25/07/2011 by lizit.

I am an insider in my research domain.

Reading an article recommended by a colleague on insider research (Hellawell, 2006) raises the possibility of there being different dimensions to insider research, and that my position might vary in different aspects of my research and in relation to different participants.

My research focuses on the Special Educational Needs (SEN) system and uses the lens of the experiences of parents and practitioners involved with children and young people with diagnoses of Aspergers or high functioning autism (HFA).

I am an insider in that I have a son with Aspergers and I have had involvement  with the SEN system in negotiating to get his needs met. I am also an insider as I have an ongoing relationship with other parents who have children on the autism spectrum, or who are going through the diagnostic process. I share a lot in common with other parents both in terms of understanding and navigating the SEN system and in terms of coping with the effect of having a child with Aspergers on daily living and dealing with the many and varied effects on family life and on me personally as a mother.

However, I am also interested in the perspectives of practitioners in the domain. In a sense, I am a practitioner as I facilitate a support group, but my experience in that role is very different from those practitioners who are responsible for diagnosing the condition, recommending interventions or providing support. At the same time, I have nearly 20 years experience of working in social care organisations, so I have experience of making decisions and recommendations that affect the lives of other. Although I may be seen as an ‘outsider’ by the practitioners I interview in professional terms, I do have some understanding of the pressures and influences they work under, and that does influence my approach.

There is also the question of the extent to which both practitioners and parents form a community of practice within the domain. Although this is not the focus of my research, it is clear that there is much shared knowledge and language between people coming from different places in the domain.

A useful article in enabling me to see that doing insider researcher is more complex than simply questions of making assumptions about common understanding or giving access that might not otherwise be so readily available.

Hellawell, D. 2006. Inside–Out: Analysis of the Insider–Outsider Concept as a Heuristic Device to Develop Reflexivity in Students Doing Qualitative Research. Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 483-494.

Posted in community of practice, Aspergers/HFA, methodology, reflections | Print | No Comments »

18/11/2010 by lizit.

For some months, one of my concerns has been what to do with my interview data. I have read lots of material on qualitative data analysis and many different articles, and even books, which have used qualitative approaches of one sort or another.  Some of what I read resonated, but a great deal didn’t and I think I am only now beginning to understand where my personal sticking point is.

Some months back, I found the section on analysis in Merrill and West (2009) helpful. They pointed to a holistic approach and identified the danger in the use of computer-based analysis of fragmenting data. The tension between letting participants’ voices be heard and the abstraction necessary for theory building was clearly stated. Although they include a clear outline of their own approaches to analysis - and the two writers differ - I found what they were saying difficult to relate to relate to my own work. Perhaps there was a sense that I had to develop a coding structure and learn to use the available computer packages, or perhaps because I am ‘a techie’ there was a sense of there being another program here to play with - and I am never one to be defeated by technology.

Over the past few months I have attended training courses on using a much recommended computer package. I have installed it on my computer and worked through some of my interview data using it. I can understand the program. I can appreciate it is a very powerful program with lots of potentially interesting and possibly useful features. But I’ve found I am just not happy using it. The whole approach seemed to be moving me further away from the people who have shared their stories with me and from the real life impact having a child with Aspergers.

A few days ago, I came across an article which resonated with me. Savin-Baden (2004) discusses the problem of situating ourselves in relation to our data. She suggests that it can be easier to distance ourselves from the data through complex coding systems rather than engaging with the messiness inherent in people’s lived-in lives and goes on to say that using a computer package can “result in deconstruction rather than reconstruction of the data”. This was ringing bells for me.

In the course of her article, Savin-Baden mentioned that she encouraged her students to write a short biography of each participant following an interview. This could later be turned into an interpretative biographical account which could be shared with participants. One of the things I have been doing is writing summaries of each interview with a few biographical details of each participant. Was there perhaps a clue to a possible solution to my impasse in what I was reading?

Over the past couple of days, I have worked through one of my interviews. First, I read the summary and visualised the person and the setting in which we had met. I then listened to the interview while looking at the transcript on the screen. During this process, I was able to make some minor corrections to the transcript, but more importantly, I became aware of  key phrases in the narrative and was able to highlight these. I was developing a sense of this person’s expressed feelings and concerns and understanding why she had done some of the things she had done out of a real concern for her son. She had come to life again rather than being reduced to coded fragments. With that sense of the person who was speaking, I then returned to the transcript and copied (by hand in a notebook) the words which I had highlighted, grouping them under broad headings. Finally, I returned to my original summary and reworked that by writing a series of short sections each focusing on a theme which had emerged from the interview. The resultant document is a mixture of description, summary, the participant’s expressed opinions, my observations and some personal reflection of my own.

Although the document is very rough round the edges at the moment, I can see the possibility of working with it further, linking some of the ideas emerging in it to theoretical perspectives. I can also see that taking a similar approach to other interviews will give me a collection of documents which I can use not only to identify commonalities and differences, but to do so in the context of the life and experience of the storytellers. I can also see that this kind of document is more likely to lead to further dialogue with participants than the transcripts I have been sending them. As a reconstruction which includes some interpretation, it provides scope for participants to correct and offer new insights in ways a transcript, as raw data, does not.

I’ve still got to see how this will all work out in practice and I’ve still got to see what my supervisors make of this approach, but I feel much more OK in myself about this approach at the moment.

It would be interesting to hear how others have approached data analysis in contexts where the person as well as the content is important.

Merrill, B., & West, L. (2009). Using Biographical Methods in Social Research. London: Sage.
Savin-Baden, M. (2004). Achieving Reflexivity: Moving Researchers from Analysis to Interpretation in Collaborative Inquiry. Journal of Social Work Practice, 18(3), 365-378.

Posted in data analysis, qualitative research, methodology, narratives, learning | Print | 4 Comments »

13/08/2010 by lizit.

A few weeks back I wrote about “The narrative turn” and the different perspectives there have been, and continue to be, on narrative research. Since then I have been giving some consideration to the “paradigm wars” - basically the contentious argument between quantitative and qualitative methods - and seeing some parallels between the two. Some of the arguments made against that form of narrative research which focuses on stories and life histories are remarkably similar to those posited against qualitative methods more generally. Similarly, those who rail against these methods appear to be looking for ways of making their qualitative work more structured and science-like so as to better match the values attributed to positivism and quantitative methods. I’m enjoying reading various articles and observing the fisticuffs taking place.

However, by reading these articles, I realise increasingly that I need to identify where I position myself - and why.

Some time ago I read Howard Becker’s classic paper “Whose side are we on?” and was somewhat cheered to find a case being made for recognising that no research is truly value-free - though the values espoused may vary. More recently, I have been looking at some of Arthur Frank’s writing and I’m finding “The Standpoint of Storyteller” helpful. In this article, apart from addressing Atkinson’s criticisms, Frank distinguishes stories from narratives, considers his standpoint and what brought him to that position, and makes some useful comments on the difference between his standpoint and that of the more traditional medical sociologist.

Importantly, Frank reminds us that people do not tell narratives - they tell stories. Story telling is about relationships - stories are not spoken into a vacuum, but require listeners - and listeners respond to the story as they hear it and relate to the story teller. He goes on to speak of the recuperative value of story telling - telling the story can help a story teller to place a distance between themselves and the event or condition the story focuses on (I guess this moves into the area of construction and objectifying reality…). Stories are more than data - too much focus on narrative and analysis can lose the relational context of the story telling. The researcher who is privileged to hear stories is also ethically and intellectually obliged to recognise and enter into relationship with the story and the storyteller.

In identifying his standpoint, Frank turns to his own story and his life and academic experiences. He arrives at a place which is about change - his position is not about describing the experiences of people who are sick but about making changes so that sickness can be experienced differently (I hope I am summarising him correctly there!). He says “To take a standpoint means to privilege certain aspects of what your biography shares with others.” There is nothing value-free here!

Frank goes on to differentiate the “ill person” and the “patient” - a “patient” is an “ill person” but an “ill person” is not a “patient” much of the time. Frank’s focus is on the “ill person” rather than the “patient”. Whereas Atkinson is a medical sociologist who views the doctor patient relationship, Frank focuses on the person. For Atkinson, the transaction between doctor and patient is important, but for Frank it is largely irrelevant. Similarly, outcomes are different - Atkinson is asking what can be learned to benefit the medical encounter and Frank is asking how the world looks from the perspective of an ill person.

This is relevant to me as I look at the participants in the autistic domain. How do I view the parents and children? Who am I speaking to? Am I relating stories or giving people a voice? What are the values underpinning my research and where do I stand?

Becker, H. S. (1967). Whose Side Are We On? Social Problems, 14(3), 239-247.
Frank, A. W. (2000). The Standpoint of Storyteller. Qualitative Health Research, 10(3), 354-365.

Posted in values, methodology, narratives, ethics | Print | No Comments »

04/07/2010 by lizit.

One of the things I have been puzzling over during the last month has been the apparent need for those involved in the use of biographical methods to defend their methodology in a way I have not observed with other authors. A couple of examples are pages 7-8 of Denzin and Lincoln’s “Handbook of Qualitative Research” with sections on Resistance to Qualitative Studies and Qualitative versus Quantitative Research and Chapter 10 in Merrill and West (2009) Is Biographical Research Valid and Ethical.

Both Merrill and West and Chamberlayne (2000) give a clear account of the historic development of the use of biography in sociological methodology over the past century or so. There is clear evidence of the use of narrative in the form of documents from the earliest days of sociological methods. Biographical methods first started to become significant during the inter-war period with the development of the Chicago School of Sociology and the publication of Thomas and Znaniecki’s “The Polish Peasant” and Shaw’s “The Jack the Roller”. People’s stories continue to be important in many texts published in the 1950s and early 1960’s, including Willmott and Young’s work on life in the East End of London and the subsequent move to suburbia, Townsend’s study of the family life of old people, Hoggart’s “The Uses of Literacy” and Jackson and Marsden’s semi- autobiographical account of education and the working classes. By the time I became an undergraduate in 1969, these texts tended to be considered light reading and the emphasis was on a more theoretical and scientific approach, perhaps in order to ensure the academic respectability of disciplines which were beginning to become popular with students, especially in the so-called ‘new universities’. The texts I was aware of as a student was work by Marx, Weber, Durkheim and Comte.

The late 70s and early 80s saw a new emergence of story telling with two distinct roots. One was the growth of the oral history movement. From my recollections, this had two elements. One seemed to relate to the growth in race awareness, especially following the racial disturbances in a number of major cities in the early 1980’s and the felt need to capture the stories of black people to provide younger black people with their own history distinct from that of the white population. The other, related element, was an attempt to develop connections between young and old with school students recording the stories of their elders. In time, the therapeutic benefits of story telling amongst older people were to become apparent. The other root was the burgeoning women’s movement and the development of a feminist sociology which aimed to give voice and substance to the women as well as men.

By the 1990’s, not only was story telling becoming a recognised and accepted part of the sociological cannon, but it was beginning to be challenged. Atkinson, writing in 1997, suggested that personal stories and narratives were being privileged inappropriately, and critiqued other writers, namely Arthur Frank, Elliot Mishler and Arthur Kleinman for their approaches to the use of personal narratives. These authors, together with Arthur Bochner, have challenged Atkinson’s views, leading to what Thomas, writing in 2010, refers to as an ongoing debate.

Thomas usefully summarises Atkinson’s argument and that of his critics, before expressing her own standpoint which recognises both the objective and subjective nature of sociological research, especially in a field such as her own which focuses on cancer patients. She usefully distinguishes the objective medical account from the patient experience and suggests that both have an authenticity and validity. As usefully, Thomas’s article is followed by responses by Atkinson, Bochner and Frank. Perhaps the most important message for me is the recognition that each of the authors is an acknowledged expert and each has a distinct position on the use of personal narrative in sociological research. It is not that one is right and the others wrong, but that all have a contribution to make in our better understanding of how people live in society. In this context, the advice of Merrill and West to experiment with different approaches and methodologies and to find one which fits makes perfectly good sense. It is not a case of trying to emulate a particular practitioner or adopt a specific methodology, but of identifying an approach which makes methodological and actual sense in a given context.

Atkinson, P. (1997). Narrative turn or blind alley? Qualitative Health Research, 7(3), 325-344.
Chamberlayne, P., Bornat, J., & Wengraf, T. (Eds.). (2000). The turn to biographical methods in social science. London: Routledge.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of Qualitative Research (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hoggart, R. (1957). The Uses of Literacy. London: Chatto & Windus.
Jackson, B., & Marsden, D. (1986). Education and the working class: Taylor & Francis.
Merrill, B., & West, L. (2009). Using Biographical Methods in Social Research. London: Sage.
Thomas, C. (2010). Negotiating the contested terrain of narrative methods in illness contexts. Sociology of Health & Illness, 32(4), 647-660.
Townsend, P. (1957). The family life of old people: An inquiry in East London: Routledge.
Willmott, P., & Young, M. (1960). Family and Class in a London Suburb. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Young, M., & Willmott, P. (1986). Family and kinship in East London. London: Taylor and Francis.

Posted in stories, biography, methodology, narratives | Print | 1 Comment »

20/03/2010 by lizit.

Since my last post I have been reading quite a lot around biographical methods (Harrison & Lyon, 1993; Merrill and West, 2009; Miller, 2007; Stanley, 1993; West, et al, 2007). This is beginning to earth some of my earlier reading of learning biography and digging into the TLRP Learning Lives materials and more recent reading of a number of studies of the experience of diagnosis of families with children on the autistic spectrum. These studies have relied heavily on life history approaches of varying kinds, some of which allow the researcher and their personal story and perspectives to be part of or to focus the research study.

My reading of Patton (2002) helped me to realise that my own story is relevant to my research; my reading of these texts is showing me that not only is my story relevant but it is an integral part of the research I want to undertake.

In reading Miller (2007), I was interested to see reference made to the first sociological text I ever read, though I did not recognise it as such at the time. Richard Hoggart’s “The Uses of Literacy” was recommended to me by one of my sixth form teachers at about the time I decided not to continue directly from school into HE, but to take some time out. Also there was Brian Jackson and Dennis Marsden’s “Education and the Working Class” which I stumbled across as an undergraduate and began to understand something of the role education had played in my extended family - my grandfather was a skilled craftsman (a tailor), my father went to the grammar school but had to leave early to help support the family financially and then gained his degree through ‘night school’ and became (eventually) a headteacher but always considered himself working class, and my brother and I both grew up with the expectation that we would go to university. One of my father’s brothers followed a similar route and another brother passed various Civil Service exams to gain a senior post, but his other brother led a varied but interesting life as a butcher, betting shop manager, delivery driver while his sister remained at home until late middle-life to look after her father and whichever siblings still occupied the family home, earning some income from casual work and cleaning jobs.

Growing up in the 1960s and working in social and community work during the 70s and 80s, I was inevitably aware of, and influenced by, feminism and later by the disability movement and race awareness. What I had not realised was the influence of those movements, particularly feminism, on developments in sociology, though I was well aware of the affect on public policy. The reading I have been doing raises both the positive and the problematic of including oneself in a research study.

The issues, identified by Stanley (1993), are those of:

• Self/other - it is impossible for me to tell my story without also telling the stories of some others who may or may not have consented to their story being shared;
• Public/private - most textual material, even if written ostensibly as personal reflections and accounts as in a diary, also assumes an audience, whether that audience is external or an aspect of myself (”self who writes”, “self who was” and “self who is”. This assumption of an audience takes away distinctions between different forms of life writing;
• Immediacy/memory - although there is an assumption that some forms of life writing such as diaries are equivalent to reportage, in reality writers apply filters which select what is written about and offer their own interpretations of events and actions. Although there is a tendency to differentiate between written accounts which are true because they were written at the time of the event and those which are less likely to be as factual because they are written from memory, all life accounts raise the issue of what is ‘true’ in an absolute sense, but also serve to contextualise and situate what is written about.

My reading of Patton (2002) helped me to realise that my own story is relevant to my research; my reading of these texts is showing me that not only is my story relevant but it is an integral part of the research I want to undertake.

When I started these blogs and was looking for a name for the site, I recognised that I was going on a journey. The more I read and the more I think, the more I am aware of the twists and turns of that journey and the unexpected encounters on route. The goal is still there, but quite often the journey feels as though it may hold far more meaning than achieving the goal!

Harrison, B., & Lyon, E. S. (1993). A note on ethical issues in the use of autobiography in sociological research. Sociology, 27(1), 101-109.
Merrill, B., & West, L. (2009). Using Biographical Methods in Social Research. London: Sage.
Miller, N. (2007). Developing an auto/biographical imagination. In L. West, P. Alheit, A. S. Andersen & B. Merrill (Eds.), Using Biographical and Life History Approaches in the Study of Adult and Lifelong Learning: European Perspectives (pp. 167-186). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (Third ed.): Sage Publications.
Stanley, L. (1993). On auto/biography in sociology. Sociology, 27(1), 41-52.
West, L., Alheit, P., Andersen, A. S., & Merrill, B. (Eds.). (2007). Using Biographical and Life History Approaches in the Study of Adult and Lifelong Learning: European Perspectives. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Posted in feminism, methodology, concepts | Print | 1 Comment »

02/03/2010 by lizit.

I seem to be keeping a lot of different balls in the air at the moment.

I have begun to recruit research participants and that is proving almost too easy. Both the schools are very happy to co-operate and one has around 7 staff happy to talk to me and the other is approaching parents on my behalf as well as giving access to a number of staff. I am amazed how generous people are with their time and knowledge. I now need to start setting up some interviews and beginning that part of the data gathering process.

I am also doing a fair bit of reading around qualitative research and the use of narrative as a research methodology. That is proving useful in understanding better what I am trying to do, but is also highlighting the complexities of the methodology. One thing I have been struggling with is the extent to which my own experience will simply inform my work and how far I can use it as a source of data. Looking at methodology has clarified that autoethnography is a legitimate approach and that there is a strong link between this and narratology (my story and the stories of others). Patton (2002) identifies around 15 different categories/theoretical stances for qualitative research and several are immediately relevant - autoethnography, phenomenology, social construction and constructivism, phenomenology, narratology and systems theory. He offers very useful guidance on choice of methods, research design, sampling and interviewing.

My immediate next tasks seem to be to tweak the documentation I have prepared for participants, to put together outlines for the interviews - I will be using a mixture of standardised questions and probes, interview guide and informal conversational techniques and the outline will vary according to the category of participant.

This is starting to get scary…

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (Third ed.): Sage Publications.

Posted in methodology, planning | Print | 3 Comments »

08/02/2010 by lizit.

Wynne’s (1988) study on people with MS raises some interesting thoughts for me. As I understand it, the study was essentially about how people with MS understood their diagnosis, the process leading up to the diagnosis, and the possibility of science being able to provide ‘a cure’ at some time in the future.

Although some parallels can be drawn between MS and autism in terms of how far it is/was understood what the causatory factors are/were and the varying symptoms which are not common to all ’sufferers’ in the same ways, I am less interested in this than in the methodology and some of the observations.

Firstly, methodology.  The study was based on 12 interviews with people who had diagnosis of MS (in two cases, this was still in the process of being confirmed).  The interviews themselves were unstructured, and the researcher describes them as more of a conversation. Her aim was “to explore what having MS meant to individuals and to allow them to tell their stories in their own ways rather than in terms assumed relevant beforehand by the researcher.” Wynne acknowledges that it was inevitable that the researcher approached each interview, not as a blank canvas, but with an awareness of what had been said in the course of previous interviews and that this meant that in the ‘conversation’ some of these extraneous factors were introduced.  From my perspective, it also suggests that the interview itself became a reflective learning experience for both the participant and the researcher. One of the aspects I have been discussing with my supervisor is how many participants I need to recruit and it is useful to find a study where the number of participants is given.

The chapter is in a book about reflexivity and the importance of reflecting on what we write, how data is used, etc. One of Wynne’s observations concerns the use of quotations from interview data. She observes that the meaning of such quotations can easily be distorted by removing them from their original context. For example, in talking about why people approached their GP, she quotes examples of people seeking an explanation for their symptoms, but she chooses not to use a quotation about somebody looking for a repeat prescription for medication they had found helpful in relieving symptoms.

There are some interesting ideas about the relative expertise of the doctor and the patient, especially in relation to diagnosis. Although many of the participants initially received different diagnoses, and were sometimes treated initially for different ailments, this was regarded as acceptable by patients on the basis that the doctor at that time was not aware of all the information necessary for a correct diagnosis. On the other hand, when the patients began to wonder whether they actually had MS, perhaps as the result of seeing a TV programme or meeting somebody already diagnosed and recognising the similarity of their symptoms with those being portrayed or described, they were hesitant to raise this possibility with medical professionals, sometimes only mentioning their thoughts retrospectively or some considerable time after first suspecting the condition. From the text, it would appear this was not due to the seriousness of a diagnosis of MS, as the same patients were also wondering whether they might be suffering from other, more serious illnesses or conditions. There was a firm belief held by patients that diagnosis had to be confirmed by an expert, a consultant who had greater medical knowledge and expertise than the GP who had been initially consulted. In terms of autism, I recall many times being asked by different professionals who had diagnosed my son - the diagnosis by the NHS consultant in consultation with an NHS clinical psychologist carried far more weight than an earlier diagnosis by a consultant in private practice.

One of my foci is how far the expertise of ‘experts’ and ‘others’ is similar. Wynne notes that “The axiomatic distinction between expertise and non-expertise enabled the maintenance of faith in a medical science disembodied as it were from both practitioners and its subjects. Their scepticism was confined to their own abilities to be expert, either about themselves or about what science could do.” It will be interesting to see whether 20 years on in a different domain there is the same confidence in the medical profession and other experts.

Wynne, A. (1988). Accounting for accounts of the diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis. In S. Woolgar (Ed.), Knowledge and Reflexivity (pp. 101-122). London: Sage.

Posted in methodology, narratives, concepts | Print | No Comments »

08/12/2009 by lizit.

Over the last couple of weeks or so, my thoughts about my DPhil research have taken some quite dramatic and unexpected turns but in a way which is making me feel rather excited and very grounded.

A couple of weeks ago, I had a planned meeting with my supervisor and a consultant from Social Sciences. The plan had been to look at methodology and data gathering for the studies I was planning of informal learning in Second Life. But in the time between arranging the meeting and it taking place, my thinking about informal learning had moved considerably as recorded in earlier blogs! We ended up talking about where I currently was, and recognising that I was talking about a very broad area, but one which could be examined in a narrow domain.  The advice accompanying that was that such a domain should ideally be one which I knew well.

It was one of those transforming moments when suddenly things which had not been coming together suddenly made sense. With no difficulty at all, Second Life and other virtual worlds were no longer part of the picture. Instead the very obvious domain which I know best was staring me in the face - people caring for children with an ASD. The whole range of learning styles is covered with the possibility of looking at learning journeys and the mix of learning types involved in a learning journey. Not only that, but I have access to so many potential study subjects - the parent support group I run, online groups, contact with schools and medical specialists…. Not only that but my supervisor has links and an interest in the area… The only question is why did it take so long to see the obvious!

So many of the themes that have been important through my professional life come together with this focus. My anger at the failure to recognise the skills and knowledge of people without appropriate qualifications. Questions about empowerment and change management, who are the experts. Ownership and change agency.  The creation of underclasses where people are stigmatised and disempowered …. Empowerment.

In the fortnight since that meeting, I have begun to think about what my research might involve, I have met another DPhil student who is looking at issues around stigmatisation, a colleague has given me links to references on expert patients, I am being given contacts with senior paediatricians, I have been given a contact with the person leading a major course on ASDs in Birmingham and had a useful formative discussion and the possibility of access to students on the course, I have met somebody working on the problems associated with labelling, I have come across the idea of using critical incident vignettes as a way of examining learning experiences, I have been encouraged to look again at Wenger’s work around boundaries …  I could go on and on, it seems so much has happened and come together in such a short time.

I’m very aware that I have a lot of work to do, not least scoping my studies, but I am feeling absurdly excited by the thought of doing work in an area I both understand and have a long term commitment to. I also know that I would not be where I am now if I had not spent the hours reading around lots of stuff and beginning to appreciate some of the complexity of things which on the surface seemed so simple and straightforward.

Posted in methodology, ASD, narratives, informal learning, community, research ideas, change agents | Print | 1 Comment »

10/11/2009 by lizit.

I’ve just come across an interesting posting on Liz Hartnett’s blog. She identifies - and answers - a number of questions relating to her PhD research with the OU Business School:

• Who are the intended readers?
• What did you do?
• Why did you do it?
• What happened?
• What do the results mean in theory?
• What do the results mean in practice?
• What’s the key benefit for readers?
• What’s unresolved?

They look to me like the kind of questions that could help me in focusing on what I am doing …

Posted in methodology, questions | Print | No Comments »

15/10/2009 by lizit.

This feels like a good time to do a bit of taking stock and forward planning.

I’ve been looking at some of the DR2 modules and what comes through most clearly is the need for focus. This  came across particularly clearly in the lit review module which emphasised not getting sidetracked by interesting ideas, but was also very clear in the research methods module. This made sense to me as one of my main concerns is scoping my work so that it is actually both meaningful and doable in the allotted time.

Although I haven’t got a neat and tidy lit review, I do feel I have a good understanding of the informal learning area and some of the problematics of working in that area. I am also clear about the problems of language, especially the use of ‘informal learning’ in corporate training contexts and the changing use of ’social learning’. Looking at the informal learning literature has clarified the connections with adult education, lifelong learning, etc, and has also shown the paucity of material on children and informal learning - just one futurelab report as far as I can see. I am keeping up-to-date with Second Life and virtual worlds more generally through both literature and involvement in a number of mailing lists and attendance at various workshops and conferences. I have also explored the literature around virtual communities, including that focusing on 2D communities. Although I have revisited community development material, I have not done so as thoroughly as I originally intended to and there may be a need to look at more of this.

Other blogs and entries in my wiki focus on the reading I have been doing on motivation - Csikszentmihalyi and Deci and Ryan - and on social learning theory as propounded by Bandura. These are potentially useful theories for analysing data in the studies I am proposing.

So what am I actually proposing to do and why? I am increasingly coming to the view that my work needs to be located in relation to the recent government white paper on informal learning. The white paper makes a number of assumptions about informal learning, including about its potential role in adult education and about the need for it to be recognised in some way or other. Apart from the potential elements of cost-cutting or of formalising the informal, I feel the white paper raises a number of issues which are not properly addressed.

So where do I go from here?

Firstly, I think I need to re-read the white paper and the earlier consultative document and responses. I will be looking particularly at how informal learning is understood in those documents and how it is seen to relate to the lifelong learning and widening participation agendas.

Secondly, I need to frame my research question(s) in the context of the white paper. (Given the forthcoming general election, it would be useful to check what the position of other major political parties is on informal learning, but given there is also an EU dimension, I suspect the changes are more likely to be in relation to priorities rather than direction.)

Thirdly, I need to revisit the work I have been doing in outlining potential studies and ensuring these actually address my research question.

That sounds like enough for the moment.

Posted in methodology, informal learning, Government policy, research ideas, planning | Print | No Comments »