That sounds like fascinating additional research. I wonder how that might work in practice, especially given the electronic and disparate note-taking strategies we all use?

In some ways, this involvement involves both readers and researchers in the research design and potential data-gathering itself (not to mention those who may watch from a distance), and certainly blurs traditional distinctions between the researcher and the (private) process over there, with the phenomenon being studied over here.

While I am exploring this from the framework of autoethnography, I am wondering if there is not something else going on in this as well, something new that technology (such as Twitter or blogs themselves) makes possible that has not really been explored before as it could not exist in this manner?

As my research design is moving in the direction of exploring autoethnography done in a transparent and open way, I am exploring and trying to understand the very behavior I am interested in exploring by engaging in it itself.

How else can I try to understand what this process looks like?

I plan to resubmit my proposal later today, and with each additional comment, my thinking shifts. I wonder about this as a value proposition in online educational research? This clearly seems to fit within the area of my program, even more than when I started working on it.

Thank you again, Britta. I was about to submit my revised version of my proposal, and will now widen it a bit more to account for this research “twist” in my plans. This sharing of research design and asking colleagues for assistance and feedback in the process is more valuable than I ever could have imagined.

I love this research process when it directly affects practice, in this manner being educational research itself.

Stay tuned . . .

Walter D Fernandez at the Australian National University describes the use of the grounded theory (GT) methods with case study data and discusses critical characteristics of GT method, bias, risks and demands involved:
http://epress.anu.edu.au/info_systems/mobile_devices/ch05.html

He says’ utmost care must be exercised to ensure that the canons of case study data do not distort true emergence for theory generation (Glaser, 1998, pp.40-2)’. Fernandez used ‘grounded theory as the overarching methodology to study data from an exploratory case study’ and builds a strong case in favour of this combined methods by referring also to Eisenhardt (1989) who outlined 3 major strengths of using case data to build GT which are
(a) related to the production of novel theory (b) the testability derived from the close interconnection between data and theory
(c) the empirical validity in part based on (b) and the constant comparison and questioning of the data.

I imagine you find the chapter both interesting and relevant material and enjoyable to read.

Having said that, for quick reference – I am a great fan of – Bob Dick’s site which provides a very useful overview of the Grounded Theory approach as well as a considerable bibliography – which unfortunately, got lost in Walter Fernandez’s chapter, might prove useful too.

Britta, this is very deep and quite helpful. I really appreciate your taking the time to add your thoughts and voice here.

You have given me a lot to think about, and I will integrate some of this into my revised proposal, which I am planning to submit tomorrow and which I will also include in a new blog post to show where I am going and from whence I came.

Can you explain your point #4 a bit more, especially where I can look for some reading to help me better understand what you are suggesting? I am familiar with grounded theory, but planned to use a case study as the strategy of inquiry. I am not sure how to mix this with a grounded analysis.

I am now even more eager to read some of your own research!

1. As narrative self-representations, the auto-ethnographic authors you are going to interview are assumed to have focused on ‘intended’ audiences’ and ‘intentions’ they had for their readers. I think that asking them also how their initial reason for using auto-ethnography may have changed or evolved in due course, not assuming that decisions made at the beginning of the project remained unaffected by the researcher’s experiences and constant ‘gazing’ at his or her ‘self’, might prove valuable.

2. As a method, auto-ethnography does enable researchers to reconcile voices they would be forced to handle in separate ways if they resorted to other methods. In this sense, the artificial boundaries of ‘self’ and ‘other’ – as interviewer/observer and interviewee/participant for instance – become much more blurred.

3. Assuming that reflexivity has resulted in those authors being aware of this, the question to what extent they had made use of the fact that they are imposing reflections and interpretations on their audiences might be one of the challenging aspects which could potentially open up a debate around power, and, in turn, feed into your personal learning outcomes/objectives.

4. In terms of data analysis, I thought that taking a grounded theory approach when coding might gain more validity by help of triangulation – so not just asking interviewees to review the transcripts but also the coding. This in turn might also contribute to your learning objectives, focusing on power and equality issues in research based on social constructivist notions.

Thank you for the comment, even if you are new to this! It never ceases to amaze me that sometimes people do not think they are contributing because their contributions look different. Encouragement and introductions are both very very helpful, as is the positive energy that comes with the supporting presence of standing with one another.

We are not always clear when some transformative learning events can be set in motion. Who knows where all this may lead?!