionals become comfortable and ignorant of sociocultural events and become content with status quo.
For this reason, it is important the researcher, given these three paradigms, can question, critique, reflect, and engage problems. Messiness as a form of rigor is encouraging for the researcher who can frame actions from various perspectives/ methods. In class, I saw this type of discussion demonstrated in the fishbowl activity between Julie and Janet. It was reassuring that they responded with dialectic/dialogic ease when conversing about different perspectives.
What questions does reading Wolcott offer? He
describes three different processes—descriptive, interpretive, and
analytic. How are those useful to keep in mind when writing up
data?
Wolcott’s article will be a great reference as I write my dissertation. The advice and strategies were conveyed simply and metaphorically. For example the funnel approach as suggested by Agar (1980, p. 136) gives the reader a visual for progressive focusing. Wolcott’s tendency for sorting information in groups of three provided a consistent system for data/research. Definition of terms were compartmentalized in dichotomist fashion. For example, when distinguishing analysis and interpretation, he uses opposite qualitative descriptors.
His references and quotes of researchers were practical and simplistic in explanation. For example in the following statement he connects description with terms.
In ethnography …you learn something (‘collect some data), then you try to make sense out of it (“analysis”), then you go back and see if the interpretation makes sense in light of new experience (“collect more data”), then you refine your interpretation ( “more analysis”), and so on. The process is dialectic, not linear. (Agar, 1980, p. 9).
Throughout the article, there were clear cautions, comments, and advice. For example, “Do not be too singular. Do not be too academic” (Wolcott, 1994). According to Wolcott (1994), self- questioning and apprehension were reported as normal behaviors when exhibited by neophytes and doctoral students. This was comforting for the novice researcher. Wolcott (1994) emphasized the importance of collecting descriptive data, noting the “dump truck” metaphor. However the manner of sorting and funneling data is equally stressed. Also insightful were some of his comments about committee and major professor contributions. If for some reason, in defense of your dissertation, a member makes recommendations, Wolcott (1994) recommends recognizing the source of the contribution. This advice depicts his practicality, his openness, and directness. While he does report and confirm blurring between the lines of the research, he does provide many beneficial tips in navigating the process.
References
Cook,T. (2009). The purpose of mess in action research: building rigour through a messy turn.
Edcuational Action research, 17 (2). Pp. 227-291.
Wolcott, H. (1994) Transforming qualitative data. CA: Sage Publications
Patty, I agree with your insight about the Walcott Article. I, too, believe the information presented is useful to novice researchers as they delve into creating their research questions and then describing, analyzing and interpreting the data. Additionally, this document can support researchers with every level of experience as a way to organize their thoughts. Walcott (1994) demonstrates this when he describes his initial writing of this article and a colleague stops in his office and describes that analysis of her data is taking a long time. Walcott (1994) uses this experience as an opportunity to share with the reader a more restricted definition of the word analysis. In this definition, the coding and entering of data is separated from the analytical moments in which "bursts of insight" or patterns are discovered.
DeleteBy understanding and using the language of qualitative research, novice researchers and experienced researchers develop a common language that allows communication to be fluent.
I think of messiness as blurred boundaries. Messiness results when researchers are unable to fit their findings into the space provided by their methodologies. Do you stay faithful to their methodology or abandon it in favor of the “mess.” Cook suggests that ‘the mess’ yields richer results because it is unexplored or previously hidden terrain. Mess also results when researchers forgo objectivity and distance from his subjects in favor of interaction with them. They do so in the belief that “knowledge constructed without the active participation of practitioners can only partial knowledge (Somekh 2002, 90 as cited in Cook 2009, 287)
ReplyDeleteI can relate this to my experience in class. I found that the questions I posed were clarifying or procedural. I had to go back and rephrase my questions to better relate to what I assumed were the experiences of the participants, the student candidates. With that said, I think as researchers we enter into situations with our own questions that may or may not be relevant to the participants themselves. In doing so, we may fail to adequately capture the experience of the participants. The right questions yield far richer responses. Cook suggests that we are reliant on the participant to point us in the right direction.
What questions does Walcott offer? Wolcott strives to break down qualitative research into its component parts-the descriptive, the interpretive, and the analytic. He aims to provide novice researchers with an idea as to how to strike a balance between the three. My first impression was that he was suggesting that novice researchers rely more on description rather than the other two, but the final analogy about plant food suggests that the purpose of the research will determine the proper ratio of the three. My question would be how you arrive at such understanding? Are their research topics that lend themselves to certain ratios of these elements?
Agreed, the participants point us in the right direction. The insight of the participants in the research not only their voice to be heard, but the collective voices of all of the participates. Voice is the demonstrating or the action of communicating perspective which is the foundation of Cook's messiness. He places the value on messiness when he describes that through the process of multiple perspectives a change occurs in the participants. The participants are able to "let go of some of their beliefs and understanding to make room for the new meanings revealed" (p. 284). Thus, the value is the new insight gleaned in the process of discussion and the sharing of differing perspectives.
DeleteYes, researching/working in a collaborative manner would yield richer results. The messiness ensures full disclosure and full knowledge and no hiding.
DeletePaula, I too, appreciated the analogy of plant food ratio to DAI ratio in research. I am unsure of what is the right ratio. In my research design course, I had to learn about underlying issues as I pursued research. For this reason, I am guarded in forming research questions for CF Field Experience. I wonder if being a teacher there affords insight about inquiry.
I noticed your question "are there certain topics that lend themselves to certain ratios of these elements?" It seems almost assumed that different topics would require different levels of descriptive, interpretive, and analytic. Wolcott (1994) presented his proposal about the D-A-I formula with caution and admitted bias towards greater amount of descriptive and lesser amount of interpretive and analytic. I can understand now how it is important to recognize the process before setting out to review and write about the qualitative data collected. This became clear when I re-read what Wolcott 91994) wrote "The purpose of my analogy to the N-P-K formula is not to set us arguing over the optimum combination or minimum requirements for all qualitative inquiry but to recognize, for the intents and purposes of any particular study, how to direct one's efforts" (p.51). I am wondering where I should be directing my efforts over the next few weeks with my research question.
DeleteCook’s article resonated with me as she exemplified artists’ multiple viewpoints such as David Hockney, the Cubists, and Andy Goldsworthy.
ReplyDeleteCook(2009) stated, “Engaging with dialectical processes that genuinely prize apart familiar ideologies and facilitate the move from recognizing multiple interpretations to a critiques synthesis for reformed, committed action(praxis), is complex”(p.283), and I found interesting connection that those ‘complexity’ refers almost invariably to ‘design process’ in design field. Disturbing the equilibrium, engaging with different viewpoints, stepping outside everyday presuppositions (thinking outside the box), and challenging to current orthodoxies, led to uncertainty for the researchers (Cook, 2009, p.283). This is the ‘messy area’ Cook (2009) mentioned in her article that the communicative space for clarification of the already known (explicit knowledge) and what is nearly known (implicit or tacit knowledge) can offer ways into creativity and creation of something entirely new (transformational knowledge) (p.282). She posited, “ When new understandings are revealed, developed and articulated, this is the ‘messy turn’ (Cook, 2009, p.282).
Since I was very familiar with this messy area and messy turn, I realized that I have been doing action research as a designer. Through the group discussion, I was able to understand the evolution of research questions and how to generate the qualitative research questions from different paradigm perspectives. More importantly, there was realization of myself as a researcher.
Wolcott (1994) suggested that identifying and distinguishing among the three categories -description, analysis, and interpretation-may lead to a useful purpose of study and transformation of the observational data (p.10). These three ingredients of qualitative research are most effective when applied in purposive combination (p.50).
I found his purposeful distinction among the three useful for recognizing the intents and purposes of study, and for researchers to assay their own studies. Since I know my weakness lies in interpretation, I would like to ask myself that how I can reach the balance of the three and employ them properly (I will follow Wolcott’s strategies about ways to approach interpretation~!).
I agree the balance of three categories will be crucial. I suspect you have more skills in interpretation than you realize. As a creative person, I would think attention to detail would help you refine and fine tune previous analysis. In any case, other ways to interpret include obtaining advice/recommendations from doctoral committee members (Thank Goodness!!).
ReplyDelete.
I also agree that balance is crucial. You identified that you are familiar with messy area and the messy turn. Your familiarity with this process can give you confidence as you engage in the process. As a result, your interpretations will be created and validated by the perspectives that are considered and merged. Critical friends can also support you in the development of your understandings and interpretations.
ReplyDelete