Experimental Writing with Yvonna S. Lincoln

I am attending a pre-conference with Yvonna Lincoln at the QI2009 conference today. As we are nearly ready to begin, she just distributed a workbook (that she was clear to tell us we will not work in), but that contains examples of the different materials and media that she will discuss.

“Who brought data in?” Of course, none of us did not since that was omitted with in the description for this session. That is ok, she said, as it is now time for autoethnography!

She enjoys experimental writing, as opposed to that difficult, academic-style writing.  This session is all about experimental writing as the product of research, not as creative fiction done outside a research perspective.

Good gods, she just turned on an overhead. Not a projector, but an overhead. No, this is not necessarily the way that she always works; we were told at this conference that there are no projectors available, but only overhead machines. Glad I printed my slides on overheads!

Why Write Experimentally?

  1. To capture the emotional and psychological impact and residue of fieldwork (Brady, 2000, Handbook of Qualitative Research 3rd Ed.). I really like this concept, the “residue of fieldwork.” Never heard of that before, and my initial thinking is that this will be
  2. To create a “re-thinking of presence.” this is all about admitting that the researcher  is there and we were affected by the research and experience. This inserts a sense of reality, and not a sterile writing and sense that everything is gods-eye view of reality
  3. Writing experimentally permits a criticism of the “rhetorics of scientific authority, [the] techniques of vision, and [the] discursive mechanisms of relating time and space” – Clough, 2000.

Somebody just knocked a cup of coffee (under a seat) over and onto somebody’s Apple laptop. Ouch.

Criteria for Judging Experimental Writing (there are no firm criteria)

  1. It should “motivate cultural criticism. . . .”
  2. Experimental writing should “be open to the future;” it should help readers to pose alternative—and perhaps more just—scenarios for tomorrow – this hints at some present and talks to us about a presence that is less than satisfactoy and points to a more just future
  3. It should prompt “theoretical reflection,” never straying far from theory. . .
  4. If experimental writing is literary in form (e.g., poetry, plays, short stories) it must meet criteria for good literature in that specific genre (M. Allen, n.d.). Mitch suggested that if you want to turn fieldwork into a play, then we need to think about what makes for a good and strong play. This makes me think about Michael Hemmingson’s writing.

This is the first time I am liveblogging a conference this year, and am looking forward to the paper I am presenting tomorrow, where I discuss liveblogging from the perspective of autoethnography.

I think that my liveblogging work is changing. I used to capture what the person said and then include my own thoughts on the topic. However, with my increasing work with autoethnography and how I believe liveblogging cannot be a neutral act as I as author and participant am writing this material from my own perspective—I am the one who chooses what to include from the presentation.

Thinking about this more, I think liveblogging is more accurately about sharing elements of the author’s perspective of an experience, insofar as the author is able to type some of what thoughts and experiences can be captured. From this perspective, the liveblogging experience is my work, and my words. This is where the co-creation from the experience comes from; I am discussing my experience and thoughts from this session, and cannot claim it may or may not represent the experiences of anybody else in the session.

Yvonna just talked about experimental writing and how, when it is done well, then that does not make this easy, as good writers are often still very deep and complicated.

The first kind of experimental text she showed was from Carol Rambo Ronai, Betty St. Pierre, and Patti Lather. There are multiple things moving; things come together and then come apart, and then perhaps come together again.

Yvonna is not very loud. Somebody requested she speak into the microphone (too lecture-like, but with the air conditioning unit and the loud presenter next door, this may be a good idea). She does speak there, but only time to time. As her voice does not seem to project very much, I wonder what the environment where she commonly presents is like?

With experimental writing, the concept of layered texts shows how complicated texts and experiences are. I like the section heading for the booklet she passed out: :Skirted, Pleated and Layered Texts.”

Poetry is a form of experimental text. She favors ethnographic poetry, such as by Laurel Richardson and Hartnett. This is significant because it clearly states that there is never a detached researcher.

I really like that—there never is a detached researcher. That is what John Creswell talks about as being one of the 3 components of a research design, namely by explaining and discussing what worldview the researcher has when writing.

She is discussing Laurel Richardson’s need to write an ethnographic poem, Louisa May, based on a transcription that just did not seem to easily be written in any other way.

I am glad we have the hand-out booklet that includes all the examples she is discussing.

About poetry, she said

Captures the emotional residue of fieldwork; makes it plain that fieldwork is not all “science,” but rather involves the entire person of the fieldworker.

Autoethnography

The “voyeur’s gaze” is turned back onto the researcher herself of himself. The “subject” becomes the subject of the research. Done in order to theorize more deeply on some social situation, or the effect of the researcher’s presence in that situation.

Somebody in the audience just shared the story when a poem was rejected, and the feedback was that the poem beautified a tragic story. It seems to be that the poem must have been wonderful. Yvonna suggested these journals as ones that publish poetry — QSE, Qualitative Inquiry, Humanistic Anthropology, and IJQI.

Choose different articles and review them from different paradigms as a way of better understanding these different perspectives.

It seems useful to give students the opportunity to explore various ways of experience. Some students are instrumentalists and some are interested in learning anything they can. There was a discussion about how to deal with experimental coursework. This makes me think about WIFM? – What’s In It For Me? Help students meet their needs, though consider Mezirow’s Transformative Learning as a way to help challenge learner’s worldviews to invite them to think more creatively and expand their horizons. Seems the issue is about helping students to learn in ways that may engage them in ways that the learners did not previously consider.

Autoethnography is a theoretical way of the researcher researching one’s own experiences. Carolyn Ellis, Stacy Holamn Jones, Brian Alexander are all examples of this.

Really glad my netbook computer has a good, long battery.

Ethnographic Fiction (why fictionalize science?)

  1. To disguise identities—names are changed to protect the innocent . . . if there are any
  2. To create more seamless story when pieces of narrative are missing
  3. To provide the mood, context, tempo, climax, and other literary elements of fiction

Performance Ethnography

  1. The giving of voice to interviewees
  2. the re-creation of tough, hard, profoundly moving life experience so some group
  3. The demonstration of the moral dimension of some issue or context
  4. the call to arms for a moral, more just world
  5. as a way of understanding “the substance of what we [are] saying”
  6. as a means of demonstrating that culture does not pre-exist human beings. culture is created and performed every day
  7. giving a sense of immediacy

Poetry, fiction, and drama – it has to be good science and good literature

Autoethnography, autobiography, memory work, visual/photographic experimentation as less bounded by these criteria and rules. They have to be readable, engaging, and theoretically grounded. I really like these criteria.

We now have an assignment:

Write and be prepared to read what we write to the class here. What is an experience we have had that is powerful or painful. Try writing a short piece (in a little less than an hour), write about something to explore the emotional residue of some research project on which you have been working. I am going to do this as another post.

Just as I was preparing to work on this, I saw my friend and colleague Johnna Parker, who I have not seen in years and who told me about getting to UIUC from flying into Indianapolis, and not into Chicago. So nice to catch up . . .

First Thoughts from the 5th International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry (QI2009)

QIlogo2009-286-1 Here I am at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, all checked into the hotel and unpacked, and ready to attend this evening’s Pre-Congress Reception, from 7:00-9:00 in the Levis Faculty Center. I just heard about this reception yesterday, and think it is a nice (though not widely publicized) way to begin this, my first International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry.

Then, off to try to get my first full night’s sleep all week so I can be prepared for the two Pre-Conference Workshops I registered to attend tomorrow:

  1. New Experimental Writing Forms with Yvonna Lincoln
  2. Writing Autoethnography and Narrative in Qualitative Research with Art Bochner and Carolyn Ellis

More about the final preparation I am doing for my own two paper sessions (that I will present on Friday) tomorrow!

What I Learned from my Initial Autoethnography Research Interview

For my small-scale autoethnography research project, I planned to interview 2 people about their intentions, experiences, and learning. Yesterday, I had my first telephone interview yesterday, and found it a fascinating experience. This post discusses what I learned, and not the interview itself; I am rather strict with adhering to my Ethical Approval (IRB) stipulations.

The first and most practical thing I learned is that the interview took far longer than the 30 minutes I estimated in my consent. It took longer not because I asked more questions based on the open-ended ones I already developed, but because the questions and conversation produced a far richer discussion (aka data) than I had hoped.

While I also learned that we did not systematically work through the 6 research questions I listed,

  1. Why did you choose to use autoethnographic inquiry? 
  2. Who is your intended audience? 
  3. What goals did you have for your readers or learners?
  4. What role did technology play in your research? 
  5. What did you learn in the process of this autoethnographic inquiry? 
  6. If you were to conduct further autoethnographic inquiry, what would you do differently?

the conversation progressed organically and all the questions were answered in some form or another. I have experienced this before, but have never seen it so unified in this manner. I am not sure if this was the results of a common interest in the area, the autoethnographic qualitative strategy itself, if my questions were spot-on, or if there were other factors that enabled this to occur.

I realized I did not allow for closure in my questions (or the note-taking template I used), so I ended by asking if there were anything else that the interviewee wanted to add or comment about at the end. This quite nicely and unexpectedly turned into a summary of the main points.

Overall, a very rich experience.

Autoethnography Research – Approved Version

Thank you all for your help thinking through this project. Here is the final version that just received ethical (IRB) approval.

Now, I am searching for a few people to interview who have published autoethnography – any assistance in locating people for a brief interview in the next 2 weeks will be appreciated.

Title
Educational Explorations of Autoethnographic Inquiry: A Tale of 2 Teachers

Research Problem
Autoethnography is increasingly used as a research method, pushing the boundaries of qualitative inquiry by focusing on a phenomenon in the life of the researcher as the central aspect of study and publishing the findings as a cultural critique. With online technologies making the entire research process more transparent and potentially interactive, the researcher’s process and goals themselves may be explored, as the steps can be studied as part of the process, rather than by looking only at the final, published product. Of particular interest is transparency in the research process itself, especially when the autoethnographic inquiry is done in public, such as through a blog, discussion forum, or other technology where reader input can inform the process and researcher’s thinking. Little is known about the researcher’s learning goals for his or her readers, as well as how the researcher’s own learning develops through the process of conducting the autoethnographic research itself.

Literature Review
This will focus on autoethnographic inquiry: what it is, why it is done, and what is learned through it. I am planning to focus around the work of Carolyn Ellis, Art Bochner, Deborah Reed-Danahay, and Jean Clandinin and Michael Connelly. I will also search for literature that explores the intended goals and learning of the autoethnographer.

Purpose & Research Design
The purpose of this case study is to understand researcher learning goals and personal learning itself in those who engage in autoethnographic inquiry. This will be a qualitative research design, with a constructivism philosophical worldview. The strategy of inquiry will be case study. The research methods will be semi-structured interview.

There are no expected ethical issues in this research. Participants will remain anonymous, with fictitious names being used and the transcripts from the research secured on a password-protected computer.

This research is important to me because I am interested in learning more about how autoethnography can be used as a method in online and distance education, particularly for its seeming relationship with reflective practice and transformative learning. This is part of a large research interest of mine, which I am seeking to begin exploring in this smaller research project. I hope to better understand this to ultimately help improve the effectiveness of online teaching and learning practice.

Methods
As this is an exploratory case study, there will be 2 people interviewed for this research. I will reach out to my network of colleagues and distribution lists to locate 2 people who have published autoethnographic inquiries (I have already had two offers for autoethnographers to be interviewed; I will actively look for other possible participants once this proposal is accepted). Interviews will be conducted over the phone. Open-ended interview questions will be used:

  1. Why did you choose to use autoethnographic inquiry? 
  2. Who is your intended audience? 
  3. What goals did you have for your readers or learners?
  4. What role did technology play in your research? 
  5. What did you learn in the process of this autoethnographic inquiry? 
  6. If you were to conduct further autoethnographic inquiry, what would you do differently?

Interview results will be hand-transcribed and sent back to the participants for their review and approval.

Analysis
The transcripts will be hand-coded (as per Stake, 1995 and Wolcott, 1994), with the results sent to the participants for their review. Grounded theory will be used to understand the results (Fernandez, 2004, http://tinyurl.com/cbcqb3 ).

Findings and Next Steps
TBD; exploratory in nature.

Personal Learnings
I will explore what I learned in preparing and conducting this research project.

My personal learning objectives include:

  1. Collaborate on the design process, actively seeking feedback from colleagues on the design and development of this research project
  2. Investigate how others experience the autoethnographic research process
  3. Assess how the findings broaden my perspective on the method as an educational experience

References
Listed as used.

Autoethnography Research Informed Consent – for Review

I have never created an informed consent form on my own (that has always been a research partner’s role), so here is another new learning experience for me.

This is the informed consent form I created for my developing project. It may change, as I am still waiting for my tutor’s feedback on my revised proposal (which I will post on my blog once it is finalized).

Any thoughts on this?

Informed Consent to Participate in Research

Researcher: Jeffrey Keefer
Email: j [DOT] keefer [AT] lancaster [DOT] ac [DOT] uk
Title of Research: Educational Explorations of Autoethnographic Inquiry: A Tale of 2 Teachers

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study conducted by Jeffrey Keefer, studying in the Educational Research Department of Lancaster University. It will take place from May 1, 2009 to May 31, 2009.

Purpose
The purpose of this project is to understand the autoethnographic researcher’s learning goals for his or her readers and how the researcher’s own learning develops through the process of conducting the autoethnographic inquiry.

Procedures
The research involves my asking you several open-ended research questions, including:
1. Why did you choose to use autoethnographic inquiry? 
2. Who is your intended audience? 
3. What goals did you have for your readers or learners?
4. What role did technology play in your research? 
5. What did you learn in the process of this autoethnographic inquiry? 
6. If you were to conduct further autoethnographic inquiry, what would you do differently?

I will hand-record the responses and conversation, and I will send you a transcript of the discussion for your review. I will then code the discussion (for themes) and again send to you for your review (both times to confirm I captured what you said and / or intended). It is expected that the entire time commitment will be 60 minutes (30 minutes for the interview, and 15 minutes each for your review of my notes and coding).

Risks
There are no known risks for participating in this research.

I guarantee the following conditions will be met:
1. Your real name will not be used at any point of information collection, or in the written case report; instead, you and any other person and place names involved in your case will be given pseudonyms that will be used in all verbal and written records and reports.
2. Your participation in this research is voluntary; you have the right to withdraw at any point of the study, for any reason, and without any prejudice, and the information collected and records and reports written will be destroyed.
3. All research notes and communication will be maintained within my password-protected computer; nobody else will have access to them.
4. I will use this information to write a case study for my doctoral class and, based on feedback, consider submitting a revised version for research publication.
5. You will receive a copy of the final paper that is submitted to my instructor.
6. You are encouraged to ask any questions at any time about the nature of the study and the methods that I am using. Your suggestions and concerns are important to me; please contact me at any time at the address/phone number listed above.

Benefits
This research is important to me because I am interested in learning more about how autoethnography can be used as a method in online and distance education, particularly for its seeming relationship with reflective practice and transformative learning. I hope to better understand this to ultimately help improve the effectiveness of online teaching and learning practice.

Consent
I agree to the terms listed above:

Respondent ___________________________ Date _____________

I agree to the terms listed above:

Researcher ___________________________ Date _____________