Tag: Research

Research Design: Communities of Practice for Autoethnographers

I have gotten some feedback from some colleague who I shared these ideas with, and there was some general encouragement for me to explore the option related to the community of practice idea (for my next Lancaster PhD module research project). Surprisingly, there was also some encouragement to try a different strategy of inquiry for the benefit of experiencing something new as well as to experience the meaning-making process from another perspective.

Taking this to heart, this is the idea I am now developing for my research project. I know it needs to be further developed and elaborated upon, though I think it is clear enough for at least some initial feedback:

Introduction
1. Research Problem
Autoethnographic research is growing in usage, though is still not widely accepted in traditional academic research circles. With the dispersion of advocates of this research, there would seem to be a need for a the engagement and support of (dispersed) communities of practice around those who engage in this work. Without knowing anything about these communities,including whether they exist and what technologies they may employ, it may be more of a challenge to understand the process of engaging and creating this research strategy. We need to know more about the role of communities of practice in the lives of autoethnographic researchers.
2. Studies Addressing the Problem
(TBD) – very little, thus far
3. Deficiencies in the Literature
(TBD) – a lot, thus far
4. Significance
(TBD) – already included above, will be further developed after brief literature review above

Purpose
What is the role of communities of practice play in the lives of those who engage in autoethnographic research?

Review of the Literature
This will revolve around autoethnography, communities of practice, and dispersed (technology usage in) communities of practice

Research Design
1. Philosophical Worldview
I am approaching this from a constructivist / critical theorist paradigm
2. Strategy of Inquiry
I am seeking to use Narrative Inquiry
3. Research Method
Review of published autoethnographic research documents or audio-visuals of informants, and interviews

Research Questions
(TBD) – I am still working on these

Data Collection
See Research Method above. Will tape interviews and transcribe recording. Will read documents / view audio-visual.

Analysis and Interpretation
(TBD) – Iam still working on these

Reliability, Validity, and Generalizability
(TBD) – I am stillworking on these

Results

Next Steps

I appreciate any thoughts . . . .

Research Ideas Redux; Feedback, Anybody?

I am gathering ideas for my next research paper that I have to write in the next month and a half for my doctoral program, and have come up with these ideas after trying to flesh out the initial ones I discussed.

These are the four ideas I am floating; I hope to have something narrowed down by the end of the week so I can start to work on the design. As a recurring theme in my work, these are all within the area of autoethnographic methodology / writing or processing one’s experience in autobiographic / life history methods:

  1. Interview some people who engage in autoethnographic research (cf. Ellis) to see what role, if any, communities of practice play in their lives in this research.
  2. Engaging in narrative inquiry (cf. Clandinin and Connelly) to explore how people engaged in autoethnographic research engage in publicly defining or frame their own identities (cf. Goffman? Bedford and Snow?).
  3. Explore how these researchers navigate their own professional identities through using this contested methodology.
  4. Try to understand if autoethnographic inquiry led to any transformative learning (cf. Mezirow), or if perhaps a transformative experience led to autoethnography (Freire?).

Lightbulb

Any thoughts are most appreciated.

Feedback: First Doctoral Paper

I just received my provisional feedback on my first doctoral assignment at Lancaster University. My traditional research paper (completed in 5 weeks: research design and all!) was entitled Educational Explorations of Autoethnographic Inquiry: A Case Study of the Goals and Experiences of Three Educators, and in it I interviewed three individuals who are involved in higher education and who engage in autoethnographic inquiry.

What I particularly liked about the paper’s feedback was what my tutor targeted toward my final section, Personal Learnings, where I described my experience and processed what I learned  using the same autoethnographic methodology I previously studied in my interviewees. I really appreciated the statement that it was “quite unlike anything I’ve read before.”

I like this original research . . .

. . . and how is THAT Research?

inuksuk Ever hear that question, usually at the end of some other pleasant introductory sentence? If not, then bravo, you are a traditional researcher doing what you have been taught and in so doing support the stability and safety of the academic industry. Your reward includes crisp peer-reviewed journal articles safely locked within academic databases (thereby keeping the knowledge safe) and proper cocktail discussion (“Oh, you were involved in that work, how interesting . . . .”).

However, if you are a rebel and make a nuisance of yourself by pushing the boundaries for what can be considered research, then I really want to hear your thoughts. Have you written and performed a dramatic reading of poetry using words from the interview notes generated during data collection? How about the use of media, Web technologies, Twitter, discussion boards, autoethnographic inquiry, and the like? Does your work not fit into the design – literature – problem – method – analysis – findings – next steps model? Did you ever wonder who created that model, and what power issues are at stake challenging it? Let me guess, you may have at times even wondered whether the struggles were worth it, how your life would be different if you liked numbers, how you should have been a plumber, and the like.

There are enough times when you (ok, we) have to defend our work to others, I want to reframe the question.

Rather than explain “How is that research?”, I am interested in the internal and personal reasonings about it. Why do I want to express my work in a different paradigm? What is it about my subject or perspective that makes it not seem to fit into a traditional framework?

In my fledgling autoethnographic inquiry, I find that I had to do it (after being subjected to years of impersonal quantitative social science work around organizational learning—it has a value, but is not where I am interested in exploring) since I have trouble researching something out there without exploring how it effects me and challenges / develops my own perspective. I always think, don’t we want our students to understand the content and then apply it to their lives (to demonstrate they understand it)? My autoethnographic work looks at something that is important to me and, while exploring it and seeing what has already been studied with it, I show how my frame develops while inviting the reader to consider something different for their own lives, too. Now isn’t that a way to bridge the research-to-practice gap?

Why should research be any different? Better yet, try not to feel threatened by something different. Hmm, this may in itself turn into an interesting project . . .

New Directions in Autoethnography & My Presentation on Autoethnographic Liveblogging

This was my own research session, along with 5 other papers that were presented during the early morning of the first full-day of the QI2009 conference.

My paper was entitled Liveblogging as Autoethnography: Exploring Blogging for Meaning Making, Power, and Positionality:

Using constructivist and critical theorist lenses, this paper will be an autoethnographic exploration of the experience of liveblogging (the practice of blogging and posting the results in real-time). The author has engaged in liveblogging several academic and practitioner conferences, and will explore what liveblogging is and how it is an opportunity for an attendee to publicly and collaboratively engage in meaning-making by sharing in the presentation itself using just-in-time reflective practice. It will be argued that liveblogging conferences promotes democratic knowledge exchanges and expanded possibilities for research.

The other presentations were rather varied, with wonderful issues that were raised about digital storytelling, troubleshooting lying about getting a PhD and getting fired, and even inanimate autoethnographic experiences.

I got some really good ideas, especially about exploring ethical issues with liveblogging autoethnography, expressing the experiences more as stories, and including more theoretical issues in my work in reall time.

I  want to revise my paper and look to publish it, as there is little work out there right now.