Writing a blog

The activity of documenting my learning by writing down ideas and insights, questions and recording the ‘aha’ moments in this blog seemed daunting at first, but I am really glad I did it.It is a testimony of my personal learning journey; going back to my written ideas and understandings at various times is very helpful. There is a Latin saying- 'vorba volent, scribum manent'- which translates as 'the spoken word flies, but the written one remains'- what best way to summarize how I feel about this blog! It is in a way a reflective professional journaling that I should get in the habit of keeping. Although the information on this blog was public only for the participants in the Advanced Qualitative class, I often wondered at what point I would feel ‘safe’ enough to open up and become vulnerable to the criticism, feedback and input from a wider audience. As it stands today, I received feedback and entered a cyber-dialogue only with two people that I trust professionally and personally: one is my professor from whom I did expect input, and one is a classmate (Sandra) with whom I am developing a strong friendship and camaraderie in scholarship. In a way this could be a taste of what it means to be published (in a journal, in an edited book, an article); if I am to be political within my scholarship and continuous learning, I need to build the courage of standing behind what I say and opening myself up for a public dialogue and criticism. More than often critical discussions are conducive to more learning and positive growth. I wonder how other people feel about publicly blogging on their learning journey...

I like the format of this blog because it keeps a nice timeline of my entries and reflections (somehow it resembles the format of an online class with everybody’s input nicely and timely recorded).

Interpreting and Presenting Data


Interpreting data (especially in qualitative research) is influenced by the researcher’s positionality within theory, practice, ethics, biases, epistemological and ontological views, and the study itself(research questions, methodology, data gathering, etc). In addition to the researcher’s positionality (just mentioned) influencing interpretation, presenting data is influenced by audience to which the results are presented. For example, if data is presented within a research journal, a researcher will most likely follow the style of presentation upheld by the journal and its editors (e.g. abstract, introduction, literature review, etc) Likewise, presentation of data for a professional conference may take on a different display style, maybe focusing more on audio, visual, or dramatic styles.(Grbich, 2007).

I really enjoyed reading “Writing and Retelling Multiple Ethnographic Tales of a Soup Kitchen for the Homeless” (Miller et al., 1998). Aside from the fact that this article brought to the forefront issues related to homelessness and the social/civic response or non response to this situation, I appreciated the researchers’ transparency and testimony in describing their journey of retelling and writing the story of homelessness as they studied/encountered it. The retelling of the story through realist tale, confessional tale and critical tale created space for deep reflections on research such as ‘The retelling of an ethnography may be as important as the initial writing of it..., [we] learned that research is dynamic rather than static, causing ethnographers to reflect on how they write and present their studies to different audiences..., when we were challenged to interrogate our own text, the critical tale took shape, and the issues of access, equity, positionality, investment, accuracy, and truth surfaced”(p.489).

Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. London: SAGE Publications.
Miller, D. L., Creswell, J. W., & Olander, L. S. (1998). Writing and Retelling Multiple Ethnographic Tales of a Soup Kitchen for the Homeless. Qualitative Inquiry, (4), 469-491. doi:10.1177/107780049800400404

‘Post’ Coding and post methodologies

The coding and the after coding processes seemed to be pretty straightforward once the researcher’s biases, subjectivity are taken into open account and once the theoretical frameworks are established; now it seems that there is much more to add to what I have known thus far, which complicates matters; I thought it has recently become clear that qualitative research is as reliable and valid as quantitative research and I thought that the ‘battle’ for validity and reliability territory was a matter of the past.
It appears to me that there is still a ‘battle ‘ going on between “scientism” of methods and various qualitative approaches to analyzing data to reflect on or produce knowledge. I found interesting the idea of “othering” of qualitative data analysis/processes/theory framing as expressed in Lather’s article (2014) and how this research has been “disciplined” to follow scientific based research guidelines- the “quantitative template, the quantitative imperialism” (Lather, 2014, p. 636).
St. Pierre and Jackson(2014) bring forth valid questions related to what counts as good /appropriate data, what is the best way to gather data, what is coding and how coding is done in an ‘appropriate’ way. The answers or research approaches are to be directed by theoretical frameworks and the researcher’s positionality, and of course the research questions because “the ontologies and epistemologies that enable one to code data (scientifically)…are …unthinkable on the ‘posts’ that use different ontologies…[and epistemologies](p.716)… that describe the world as unstable or becoming…unable to be contained in language, that don’t separate being and knowing” (p. 717).

Foucault’s methods

Wow! This is very difficult information to process. I would have to supplement (in the future) the assigned readings for this week with reading Foucault’s The Archaeology of Knowledge, Madness and Civilization, The Birth of the Clinic for I am far away from understanding Foucault’s methods. I have a very vague general idea about his archaeology, genealogy and practices of the self.

The archaeological method (which is not o be understood as the discipline of archaeology) includes a set of complex concepts; for example the concepts of “savoir” and “connaissance” as they relate to knowledge refer to implicit knowledge-the “savoir” (the practices, the activities, institutional praxis), while “connaissance” refers to bodies of knowledge as provided in science books and philosophical and religious theories. Linguistically speaking, the French term of savoir is connected to action and the knowing how to (applied knowledge), while connaitre/connaissance refers to knowing about, (theoretical bodies and disciplines). As noted in Scheurich and McKenzie (in), “archaeology [as in Foucault method] is the study of savoir as the conditions of possibility of connaissance...[in other words] formal knowledges emerge more ‘irrationally’ from savoir, which includes not only the formal and rational but also the much broader ‘irrationality’ of politics, institutional practices, popular opinions, and so on”(p. 321).

The genealogical method study the relations and tactics of power, and include the “four general rules” for analysis: 1. usage of power to punish, repress, exclude, but also to produce, 2. usage of punitive methods as tactic of power to control souls not just behavior, 3. technologies of power, 4. leniency or humanization of power techniques (Denzin and Lincoln, 2008, pp330-335).


I was wondering if there are some good studies out there using Foucault’s methods. I would have to search.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Analyzing visuals and visual images of any kind, whether photos, videos, sketches, graffiti, artwork, engravings, newspaper images, and so on, is an attractive and daunting task at the same time. All depends on the research question, the intended audience, the researcher’s positionality, the historical and cultural context, the researcher/participants’ ability to deconstruct / reconstruct, present/represent, and define/ redefine. This kind of data could provide tremendous information, especially if coupled with other data (narratives, biographies, histories, etc).

I am hoping to take a class that will focus on visuals and documentaries as a way to do research or document contexts, realities, truths, and questions/issues. Particularly since, nowadays our growing audience is more and more into strong visuals...(thinking of young generations that document their fleeting lived moments through ‘selfies’, instagram, and so on).

Visual interpretation research is so connected to film/documentary criticism, art criticism, archaeology/iconography symbolism , that I don’t even dare to think that I could ever produce a powerful vibrant piece to speak for generations.

Qualitative Content Analysis

As a novice researcher it is daunting to figure out the differences between research methods (data collection and data analysis)-even though those differences may be crystal clear for more experienced researchers. Such is the example of grounded theory and qualitative content analysis. I particularly liked the article discussing similarities and differences between these two methodologies (Cho & Lee, 2014).
While they are similar in their inquiry approach (identifying themes, patterns, and rigorous coding) they differ in method of collecting data and analyzing data.

In content analysis, data analysis can be driven by both deductive and inductive approaches, where deductive “starts with preconceived codes or categories derived from prior relevant theory, research, , or literature”(Cho &Lee, 2014, p. 4) if the objective of research is to test existing data in a new given context, while the inductive approach is used when prior knowledge is limited, therefore codes, themes and patterns come straight from data.

I liked the point of manifest and latent meaning of text, and the freedom of interpretation that content analysis method offers. I understand now that in ground theory , theory is driven from the relationship between categories of data, while content analysis is focused on finding themes emerging from categories of data.

I absolutely recommend reading Cho and Lee article- it has opened new doors to better understanding.

Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E. H. (2014). Reducing Confusion about Grounded Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis: Similarities and Differences. The Qualitative Report, 19, 1-20. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR19/cho64.pdf

exploring conversations

I am a bit disappointed with the readings for this section, for I see the direction of the discussion and research conclusions do not take into account anything related to culture or culture within culture. For example, even within native speakers of English, there are differences in communication cues and how people take turns or present delays, mitigations and delays based on what region they are from or even educational background they belong to. It is even more important so when the conversation takes place between native speakers of English and non native speakers of English. Some cultures are characterized by “high power distance” while others are not. Even to this day, I am not able to accept a compliment without cringing. I cringe when I have to say (according to the American cultural rules) “thank you” to an innocent compliment. In my culture, one does not readily accept a compliment... there is always some sort of mitigation on the meaning of the compliment, and a readily acceptance of a compliment is in the least extremely rude and selfish. Even the simple question of “how are you” is answered or taken differently based on the cultural background (and/or level of connection between participants).

In other words, I think conversation analysis is very interesting; however the researcher must consider the cultural (educational) background of each participant to the conversation before venturing to make any assumptions or draw conclusions. It is a slippery slide...

discourse analysis

On a personal level, discourse analysis seems to be a very controversial method of research, mainly because there are many factors to consider when making sense of meaning, when meaning is related to language and culture ( where culture could be situational, geographical, political, personal, and so on) ; that is, according to Gee (1999, p. 85-86), we use language to build meaning related to : 1. semiotic/communicative building, 2. world building (what and where as reality), 3. activity building (specific actions), 4. socioculturally (identities and relationships, ways of being), 5. political building (social “goods”), 6. connection building (connections between present past and future).

To me it looks like a researcher would have to be very connected to the discourse(and people producing it) he/she analyses- either through extensive study (historical study, study of various documents, etc.) or through personal cultural and sociolinguistic participatory understanding (where participation can be subjective, or quasi-subjective through personal involvement to an extent of different degrees). For example, how can a researcher perform discourse analysis on Mexican immigrant students, without knowing (at least peripherally) the language (Mexican Spanish), the culture(Mexican-with geographical varieties), and the experience of being in an ‘immigrant ‘status (either through prolonged exposure to immigrant students, or through personal experience of the immigrant status as a student).

As a ‘green’ researcher with a strong linguistic background, I would be interested in such studies, but I would not venture on any ‘fields’ outside of what I feel I know culturally, linguistically, socially, politically, and so on.

Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York, NY: Routledge.

Narrative approaches


After reading on narrative approaches, I can not help but think that narrative approaches are similar to phenomenology in at least one aspect: the making sense of human experiences. Maybe they differ in the details of how the research questions are asked; that is narrative approaches would try to identify what experiences have in common or not (or what experiences reveal when retold/analyzed) with regards to, let’s say state, or status (what does it mean to be an undocumented student in a public school, or engagement with diversity issues on a given campus), while phenomenology starts from looking closely at one phenomenon (like being bullied, or feeling discriminated for being of a different ethnicity than the main stream). It is almost like narrative approaches go from a wide range of views (many told stories by various people) to a more focused view(the retold story of the researcher), while phenomenological approaches go from an identified theme(one phenomenon) to the wide possible generalization. I wonder if narrative research could be used as research material (literature review) for phenomenological research (along with other data-interviews, observations, etc.).

In other words, if I were to take on a study of experiences of international teachers in the US public schools, I would most likely go with a narrative approach, and most likely my voice as a researcher would co-construct the voice of the participants ; if I wanted to explore the feeling of “in between-ness” or feeling a “stranger” as an international teacher, I would most likely go with a phenomenological approach, and my position as a researcher(biases and personal beliefs) would be clear from the research onset.

This can be very confusing?!

Dr. Davis, am I making sense? I feel right now that little knowledge is my greatest enemy, and I feel that my assumptions may be a bit farfetched.

phenomenological approaches

Phenomenological approaches

I think that up to this point, after studying and reading about various qualitative approaches, I identify my research interests to situate themselves within the phenomenological approach continuum. I am using the term continuum for I am not sure yet on the specific type of phenomenology I would go with , if hermeneutic, or, existential. I am interested in exploring human experiences and translating that into meaning within consciousness, individual or/or collective. I am still at the beginning of my learning, and while I may make general assumptions, nevertheless, I strongly feel that I identify my research interests with this line of research; particularly, because it starts with the researcher’s self-reflexion to identify personal biases and preconceptions regarding the issue under research, before the inquiry would proceed to identifying the participants experiences and understandings ; this multi-folded view (self and of participants’) would unveil depth of meaning on a consciousness continuum- collective and/or individual.

I am going to read more on phenomenological inquiries; I will start with Heidegger and van Mannen- for I feel I need to understand the historical and philosophical direction that this type of inquiry has taken in time before I read what other scholars had to say on this method of inquiry.


I was born and educated in a different country than the US, and I would like to explore the experience of my counterparts-teachers, those born elsewhere and educted elsewhere than the US, and their experience as 'foreigners" or 'assimilated proffessionals" in the context of public education in the US. Also, because I work with/teach expats,or students of various native backgrounds and US documentation (legal, illegal, transient, migrant)I would like to explore their life experiences, and what they make of their learning/currerre in the US schools, and how they see possible, or manage to continue education beyond high school.

Grounded Theory

It looks like the choice for grounded theory research approach should start with the researcher’s question of whether he or she wants to inductively generate theory or hypothesis from data to explain a process under study. That means that a researcher relies on data collection, coding, and permanent comparison of data to generate theory. I understand that there are different views on grounded theory approaches depending on the philosophical (pragmatism, postmodernism, post-structuralism, constructivism) and personal positioning of the researcher (Savin-Baden & Major, 2013). According to Savin-Baden & Major(2013), “researchers who want to stay close to the data, and who do not necessarily seek ’truth’ but rather a conception of what is taking place in a particular situation will benefit from a grounded theory approach”(p. 183). That in Charmaz’ (2006) understanding (constructivist grounded theory) means that researchers along with participants will construct their own realities. Researchers, when coding, label various instances/situations/discourses using language that ultimately expresses one way of looking at things. In this regard, Charmaz (2006) points out that “specific use of language reflects views and values...[and] coding should inspire us to examine hidden assumptions in our own use of language and that of our participants”(p. 47). Later in the chapter, Charmaz brings to our attention the idea of personal preconceptions that stem from concepts such as class, gender, , race, age, and others that “may permeate an analysis without the researcher’s awareness”(p. 67). Assumptions, preconceptions, or taken for granted cultural views may have an influence on how researchers make sense of what they are studying, and I think this is why realizing and conceptualizing our positionality is important when we take on a grounded theory approach.

I find the whole process of coding fascinating; building an understanding and eventually unveiling a hypothesis or stating a theory depends on coding and on how the researcher interacts with data. I think I have a general understanding of how coding is being done-through stages of line by line or in vivo, followed by focused coding, axial, and theoretical coding. I would be very interested of deconstructing one strong grounded theory research study so that I could better understand coding step by step. Applying this theory to practice could only work for me if I did this process in reverse- going from one study and analyzing each stage along with theory on coding within GT. approaches.

I think I had a little taste of that when I did my small scale research on school secretaries (I wanted to explore their experiences and if they felt they were important to the school curriculum). While coding I stumbled over surprising categories that revealed an interesting turn I could take in researching this further, particularly school culture, and the culture keepers.


Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publications.


Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. H. (2013). Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice. Milton Park, Abingdon: Routledge.

Feminist approaches

I am confused about the information I have read thus far about feminist approaches in qualitative research. Reading some of the theory on feminism, it seems that the feminist approaches in a purist form are concerned with unveiling and also politically combating and changing inequalities linked to gender, race, class , heterosexism, with a particular focus on women and their oppression in our society. Initially, I thought feminist approaches had to do mainly with inequalities where the oppressed are the weak, the children, women, the poor, and so on. I thought that feminist approaches in qualitative research were not limited to research participants being female. And thus, the examples that I read are confirming my initial thoughts. For example, Ramirez (2013) is interested in the examination of the Latinos/as’ process in choosing a graduate program. Her study involves both males and females! As I understand it at this point feminism is a more extremist take on critical social theory than it is a pure theory in itself. Are feminist approaches more related to challenging the masculine organization of society in general than anything? That makes me think of my own experience of taking a job as language instructor for the US Department of Defense in Iraq. I encountered many situations of sexism and oppression based on gender; I feel I had to work twice as hard and had to keep myself in a very conscious and tight state of mind to prove that I could function and perform as well as a man (I had to face adversity of negative judgment for my decision on taking such a task here in the States, there within the US Air Force, and some of my Iraqi male students); however, there were few situations where my physical weakness -based on weight and endurance , were a challenge; as a matter of fact I outperformed some of my male counterparts and military reps in intellectual and cultural awareness performance! Maybe feminist approaches also have to do with particular situations; for example, if I were to describe my experience in Iraq , working with both American and Iraqi officers, I would most likely use a feminist approach, because the cultural situation, the military cultural milieu (unfortunately) were encouraging oppression based on gender and sexism.

ethnographies

Clarification of terminology is important- methodology is a set of guidelines, while methods are techniques to gather and analyze data. It seems that methodologies are not clear cut, they do overlap; at this point it is hard for me to know for sure which guidelines go with which methodology. I understand that there are several aspects that guide a researcher on what methodology or approach to take: 1) the research question; 2)the inquiry type(subjective or investigative); 3)the epistemological and ontological orientation of the researcher. I was wondering if I could do a research study starting from a subjective view point (auto-ethnographic) view point and then expand ethnography to other people to investigate their view point and experience with regards to one particular cultural situation. Would that be a comparative hermeneutic quasi ethnographical study? I was wondering if any of you had a chance to read something along the lines I just described.

August 2014

Today, August 24, 2014, I started this blog. This is going to help me record and share my learning journey, especially the path to learning more about qualitative research. I am interested in the idea and "self' and "other" , the "I" and "thou", and the multiple identities(new learning) one develops in relationship and jointly with the other(where the other is either another person, creature, nature, experiences, etc.). I am all about synallosgnostic learning -creating knowledge jointly  and in interaction with the other. Notice synallosgnostic is not a word yet :)