Gallagher, Kathleen. (Ed.). (2008). London and New York: Routledge.
Introduction (pp. 1-8)
Gallagher takes a constructionist perspective, writing, "Through our research and the choices we make, we imagine the world in ever more complex and interesting ways and re-commit ourselves to our intellectual and political projects. But we also risk our comfortable norms and truth claims each time we seek understanding" (pp. 1-2).
In the same vein, she argues that "researchers can mobilize theory [sic], in creative ways, to think through the 'pragmatics' of method" (p. 2). Thus she calls for unfettering our imagination for creative methods.
The Art of Methodology: A Collaborative Science (pp 67-81)
Gallagher proposes participatory research methods as a dialectical exchange between science and art. She argues that such exchange is indispensable in social sciences and humanities research, insinuating a potential for research that is politically engaged as well as pedagogically useful.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Visual Research Methods: Where Are We and Where Are We Going?
Holm, Gunilla. (2008). In Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber & Patricial Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of Emergent Methods (pp. 325-341). New York and London: Guilford Press.
Holm pays attention to visual ethnography, action research, and photovoice as recent fields of visual methods. As of visual ethnography, Holm attunes, in particular, to Pink’s argument that reflexivity and intersubjective relationship between researcher and informants are critical to creating “negotiated versions of reality” (2005, p. 20). Holm also observes that recent visual ethnographical research takes on participatory action research by distributing photo cameras, for instance, to research participants. Holm remarks that photovoice, based on this technique, has not been widely used in education, anthropology or sociology, due to the nature of documentary and action research. Holm also notes that there were similar projects even before the groundbreaking photovoice project. She argues that problems with these projects, however, is that they were “mostly informative, and the strong advocacy component has been missing” (p. 330).
Holm pays attention to visual ethnography, action research, and photovoice as recent fields of visual methods. As of visual ethnography, Holm attunes, in particular, to Pink’s argument that reflexivity and intersubjective relationship between researcher and informants are critical to creating “negotiated versions of reality” (2005, p. 20). Holm also observes that recent visual ethnographical research takes on participatory action research by distributing photo cameras, for instance, to research participants. Holm remarks that photovoice, based on this technique, has not been widely used in education, anthropology or sociology, due to the nature of documentary and action research. Holm also notes that there were similar projects even before the groundbreaking photovoice project. She argues that problems with these projects, however, is that they were “mostly informative, and the strong advocacy component has been missing” (p. 330).
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences
Guba, Egon, & Lincoln, Yvonna. (2005). In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd Ed.) (pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, London, and New Delhi: Sage.
They identify five contemporary qualitative research paradigms: positivism, postpositivism, critical theories, constructivism, and participatory.
Concerning reflexivity, they define it as "the process of reflecting critically on the self as researcher, the 'human as instrument'" (p. 210). They call attention to two ways of interactions here: how research processes are influenced by a researcher's own life and assumptions and how we researchers become ourselves, in other words, how research itself influence researchers.
In the fifth paradigm, participatory one, they added in this article, reflexivity matters. It relies on critical subjectivity and self-awareness, whereas reflexivity may be considered a problem in positivism.
They identify five contemporary qualitative research paradigms: positivism, postpositivism, critical theories, constructivism, and participatory.
Concerning reflexivity, they define it as "the process of reflecting critically on the self as researcher, the 'human as instrument'" (p. 210). They call attention to two ways of interactions here: how research processes are influenced by a researcher's own life and assumptions and how we researchers become ourselves, in other words, how research itself influence researchers.
In the fifth paradigm, participatory one, they added in this article, reflexivity matters. It relies on critical subjectivity and self-awareness, whereas reflexivity may be considered a problem in positivism.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Theorizing Audience, Products and Provocation
Michelle Fine & María Elena Torre. (2008). In Peter Reason & Hilary Bradbury (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Action Research Participative Inquiry and Practice (pp. 407-419). LA, London, New Delhi, and Singapore: Sage Publications.
Describe PAR products as "counter-hegemonic 'weapons of mass instruction'" (p. 407), Fine and Torre write, "PAR is explicitly political" (p. 417), thus call for critical deliberation about the ethics of provocation in relation to vulnerability of participants and social justice.
Describe PAR products as "counter-hegemonic 'weapons of mass instruction'" (p. 407), Fine and Torre write, "PAR is explicitly political" (p. 417), thus call for critical deliberation about the ethics of provocation in relation to vulnerability of participants and social justice.
Action Research
Ernest T. Stringer. (1999). (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, London, and New Delhi: Sage.
Chapter 1. Research in Professional and Public Life.
Similar to Kurt Lewin's model of action research, Ernest Stringer calls attention to action research as a decentralized small-scale format of research that would benefit practitioners' daily work in working with community groups. His model consists of a look-think-act routine. There are three basic assumptions in his model: a researcher's involvement, research subjects' participation in the research processes, and direct benefit to all participants. Thus, community-based research takes on action research. Built on Denzin and Lincoln's (1994) argument, Stringer defines as community-based research "enacting local, action-oriented approaches to inquiry, applying small-scale theorizing to specific problems in specific situations" (p. 10). Characterizing such research as stakeholders' participation, he specifies stages for the participation: data collection, analysis, theorizing, action, and evaluation. Here Stringer describes researchers as research facilitators with less directive power.
Chapter 5. Think: Interpreting and Analyzing.
Built on Denzin's (1997, Interpretive Ethnography) call for performance--"texts waiting to be staged" (as cited on the page 109)--Stringer contends that predominant formalist texts for presentation of research findings may not only silence the voices of people but also limit evocative responses from audiences. He calls particular attention to the movement to performance, such as drama, role play, dance, song, poem, etc., in action research so that people can express their feelings without intrusion of the formality.
Chapter 8. Formal Reports, Theses, and Dissertations (pp. 165-186)
This chapter has useful information about how to write up research findings in formal/informal ways. [GOOD]
In particular, the section of methodology is excellent. Stringer divides it into four subsections.
(1) Methodological Assumptions or a Philosophical Rationale: he suggests a more extended treatment than usual as PAR is not widely accepted yet. Identify research paradigm, detailed purposes, processes, outcomes of research. Cite sources. In principle, answer these questions, "why have we used this approach to research? Is it a valid and rigorous research process? Clarify the nature of the research process by comparing it with survey research, or more conventional styles.
(2) Research Processes: details, who was involved, what information collected, how analyzed. Include position of the researcher and participants. Data collection technique may include INTERVIEWS, OBSERVATIONS, DOCUMENTS (MEDIA, ARTIFACTS), RECORDING INFORMATION (VIDEOTAPES, PHOTOS...). The part of analysis should provide how research participants analyzed information. Stringer introduces the term BRAKETING to refer to the process of analyzing information in interpretive research to reduce it to its most significant or key, elements.
(3) Rigor: Unlike traditional criteria for evaluating rigor, such as objectivity, reliability, validity and generalizability, Stringer proposes CREDIBILITY, TRANSFERABILITY, AND DEPENDABILITY AND CONFIRMABILITY in order to establish the trustworthiness of PAR.
He asserts that credibility is established by prolonged engagement with participants, triangulation of information from multiple sources, member checking to verify the accuracy, and peer debriefing for reflection on the process.
By Transferability Stringer means applying research findings to other contexts. He argues that research methods should provide thick description so that audiences can identify similarities of the research setting with other contexts.
Dependability and confirmability are obtained through detailed description of collecting and analyzing processes and references to the raw data.
[I think that my research project can have certain credibility to begin with. I should work in transferability and the other. Should I keep the raw data? Final video should be sufficient as raw data if we publish a report in a formal way?]
Stringer also suggests having a section of limitations, not for an apology, but for an explanation about why traditional criteria such as objectivity, reliability, etc. are not appropriate.
(4) Ethical issues
guard against unwarranted intrusion into private life, maintaining privacy, establishing ownership, describe how research processed were enacted in ways sensitive to the cultural values and protocols of research participants.
Chapter 9. Understanding Action Research: The Theory Behind the Practice (187-215)
Chapter 1. Research in Professional and Public Life.
Similar to Kurt Lewin's model of action research, Ernest Stringer calls attention to action research as a decentralized small-scale format of research that would benefit practitioners' daily work in working with community groups. His model consists of a look-think-act routine. There are three basic assumptions in his model: a researcher's involvement, research subjects' participation in the research processes, and direct benefit to all participants. Thus, community-based research takes on action research. Built on Denzin and Lincoln's (1994) argument, Stringer defines as community-based research "enacting local, action-oriented approaches to inquiry, applying small-scale theorizing to specific problems in specific situations" (p. 10). Characterizing such research as stakeholders' participation, he specifies stages for the participation: data collection, analysis, theorizing, action, and evaluation. Here Stringer describes researchers as research facilitators with less directive power.
Chapter 5. Think: Interpreting and Analyzing.
Built on Denzin's (1997, Interpretive Ethnography) call for performance--"texts waiting to be staged" (as cited on the page 109)--Stringer contends that predominant formalist texts for presentation of research findings may not only silence the voices of people but also limit evocative responses from audiences. He calls particular attention to the movement to performance, such as drama, role play, dance, song, poem, etc., in action research so that people can express their feelings without intrusion of the formality.
Chapter 8. Formal Reports, Theses, and Dissertations (pp. 165-186)
This chapter has useful information about how to write up research findings in formal/informal ways. [GOOD]
In particular, the section of methodology is excellent. Stringer divides it into four subsections.
(1) Methodological Assumptions or a Philosophical Rationale: he suggests a more extended treatment than usual as PAR is not widely accepted yet. Identify research paradigm, detailed purposes, processes, outcomes of research. Cite sources. In principle, answer these questions, "why have we used this approach to research? Is it a valid and rigorous research process? Clarify the nature of the research process by comparing it with survey research, or more conventional styles.
(2) Research Processes: details, who was involved, what information collected, how analyzed. Include position of the researcher and participants. Data collection technique may include INTERVIEWS, OBSERVATIONS, DOCUMENTS (MEDIA, ARTIFACTS), RECORDING INFORMATION (VIDEOTAPES, PHOTOS...). The part of analysis should provide how research participants analyzed information. Stringer introduces the term BRAKETING to refer to the process of analyzing information in interpretive research to reduce it to its most significant or key, elements.
(3) Rigor: Unlike traditional criteria for evaluating rigor, such as objectivity, reliability, validity and generalizability, Stringer proposes CREDIBILITY, TRANSFERABILITY, AND DEPENDABILITY AND CONFIRMABILITY in order to establish the trustworthiness of PAR.
He asserts that credibility is established by prolonged engagement with participants, triangulation of information from multiple sources, member checking to verify the accuracy, and peer debriefing for reflection on the process.
By Transferability Stringer means applying research findings to other contexts. He argues that research methods should provide thick description so that audiences can identify similarities of the research setting with other contexts.
Dependability and confirmability are obtained through detailed description of collecting and analyzing processes and references to the raw data.
[I think that my research project can have certain credibility to begin with. I should work in transferability and the other. Should I keep the raw data? Final video should be sufficient as raw data if we publish a report in a formal way?]
Stringer also suggests having a section of limitations, not for an apology, but for an explanation about why traditional criteria such as objectivity, reliability, etc. are not appropriate.
(4) Ethical issues
guard against unwarranted intrusion into private life, maintaining privacy, establishing ownership, describe how research processed were enacted in ways sensitive to the cultural values and protocols of research participants.
Chapter 9. Understanding Action Research: The Theory Behind the Practice (187-215)
Friday, April 16, 2010
Critical Reflection: More Than Nuts and Bolts
Chiu, Lai Fong. (2006). Action Research, 4(2), 183-203.
"Emancipation and transformation are the twin goals of Participatory Action Research" (p. 184). Chiu writes that the notion of critical reflection has been taken for granted in PAR and lacks a genuine review on what constitutes critical reflection.
Chiu draws the contemporary concept of reflection from Shön (1983, 1996), who conceptualized conscious and unconscious practices of reflection. According to him, reflection-in-action is ‘tacit and spontaneous and often delivered without taking thought’ (Schön, 1987, p. 3) and reflection-on-action is a retrospective intellectual activity that 'requires verbalisation and symbolisation’ (p. 5). He asserted that one gains knowledge through the two kinds of reflection.
Specifically, concerning giving voices to the oppressed through narrating life experience, Chiu rightly argues that hearing the voices is intellectually unsatisfactory unless it addresses the process of generating such voices and revealing identities to unsettle exiting power relations. In particular, in pointing out a dilemma of presenting participants' experience in the researcher's own term, which makes the researcher suppress her own experience, Chiu contends that it is the very interactions between researchers and participants that may explain the process of changes that occur during the research. Hereby she calls for a researcher's self-reflexivity.
Chiu contends that reflection is underdeveloped in PAR and critical reflection, in particular, has been taken for granted. She argues that reflection in PAR is multi-perspectival--first, second and third person--as the forms of knowing are diverse--experiential, presentational, propositional and practical. Among these forms, experiential knowing is the foundation of all the other forms, she notes. Interweaving the two sets of conceptual framework, Chiu develops experiential reflection, presentational reflection, critical reflection, and practical reflection and discuss each reflection from first, second and third person perspective.
According to Chiu, reflection is crucial to different forms of knowledge creation. In particular, critical reflection enables people to generate propositional knowledge, such as analysis, conceptualization, inference, and synthesis, mediated by intellectual processes. In the first person, critical reflection is concerned with the reflexivity of the researcher, that is, "turning the researcher’s gaze back onto themselves and examining the hidden assumptions that structure their research" (p. 195; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). In the second person, critical reflection deals with power relations between participants and between participants and researchers and examines ways in which the relations are structured and supported in society. In the third person, critical reflection refers to the facilitation of collective critical reflection among participants.
Practical reflection, on the other hand, is important to create transformative knowledge.
Through her quest for different forms of reflection by attending to different ways of knowing, Chiu proposes a conceptual framework of critical reflexivity: self-reflexivity, relational-reflexivity, and collective reflexivity, which all are concerted to generate propositional knowing.
In her conclusion, she argues that her approach to reflection, first-, second-, and third-person perspective is useful to improve practices of PAR as these multi-perspectival reflection is in tune with the multi-dimensional knowing that PAR practitioners assert. First-person reflection [self-reflexivity] improves PAR practices. Reflexivity from the second-person perspective [relational-reflexivity] attends to conversations and interconnectedness with others, whereas reflexivity from the third person calls for social and political analysis that contributes to social change.
"Emancipation and transformation are the twin goals of Participatory Action Research" (p. 184). Chiu writes that the notion of critical reflection has been taken for granted in PAR and lacks a genuine review on what constitutes critical reflection.
Chiu draws the contemporary concept of reflection from Shön (1983, 1996), who conceptualized conscious and unconscious practices of reflection. According to him, reflection-in-action is ‘tacit and spontaneous and often delivered without taking thought’ (Schön, 1987, p. 3) and reflection-on-action is a retrospective intellectual activity that 'requires verbalisation and symbolisation’ (p. 5). He asserted that one gains knowledge through the two kinds of reflection.
Specifically, concerning giving voices to the oppressed through narrating life experience, Chiu rightly argues that hearing the voices is intellectually unsatisfactory unless it addresses the process of generating such voices and revealing identities to unsettle exiting power relations. In particular, in pointing out a dilemma of presenting participants' experience in the researcher's own term, which makes the researcher suppress her own experience, Chiu contends that it is the very interactions between researchers and participants that may explain the process of changes that occur during the research. Hereby she calls for a researcher's self-reflexivity.
Chiu contends that reflection is underdeveloped in PAR and critical reflection, in particular, has been taken for granted. She argues that reflection in PAR is multi-perspectival--first, second and third person--as the forms of knowing are diverse--experiential, presentational, propositional and practical. Among these forms, experiential knowing is the foundation of all the other forms, she notes. Interweaving the two sets of conceptual framework, Chiu develops experiential reflection, presentational reflection, critical reflection, and practical reflection and discuss each reflection from first, second and third person perspective.
According to Chiu, reflection is crucial to different forms of knowledge creation. In particular, critical reflection enables people to generate propositional knowledge, such as analysis, conceptualization, inference, and synthesis, mediated by intellectual processes. In the first person, critical reflection is concerned with the reflexivity of the researcher, that is, "turning the researcher’s gaze back onto themselves and examining the hidden assumptions that structure their research" (p. 195; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). In the second person, critical reflection deals with power relations between participants and between participants and researchers and examines ways in which the relations are structured and supported in society. In the third person, critical reflection refers to the facilitation of collective critical reflection among participants.
Practical reflection, on the other hand, is important to create transformative knowledge.
Through her quest for different forms of reflection by attending to different ways of knowing, Chiu proposes a conceptual framework of critical reflexivity: self-reflexivity, relational-reflexivity, and collective reflexivity, which all are concerted to generate propositional knowing.
In her conclusion, she argues that her approach to reflection, first-, second-, and third-person perspective is useful to improve practices of PAR as these multi-perspectival reflection is in tune with the multi-dimensional knowing that PAR practitioners assert. First-person reflection [self-reflexivity] improves PAR practices. Reflexivity from the second-person perspective [relational-reflexivity] attends to conversations and interconnectedness with others, whereas reflexivity from the third person calls for social and political analysis that contributes to social change.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Research and Indigenous participation: critical reflexive methods
Nicholls, Ruth. (2009). International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(2), 117–126.
Building upon Chiu's (2006) model of reflexivity, Nicholls further discusses three layers of reflexivity: self-reflexivity, inter-personal reflexivity, and collective reflexivity. In this discussion, she emphasizes recognition of difference within a collective.
Self-reflexivity (1st person) indicates a researcher's awareness of hidden assumptions that underpin the research; inter-personal reflexivity (2nd person) is referred to as relational-reflexivity, which has to do with researchers' ability of collaboration with others; collective reflexivity "demands the question of asking about the process of how the collaboration determined the frames of inquiry. It also asks what were the terms of participation, who participated or did not…[sic] and what effects did this have on the outcome of social change and practical knowing for the community participants." (p. 123).
Building upon Chiu's (2006) model of reflexivity, Nicholls further discusses three layers of reflexivity: self-reflexivity, inter-personal reflexivity, and collective reflexivity. In this discussion, she emphasizes recognition of difference within a collective.
Self-reflexivity (1st person) indicates a researcher's awareness of hidden assumptions that underpin the research; inter-personal reflexivity (2nd person) is referred to as relational-reflexivity, which has to do with researchers' ability of collaboration with others; collective reflexivity "demands the question of asking about the process of how the collaboration determined the frames of inquiry. It also asks what were the terms of participation, who participated or did not…[sic] and what effects did this have on the outcome of social change and practical knowing for the community participants." (p. 123).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
