Research Design Outline Approved

The fundamental ideas in my outline for my Autoethnographer Communities of Practice research design was approved yesterday from my faculty tutor at Lancaster University. Next steps for this week include:

  1. Specifying the interview questions
  2. Writing the consent form
  3. Submitting them both (with a tweaked overview) for ethical approval (I was told this should be a quick process as my research design is low risk)

I am still excited about this research outline, as I have not seen much research in this area.

Jeffrey’s Twitter Updates for 2009-07-26

  • New comment on “Use Bloom’s Taxonomy Wheel for Writing Learning Outcomes” http://bt.io/2DO #
  • New comment on “Use Bloom’s Taxonomy Wheel for Writing Learning Outcomes” http://bt.io/2CE #
  • 2 new comments on “the loophole” and more http://bt.io/2C4 #
  • Finally finished posting for my class this week. Time to begin next week’s readings. #
  • 4 new comments on “Silence and Voice” and more http://bt.io/2Ag #
  • Enjoyed a long leisurely lunch outside. Good food, good wine, good conversation, and amazing fresh air. #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Purposeful Sample for Autoethnographer Communities of Practice

Further developing my research idea, I now realize I did not quite list the population, or participants, I will seek to research and from whom I will gather my data.

I suppose they will be discussed in the Data Collection area of my research outline (which leads me to another question–is the outline I posted called a research outline, or is it referred to as something else?).

Given that we have 4 weeks for this (August 7-September 6), there is really no time to waste at all going down the wrong path, so I want to do something that is workable, doable, and also worth doing.

Given these limitations, I think interviewing 2 people may be sufficient. Given that I want to do a narrative inquiry of them, I will also read their autoethnographic work to see if there is any evidence to support or otherwise address my research questions. As a qualification for this research, it would seem that the 2 people should have completed and published their autoethnographic work, with publishing used in a broad sense to include presenting it at a conference, published in a journal or online location, or even published it as a paper submitted for a degree program.

I will try to locate participants by posting my request to a Yahoo Group that deals with autoethnography, as well as directly emailing some colleagues who work in this area to see if they know anybody who may be interested in this. I do not have any colleagues in mind to directly ask if they are willing to assist with this interview, which I expect will be about 30 minutes most likely via phone, though I will not be opposed to working with people who I already know (as I do not know much about the topic of this research). I am planning to record the interviews and transcribe them (I just bought a digital recorder and phone recording wire, and am about to purchase a USB pedal for the actual transcription).

Will appreciate some feedback on this, as I will use this as the basis for my ethical form that I need to complete and submit by the end of this week.

Jeffrey’s Twitter Updates for 2009-07-25

  • Awoke with a horrible sinus headache. Waiting for the coffee to finish so I can take some with some allergy meds. #
  • Having work done in the kitchen and basement this weekend. #
  • I have to facilitate a focus group on Tuesday and need to record the audio. Anybody have any recorders and mics they can recommend? #
  • I need to facilitate a focus group on Tuesday and need to record the audio. Can you recommend any recorders? Need to buy it ASAP. #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Qualitative Reliability, Validity, and Generalizability

As I am continuing to develop my idea that I published yesterday, Research Design: Communities of Practice for Autoethnographers, I want to clarify one of the issues that some of my wonderful colleagues commented about, namely the issue of Reliability, Validity, and Generalizability.

While I used those terms in that area based on Creswell’s Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches work (pg. 190), I put it there primarily as a place-holder so those in my program who will offer me some comments on it will know that I will, in some way, address it. What I actually had in mind was Lincoln and Guba’s Naturalistic Inquiry, where they give 4 areas of concern for qualitative Trustworthiness:

  1. “Truth value”
  2. Applicability
  3. Consistency
  4. Neutrality

These four were offered to address the quantitative internal validity, external validity, reliability, and objectivity.

I will address these as I engage with my research, and share aspects of them here.