As much as it has been a relief to hand in my draft report, it has also been slightly terrifying. I’ve been trying to reassure myself that the submission is JUST a DRAFT and that it doesn’t need to be 'perfect'. (Thank goodness as I’m sure my work is anything BUT). I do think this is an instance where an external eye will be incredibly beneficial in refining my work. I’ve always found it extraordinary when I a couple of days later I re-read something I've scribed. I'm often baffled at how non-sensical certain paragraphs are. What was I thinking?! So hopefully with an outside eye, those sections of obscurity will be highlighted!
Speaking of ‘outside perspectives’, it was great to emerge from my own insular cave to join the past couple of Skype sessions. The Friday discussion was titled ‘What if you can’t interview anyone?’, which on the surface seemed quite irrelevant at this stage in time, after data collection has been sufficiently completed. But Adesola explained that the focus of the dialogue was in relation to the ingredients for our analysis. Similarly the Module 1 Skype call was centred around the synthesis of information through reflection. Ultimately, the ‘coming together’ of themes, the recognition of patterns, and how to deduct a mass of information into something which resembles significance.
A common trap it seems many of us has fallen into is that of abundance. Unlike quantitive data, qualitative data has the exploratory nature which invites complexity, ambiguity and discovery. The study of concept, relationships and human behaviour is less tangible than a numerical entity, which merely adds expanse to the web of information. In other words, there will ALWAYS be more questions to ask. There will forever be different facets of information, and varying paths to go down. (Probably why I ended up initially writing double the word count.)
So how does one know when to STOP? How can a researcher use process of elimination to reign in on what they constitute as important?
- One message Adesola conveyed to me in a 1-1 tutorial is that the report which is handed it will always be in the ‘present’. Infinitely, it will only be relevant to that time and that moment. This arose from the discussion that although the literature review preceded the interview stage, the interview stage then triggered the need to source more literature and so on. The process is not linear. It is not cumulative. It is not chronological. As Weiss (1994) explains,
“The phases of work in qualitative research overlap and are intermeshed. Analysis of early data contributes to new emphases in interviewing, and the new data collected by the modified interviewing then produces new analyses." (p. 14)
Therefore, the hypothesis will not be answered and this was never the goal anyway. Rather the report will be a cross section of discovery. The final product should indicate the learning acquired through embarking on an inquiry, whilst initiating further threads of interest.
2) In the Monday Skype discussion, a student from module 1 described how they refined their practice into 6 key areas. They managed this by taking a day in their own life and questioning what practically that specifically entailed. On the surface this approach sounds quite simple, but I admire the novelty of being able to take a step back, question what the ‘question’ is, and not get too bogged down by patterns and complexity. Transferring this attitude to Module 3 is much like the action of always referring back to the initial inquiry question. What is it I want to find out?? It doesn’t have to be as intricate as I anticipate.
3) Owning it. A key take away point from the Module 1 call. We had a great conference around the ethics of training, which conveniently is topical to my inquiry. I felt humbled by the honesty from all my peers, who authentically described introversion as a barrier and echoed their lack of confidence from years of punitive training. I shared a quote from Michael Foucalt who described dance training as the manipulation of docile bodies, linking the idea of discipline with a practiced, puppet like subservience. (1979, p. 138)
Despite being told a body is ‘wrong for dance’, Adesola described a shift in perspective to owning one’s practice. Perhaps it isn’t about dancing for the approval of someone else? An attitude which is so intertwined in the profession. But holding that dance identity to strengthen oneself was a very empowering stance- one which is certainly challenging to attain.
This made me reflect on how I often approach my studies, and subsequently my analysis. Asking myself questions such as:
“What if they think my themes are rubbish?” “Am I missing the point?” “Do I sound academic enough?” “Will the modulators suss me out and see that I’m one huge fraudulent imposter?”.
I’m not quite sure what these critical questions are trying to achieve, but they all have the underlying aura of the need for approval. Even in the draft submission, I can sense the craving for “Yes, that’s correct”. But the need for approval from others just creates further insecurities, as external validation cannot be relied upon.
So time and time again, I have to remind myself of the purpose. I have to OWN MY inquiry. The path I take into research will be very different from someone else who may be trying to answer the same inquiry question. What appears relevant to me, will seem inconsequential to another. That doesn’t make it right or wrong.
Patton (2002) explains this individualised analysis process well; Explaining how one must be open to new discoveries. Patton uses terms such as engaging in “mental excursions”, “side-tracking” or “zigzagging,” connecting the seemingly unconnected. (p. 544). In effect, it’s PLAYING with the data. Which also links back to the encouraged approach for our Skype discussions. (Playing with the information with an air of curiosity. No rights and wrongs, yes and knows, agreeing or disagreeing. Like verbal improv!)
I came across a fairly useful analogy which I will share, especially for those learners who are more visually inclined. The metaphor is that of a kaleidoscope (Dye, Schatz, Rosenberg, & Coleman, 2000) and it’s quite useful when thinking about the stages of analysis. If you imagine a hologram pattern, comprising of multiple shapes which are arranged into a sporadic pattern. The task is then to distinguish the different shapes into sub-piles which are further refined. The coloured glass is the raw data and the angled mirrors are the categories. The flat plates are the overarching group. Here is an example of the diagram below:
SO where do I go now? In conclusion, I strive to take the mentality of individual approach (much like analysis as an individual journey)into the creation of my artefact. Perhaps an easier endeavour as I am ‘given the permission’ to use my creative license. There is less preconceived expectation of right and wrong, and hopefully I can do my best to ‘own it’. Even as I type that, I'm far from convincing myself 😅
I’d best get filming! No doubt I will report back soon (knee deep in corrections probably!)
References
Dye, J. F., Schatz, I. M., Rosenberg, B. A., & Coleman, S. (2000,January).Constantcomparisonmethod:Akaleido- scope of data. The Qualitative Report, 4(1/2). Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR
Foucault M (1979) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York:
Penguin Books.
Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd Sage Publications; Thousand Oaks, CA: 2002. [Google Scholar]
No comments:
Post a Comment