One of these things is not like the other ones...

After reading Lester's (2010) methodology section of her dissertation proposal, it was evident that she had access to the Kilbourne (2006) rubric for scoring the lit review. I do believe that we discussed that in class last week, that she (Lester) had it "next to her" when writing. She scores highly on all aspects (all 3s). This is extremely well-written, carefully constructed work. I know we've discussed that there are going to be those of us with "good" dissertations and those of us who will have "great" dissertations. Although I believe all of us want to be "great", personally, at this moment in my existence in this program,space, and mental capacity, I may be okay with just being "good". It states in Lester's proposal that she spent two years gathering, organizing, sorting, discarding, and synthesizing literature. This dedication and knowledge of topic clearly is advantageous in dissertation writing (Certainly in proposal writing). From a personal standpoint, I am unable to know exactly what my topic will be, as I am not going to get through my initial study that was to inform me of my dissertation topic and research questions. I will be working on my comps in the summer. I will have a proposal in the early Fall semester--this gives me quite a bit less time to gather relevant pieces of literature that will be as thorough as one who has been able to spend two years on the same task. I am not complaining (though it does sound like it). I guess I am justifying to myself why being "good" is okay. I've never truly done anything of low quality in my entire school career, save this semester. I am very glad to have other dissertations to use as reference points or models, but this is one that I feel may be out of my reach. Although at this point, I may be selling myself short, as my self-efficacy is at an all-time low, and my retention and attention span is equatable to that of a gnat. Regardless, I do have a question regarding the type of qualitative dissertation one writes. None of them will look the same. I have read quite a few ethnographies, and they do not have the same discourse as the dissertation read to compare to the Kilbourne (2006) rubric. I do need to find an ethnographic dissertation (or two) and look at Kilbourne's(2006) rubric against that lit review and see what I come up with. Lester's (2010) dissertation proposal is the perfect example of how different qualitative research is and the many forms it takes. My dissertation will be qualitative as well, but it will look nothing like this, nor will my proposal. I was impressed by her positionality statement. She does well academically defining her positionality, and that type of rhetoric is what I am longing to attain. On that note of attainment--I am sad to say that I have barely gotten through one of the 7 methodology books for my own research and for our workshop circle tomorrow night. I read, Ethnography for Education(Pole & Morrison, 2003) and I found it straightforward, accessible and a possible "keeper" in my quest to find the "top 5" of ethnography methodology and methods. I will have a brief summary and reflection for my group and the book will be on hand for further examination.

Lit Review and progress

Although I concur that (in my experience) writing a lit review is 'not the main focus', or 'less important' than the research (or outcomes) itself, I do believe your epistomology, ontology, and axiology will certainly determine the 'quality' or even the 'type' of lit review you produce as a researcher or a scholar. I use the word "or" to distinctly separate the two, which Boote and Biele (2005)do so well. So very true that education is so extremely "messy and complicated" (Boote and Biele, 2005), but so are the researchers and their studies. With so many ways to contribute to the field of your specialization, it almost seems impossible to determine what is "good". The rubric used by the authors seems to be in line with my perceptions of a lit review should be (still I will find it difficult to construct)but what of the alternative dissertations discussed earlier? What I found most interesting (and a possible sticking point) of the article is that some dissertation lit reviews conducted in their (small) study "...were mere disjointed summaries of a haphazard collection of literature" (Boote and Biele, 2005). This I find hard to believe--is it ignorance (which was a point mentioned by the faculty, librarians, and the doctoral students on retreiving information) or 'doing it to have it done because it must be done?', or, was it just that author's point of view and how s/he saw that the literature pertained to his/her study and contribution to the field? Then it becomes a question we've already discussed--when do you stop reading (finding, searching, collecting) and start writing? Were these "bad" lit reviews due to the person not reading enough? Or not the right things? Or did they ask the librarian and take only that person's word? We won't ever know, but it seems strange to me that anyone that earns their degree would have mumbo-jumbo in the lit review. On that note, for my work thus far, I have found 7 books on ethnography in order to steep myself in the literature of my chosen (and at this point preferred) methodology. I am just starting to read them, and I should have a lit review of a few of these for my group by the next workshop-maybe I will use the rubric in the Boote and Biele article to rate my own--or have my group members do this--maybe not--we will see how the discussion goes tomorrow. I will also have at least one observation (going there in the morning) and plan to have that on the table too. We have decided to read a piece that uses case study as a methodology, which is Journey's methodology, but Ann and I are using ethnography, so they will certainly overlap. We are all focused on methodology and methods more heavily than data collection, so this will be great for us.

So, you got an IRB? Now what?

I truly thought that by now (it's February) I would be deep within my data collection. Wow. Was I wrong. First of all, how am I going to collect data when I'm not strong in my methodology? That doesn't even make sense--now. It doesn't make sense to go out and take extensive fieldnotes, interviews, observations, if you don't know what to make of them, or you don't get what your methodology recommends, now does it? Now that I've narrowed my focus, I feel better. Focusing on methodology and methods and only doing a couple of observations (and transcribing those fieldnotes) seems much more logical. Am I upset that I have an IRB? Absolutely not. Am I feeling ridiculously underprepared for what data collection and analyzing text really means? You bet. On another note, it's been a fight to get into the classrooms. It's "open season" for testing--and you just can't get in! I knew there were multitudes of tests, but I didn't realize that there were so many at every grade level. Frustrating. I will have to remember this next year when I'm writing "THE DISSERTATION" (Thanks, P&G) :)

ATLAS.ti :) and paradigm shift

I am extremely excited about ATLAS.ti. This is a rare feeling for me, being excited about a data analysis program. My extremely limited and hectic approach to SPSS in my stats 577 class was a web of unknown actions, performing analyses that I would never want to understand. Every time I opened SPSS, I felt a lump in my throat, and a cold sweat would wash over me. Not so with this program. As soon as I started to work on it, it is something that seems much more user-friendly, and the way to code data and add notes makes sense. I realize that what I know about this program could not fill a thimble, yet I already feel worlds better opening and trying things. I am so very pleased (and relieved). I feel fortunate to have the ability to work with this data analysis program in a classroom, so that I can use it and have support. When I get to my dissertation, I believe this will work extremely well. On another note, regarding the dissertation and the approach, I must say the drafts of "pam's attempts at framing a practice-based study" (Exemplar 11.3, pgs 143-146) were very helpful. The mapping helps me "see" the evolution of her thought process. It is concrete examples such as this that model the process of how to frame an interpretive dissertation proposal. I fear that I am not framing my questions correctly in my study--that I'm being that student discussed when she states, "there aren't any concrete findings"--where I should be saying, "why should there be concrete findings?" I am having trouble shifting paradigms. I want to conduct research in a constructivist way, but I don't know if I'm there in the way I pose questions or go about conducting observations. To follow on that--the idea of discursive text v. literature review, I wrote on a post-it, "I want to be like this. When/how do I get there? Don't want to "prove" just want to know/watch/see". Needless to say, this text will get many re-reads. It may be completely falling apart by the end of my dissertation.