Since we puzzled through Koro-Ljungberg et al.’s (2009) “getting smart” and “getting lost,” we have been building connections between your epistemological stance and the research methods themselves. We have talked about participant selection, interviewing, observing and documenting, coding, and analyzing, focusing all the while on how we make meaning with our design and methods. In this paper, you have 10 double-spaced pages (maximum, excluding title page, abstract, appendices, and works cited) to consider your emergent relationship to the myriad of design and methods choices you face. This is an opportunity to talk through design choices facing you in your research.
The focus here is on
(a) connection to your own practices and stances
(b) a depth of connection to and discussion of class and other methodological readings
(c) a willingness to “get into it” with authors, going beyond the printed page to your interpretation(s) of their arguments and why they do (or do not) make sense for your particular researcher identity and research context.
My topic is:
- The idea of triangulation and how it could be multileveled.
- Observation as a data collection tool in my research.
- My research interest is early childhood education and integrating technology in kindergartens and early childhood education settings.
- Interested in observing kids in classrooms, interviewing early childhood teachers, and maybe parents.
- I am mostly sociocultural constructivist who believe in the approach of Vygotsky especially in play-based learning and the zone of proximal development and scaffolding learning.
- Clarity of purpose. Your purpose should be clear to the readers, both at its introduction and throughout the paper. You may have multiple purposes or simply a single major argument to make, but either way, you need to trace your purpose clearly throughout your paper.
- Application to yourself as a researcher or to your own work. These module papers offer you an opportunity to explore the theories and ideas with which we have been playing from your own perspective: how does this apply (or not!) to your own work? What are the implications of this research for your approach to research? How might the design of your research shift in reaction to what you have read?
- Argument and credibility. While different writers take different approaches, these papers should all make a credible argument for something(s), drawing on evidence from course readings, other readings, or life and research experience.
- Depth of engagement with readings. In addition to simple reference to and citation of course texts, I expect you to engage with the readings, noting places of agreement and disagreement, possibly critiquing the authors’ approaches, and starting a conversation with the reading by deeply considering its claims and the implications of those claims.
- Mechanics and style, I expect you to follow APA guidelines for writing and referencing and to make your arguments clearly and concisely.
Papers may not be longer than 10 pages, double-spaced, 12-point font (excluding title page, abstract, appendices, and works cited).
- Koro-Ljungberg et al. (2009) Methodological Ambiguity
- Ghaffar-Kuchar (2014), ‘Narrow-Minded and Oppressive’ or a ‘Superior Culture’
- Reybold et al. (2013), Selection as Thinking Forward
- Patton (2015), chs 6-7, Fieldwork Strategies and Qualitative Interviewing
- Ball (2005), An Assessment of the Documentary Tradition
- Jones et al. (2010), Documenting Classroom Life
- Kvale (2006), Dominance through Interviews
- Saldaña (2016), chs 1-3, Introduction, Memos, & First-Cycle Coding
- Adair & Pastori (2011) Developing Qualitative Coding Frameworks
- Tobin et al. (1989)
- Saldaña (2016), chs 4-6, After First-Cycle, Second- Cycle, After Second-Cycle
- Charmaz (2011), Grounded Theory Methods in Social Justice Research
- Konopasky & Sheridan (2016), Towards a Diagnostic Toolkit for Agency
– I will attach the rest of the articles when the question is assigned.