#which seems to be a somewhat universal experience when going through quals | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

kastukes-blog · 5 years

Text

EDA7410 Qual. Blog 2

In week 3 reading, Koro-Ljungberg, M., Yendol-Hoppey, D., Smith, J. J., & Hayes, S. B. (2009) article on (e)pistemological awareness, instantiation of methods, and uniformed methodological ambiguity in qualitative research project, argued that “efforts should be made to make the research process, epistemologies, values, methodological decision points, and argumentative logic open, accessible, and visible for audiences” (pg. 687). The authors provided several benefits and a compelling rationale to assert that transparency of researchers’ worldviews, etc. can facilitate the process of self-reflection and can assist researchers in selecting methods that instantiate and support their knowledge building, and also facilitates the selection of a theoretical perspective that is suited to the purposes of their research. Although I did not fully understand all of the introductory context with Thayer-Bacon (2003), Crotty (1998), and Table 1 series of decision junctures, this outline demonstrated the very argument that the authors made in that providing foundation and rationale is pivotal to any research process, report, and sharing of knowledge. Now, I have some background knowledge that could assist me in performing a similar systematic review in qualitative studies, to determine how well researchers illustrate (e)pistemological awareness. However, I do know that I would need to derive to a stronger knowledgebase on the concepts in transcendental epistemology, theoretical perspective, and internalist position/interpretivist, if I wanted to complete a similar systematic review. Despite this initial reflection to the reading, there were a few points made in explaining alternative perspective on spatial (e)pistemological awareness that really intrigued me in thinking about my own awareness of my worldview.

I really appreciated how Koro-Ljungberg, et al. acknowledged that some researchers might not want to emphasize instantiation in the ways described by the authors. This made me think of how right now it is difficult for me to determine the best-fit worldview for my research interest. I think that my stubborn inability to make a selection somewhat places me in a poststructural mindset, where my thoughts are very destructive to normal practices. However, because I am a woman of order, I appreciated the authors’ notion that if researchers are going to be less transparent, or in my case noncommittal to a worldview, then researchers still have to state that. There are expectations when it comes to academic research and writing, so with that, researchers should at least be explicit if their position is that they have no position. I think that this expectation places me in a positivist mindset, where my natural desire is to follow structure and organization.

Koro-Ljungberg, et al. reading really helped me to see how alignment in research epistemology, questions, methods, and methodology is extremely important. Being transparent in an approach can facilitate that reflection in determining alignment and double checking connections in the research process. Although we don’t know what we don’t know, it is evident that “acknowledging the limits of positions taken, the limits of our knowing, and ultimately the extent of our not knowing can be as important and valuable as the articulation of an (e)pistemological position” (pg. 697). Being concerned with alignment keeps clearing up the unknown as a priority. Also, I appreciated the authors’ closing thoughts on the pros and cons of researchers being explicit in their epistemologies and methodologies. But ironically, I can identify with both pros and cons. For example, transparent statements on researchers’ epistemologies that shaped their decision making provides scaffolding for readers to “become smarter” (pg. 697), which I do agree adds to the body of knowledge in shared processes for qualitative research and worldviews. However the intentionality in using descriptive, available, and precise language does not by itself guarantee rigorous and thoughtful scholarship, which I also agree can become a simplistic way to document researchers’ complex research processes.

Finally, this reflection made me realize that in all, instructors expectations matter most – meaning, just as there can be many journal articles that seem inattentive in demanding (e)pistemological and instantiation of methods, and just as the role of an editor preferences in articles that meet expectations for publication may take precedent – expectations can be subjective. In the same vein, readings, assignments, and presentations that students and scholars submit are all subjected to the organization and structure of the teaching instructors. So, this final random reflection has me now wondering what the overall goal should be… What are the limitations in requiring uniformity in qualitative research, worldviews, articles and reports, and what should be the final expectations for researchers to state any alternative decision junctures and approaches?

Side note question after the reading: What is the distinction in the terms – theoretical perspectives; theoretical framework; and conceptual framework?

---

The reading on chapter 2 in Cresswell & Poth (2017) was easy to add to my organizational visual/picture/map, because it too covered important terms for qualitative research, that I have been unpacking from the previous readings!

Here are some ideas that stood out to me from this reading: - "Theories are more apparent in our qualitative studies than are philosophical assumptions, and researchers, often trained in the use of theories, typically make them explicit in research studies" (pg. 15). This is interesting to me because I feel that up until this Qual. class, all of my assignments have covered theoretical framework in the form of a "traditional" literature review section. Now I'm certain I have to revisit my previous writing as I am still figuring out what all of these terms mean, and more importantly because now I am being guided in addressing my epistemological awareness. - Simplifying definitions: • Philosophy = abstract ideas • Philosophical assumptions = stances taken • Paradigm = set of beliefs • Theoretical orientation = explanations in the literature • People Assumptions = ontology; epistemology; axiology; methodology (and also worldviews) • Interpretive Frameworks = paradigms; theory; worldview - "Whether multiple assumptions can be taken..it may be related to research experiences.. openness to exploring using differing assumptions.. acceptability of ideas taken in the larger scientific community.." (pg. 19). This is intriguing to me because it gives me hope in my journey to identifying a worldview that aligns with my research! - "When researchers conduct qualitative research, they are embracing the idea of multiple realities" (pg. 20). Can researchers undergo qualitative studies to "prove" one reality or one specific claim exists? - Table 2.1 (pg. 20) After reading through the implications for practice examples column, I conceptualized methodological practice (describes the context, continually) as: a process that seems to encompass all three practices from the other assumptions (ontology - reports perspective; epistemology - being an insider; axiology - discussing values); and also methodological practice seems to be the culminating, but also ongoing/interwoven process in making meaning of the research process and putting it into practice. Embedded in methodological are perspectives, insight, and values. - "In a qualitative study, the inquirers admit and actively report their values and biases as well" (pg. 21). I feel like being bias is the ultimate no-no in research. I understand the gist of separating bias from research questions and design, but I am curious to learn more about how bias naturally fits into the research process without objection! Explanation of evolving illustrations of my gleanings from the readings: The nature of our reality (ontology) is all around us. It is the shape of our universe, science and what is real (or unreal), with or without faith. Revolving in our galaxy are planets shaped and molded by their own terrains (ontology, epistemology, methodology); at the core of each planet are the deeply embedded values (axiology). From each planet we look onward and inward towards a shared body of knowledge, having various worldviews where we turn the dial until we reach a clear focus. Our worldview telescopes are polished by epistemology. Finally, each planet tells a story in how it takes its own orbit, with orbits intentionally being paved by matching steps (methods). ...or something like that!

0 notes