Research Journal/Thoughts on Methodology

I empathize with Watt (2007) as I read her piece on keeping a research journal. What is comforting (not sure if that's the word I want, but it will do at this hour) is that she states many of the things that I can align with such as not having one "right" way to do qualitative research, using one's self as the tool for measurement, and it's not as important to "triangulate" the data, but rather "crystallize" the data. I explained that to my chair very early on when we were talking about "validity" (I prefer rigor--can I become picky with words at this point?) and she wasn't quite following me. I tried to explain that the findings and the experience is so detailed and described, that you "show" what you want others to see, that there's more than three sides to the story-it's like a brilliantly-cut gem. Unfortunately, this still wasn't coming across clearly, but I'm still "allowed" to do a qualitative study, so, we shall see. I have found that I do somewhat keep a "research journal", but it's in my observations or fieldnotes.  When I am writing, if something comes to me, I will use brackets, a star, or even write "for  me" and circle--and write ideas that look very similar to what is in Watt's article.
I have heard that it's a good idea to keep a research journal, and I probably should, but I can't control when things come into my head, and if I'm working on my projects, then of course, I will write things down.  Maybe I should consider writing everything all of the time.  Watt stated that "you're always thinking about it", which couldn't be truer.  Then, as a sidenote, how do these separate pieces work in Atlas?  That's for later, certainly.

On the side of my project, I've decided that I don't align with LeCompte and Schensul.  They had charts, graphs, and used "validity"...that's not my style.  I am hoping to see what "color" I will ultimately choose for my methodology/ist....

Fieldnotes do capture what happened, right?

Now we focus on the fieldnotes and the many facets of transcription and meaning (or constructing). Hammersley (2010) is thorough in his description about how easily fieldnotes could be misinterpreted, or even "constructed" as if that is only what took place in the observer's mind, and the events aren't truly what happened (Denzen, 2005?) However one wants to examine it, it can be daunting for a novice researcher such as myself. In my view, I realize that my presence alone will alter the events taking place, and people observing me writing the entire time I'm in a room with them will of course influence their actions, consciously or sub-consciously. I was murky on the idea of your fieldnotes possibly being constructed or created, as if the events did not happen in the way the researcher reports. Yes, you choose what pieces to add, and you choose what to get out of the "data", and you are the instrument of measurement, but labeling those events as practically ficticious? I disagree. However, I do believe that the other points Hammersley makes are valid, especially asking the questions such as, "Where do you start when reporting the findings in the data?", "How do you transcribe in order to capture what happened?" Hammersley takes fieldnotes as deep as last week's authors discussed the nuances of interview transcription. Of course, I see the connection, but I am extremely inexperienced, and it makes me second-guess my techniques of interviewing and taking field notes even more. I try my best to be thorough and thoughtful in my transcription and note-taking, and I try to take many things into account (the space, the actions of the people, my own feelings within that space, etc.). I have not yet used an audio or video recorder for fieldwork. I think that using those pieces are more invasive than writing in a notebook or on a legal pad, because people know that digital technology captures everything, whereas a person can't. Although I truly believe that my presence alters the environment, and I am forward with that in my fieldnotes, adding technology alters it further. I suppose, though, if you state that in your work, then you account for things you record and collect in the data. This week, I'm brining in typed up fieldnotes of one of my observations in my so-called "pilot study" that has not gone nearly as far as I'd hoped for this time of the semester. I am curious to see what my notes will bring, now that we've read this piece. I am also curious to see how different my fieldnotes are from those in my group, since we all have various levels of experience with fieldnotes.

The problem with interviews

We've discussed in class that you influence the research, and you are biased as a researcher, but if you're telling about that bias, then you've done what's expected. Interviewing is no different. From how we select our participants to the questions we ask, Potter and Hepburn (2012)discuss that we're not telling enough either to the participants or in the responses we get when we transcribe the interview. What resonates with me is the transcription of the interview. Although I've never seen the Jeffersonian method of transcription, I could understand the most part how it gave the reader the space between words, the stress of the word, and the rising (or lowering) of pitch. I wasn't taught how to transcribe, but what I do try to do is put every pause, every utterance from me (as an 'um hmmm') and what the participant is doing physically at the time. When I do interview someone,I agree that things could be easily misconstrued if not written down thoroughly, so I have an audio recording, but at the same time, I will time stamp and write the things I see the interviewee doing, such as wringing their hands, looking away from my direct gaze, nervously playing with hair, etc. Those notes are along side of me when I transcribe. I also have a stake and interest with my interviewees and often have an "oh-prefaced agreement" (Potter and Hepburn, 2012), which may allow more participation from my interviewee. So far, I've only interviewed teachers and principals, and since I was a teacher for a long time, I am not only sympathetic but empathetic to a fellow teacher if I'm asking them questions about their work. I appreciate what Potter and Hepburn say, but I am concerned about being able to do each and every thing that is discussed in my own research at this point. I wonder how researchers that have been in the field and have far greater experience than I feel about this piece. As far as the project, I'm reading my second book, this one by LeCompte and Schensul as part of the "Ethnographer's Toolkit". I am appreciating this work. In class, I had asked how do you know which "person" to follow, and we said that you read and find out what you like, and pick one. I then equated it to choosing a paint color, which sounded quite vapid to everyone, I'm sure. I should have qualified that statement with how important paint color is to me, and I am currently painting various rooms in my house. I agonize over color choice, much as I have been agonizing which methodologist in ethnography to follow. I am finding that what I'm reading is similar (much like two shades of paint within the same color)and I can't make a decision just yet. With paint, the sample colors stay taped to the wall, next to one another for weeks (sometimes months) until I just pick one. What's great is that once the paint is on the wall, I am happy with it, and I don't focus on the one not chosen. I am guessing that this is the same experience I will have when aligning myself with a methodologist in ethnography.