Clarification on yesterday's blog

I feel compelled to clarify the last part of yesterday's post. In chapter 9 (Piantanida and Garman, 2009) Experiential text (example 9.1.1, page 107) is a text "written to capture a situational moment" This example seems to model what I would write in a paper from analyzing the text that I collected from my observations, interviews, and fieldnotes. I would want to put the reader in the moment and have the reader "see" the exchange and also feel the tension (if there was tension, or another emotion, or whatever the tone or feeling) of the moment. This type of writing for me is extremely natural and almost effortless. However, the theoretic interpretation (example 9.1.3, p.110) grounds the exchange in the literature by using citiations, and it also unpacks the exchange and explains the tensions and positionalities of the participants within the exchange. This type of writing, although extremely informative and highly academic, is something that I am striving for, as it is very difficult for me. I see the need for bringing the situational text to the theoretical. Making that connection is easier said than done. I was asking if we could present findings both ways. Can you mesh both experiential and theoretic interpretation without confusing the reader?

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Again, I am struggling seeing myself as a part of the discourse on more than one occasion. I am referring to going crazy with references and immersing myself in literature, and then I hear others (in my field) discuss this author or that author, and I think to myself, "Why don't I remember that person? Should I know that person? How can they remember all of that?! I have to think really hard to remember what I had for breakfast!" I am hoping that being a scholar means that you're able to search and find what you're looking for, but you don't have to know everything up front. If I can just take a moment, breathe, and focus on what I'm truly wanting to learn or know, things will come. I am also trying to talk to people, too. Being a Ph.D. student can be lonely, because the work itself is inherent to a somewhat 'hermit-like' existence--you in your office (cave),going through mounds of information, attached to your computer, and sealing yourself off from the world(BTW, NOT conducive to family life--just sayin'). However, I want to know what others are thinking, or who they've read, or how they've approached things. The only drawback to this is that I find myself then comparing myself, and sometimes feeling worse, as if I haven't done enough, or I'm not good enough, or smart enough, or I don't know enough. I can't say how much I love this book--so much of what is written speaks to me. Also, I truly found so much meaning in text v. data, and the types of writing. I don't have the book in front of me, so pardon my error, but when the examples of the theoretical text and the explanatory(?) text (example 9.1.1 I think) and example 9.3.1-it was as if one the theoretical writing unpacked the first example--I loved that. Can you do both? I mean, when you're writing? Although I find the example tied to the theory (seeming) extremely difficult to write (for me--the first example I could do in my sleep--to have authenticity the 'v' word--man! I am so sorry that I don't have my book (It's at the jiu-jitsu dojo where my son and husband practice--I am sincerely hoping my husband brings it home)) Regardless--so many questions--although the book clarifies and answers. This will be a "bible" for me this year and next. I will know most of it by heart. Thank you for finding it.

GRRR

“I found this dissertation to be one of the best I’ve read in a long time. I’m troubled by it, but I really liked it. It read almost like a novel in places. I really like it…but I’m troubled by the first person references. I tell my students, Never use ‘I’.” “A second committee member then said he found the writing to be refreshing, but that candidate was lucky to have committee members who were sympathetic to her approach. ‘Not all faculty,’ he added, ‘would be so understanding’”(Two faculty committee members’ comments in Piantida and Garman, 2009, p. 65). Grrr! Why should a doc candidate be “lucky that her members were sympathetic”? Why can’t some see that you can (and should) use “I”! This drives me insane. The main reason I have become drawn to qualitative research, particularly ethnographies, is because they do read like a novel and they are extremely accessible to scholars and non(?) scholars alike. They are informative, engaging, and allow the reader to draw his or her own conclusions to the findings (if indeed that would be what they would be called). It is unfair to the researcher if the committee members aren’t familiar with the various forms that qualitative research can take. I have likened the idea of ‘justification’ as covered in Ch. 5 to the split of the Catholic Church in 1066. In short, Catholic Priests felt that they were elite and they should be the only ones able to read the bible, and talk to God. Orthodox priests believed that everyone should be allowed to read the bible and talk to God. In academia, I feel that there are people in the proverbial ivory tower that believe only scholars should be able to discuss research and write in a language set to archaic rules and standards (I think of quantitative researchers—using my own background and experience). Outsiders need not apply—they’d never understand it. However, others (in this case, I default to qualitative researchers) realize that there are many ways to find out “truths” (not “T” truth, if you’re a constructivist) and many ways to observe and explain what they make of things. This is accessible to all—scholars and laymen alike. Someone said, “If you can’t explain your work to your mom, you don’t know what you’re doing.” Why can’t I have a well-informed, well-written, involved piece that my mom could read (and understand) AND be “valid research” to the elite scholars?! It shouldn’t have to be one or the other.

THE DISSERTATION

‘Validated’ is the most appropriate word to describe my feelings after reading the first four chapters of Piantanida & Garman (2009). I love how the authors put “THE DISSERTATION” all in caps—that’s how I’ve been seeing it since the beginning of my coursework. I have also encountered some of the people that are described that may hinder your thought process without even realizing it. I have a few friends that never attended college, so it is impossible to explain what this journey entails, and why I call it a journey. It is multifaceted and complex, and a rollercoaster of emotions on a daily (sometimes hourly) basis. I take solace in the fact that the more I learn the less I know, and that there is not one way to define qualitative research—that is only an affirmation of my thoughts and experiences. I am pleasantly surprised by this text, because I wasn’t expecting to identify with the content as soon as I read the first page. I am also glad to see that it is important to notice where you are getting support and opposition, as I have noticed this, but I thought that I should just handle things, regardless. The one thing that resonates with me the most thus far is the woman who got qualitative research books from her peers. “I was certain that the study group had taken up a collection in an attempt to educate such an unsophisticated, unscholarly elementary school teacher as myself. I was so disturbed by the image that I sat on the floor of my bedroom closet and wept” (Recounted in Richards, 2006, p. 25, as in Piantanida and Garman (2009), p. 33). That has been my feeling since last semester. I truly thought that I knew what I was doing, and as a practitioner, I am experienced. As a researcher, I am a novice, and I proceed with trepidation and uncertainty. This is quite unlike me, as I liken myself to the composite character who “dives in” Piantanida and Garman (2009). My identity is shifting and morphing; I don’t know who I am right now. This is new. I’ve always known who I was, how I defined myself, and where I fit in. I am navigating entirely new spaces, and it is not always comfortable.

REED 529

Work smarter, not harder, right? I am going to dedicate this posting to my REED 529 course. If you feel like reading my entire profile, please do, though I think everything that you would care to know is directly on my sidebar. I am enrolled in REED 529 because emergent literacy is something I need to understand further, although I've got two kids of my own, and I have seen them develop their reading skills, it's not like I documented or studied that. I will be applying the theories I learn in this course to L2 (second language learners) in order to further understand how emergent literacy can work with not only young children, but anyone learning a new language.

full circle?

So, interestingly enough I am using the same blogger site that I started in my first semester of coursework as a Master's student at UT. I was told that I would use it,and--looky here! I'm using it--ha! I'm really anxious and I am glad I have so many brilliant people in this class. I've read all profiles (posted on online@UT) up to today, and right now, I will admit, I am feeling inferior to say the least. I guess I should go ahead and post my blogspot address, huh? Looking forward to this semester (I think).