Tag Archives: Researcher Journal

Autoethnography⤴

from

I recently attended a webinar [Meet & Eat] Autoethnography in Online Doctoral Education which I very much enjoyed. One of the presenters asked a question of the audience that got me thinking, and I am really thinking out loud as I write this post:

How do we challenge an autoethnography? How do we challenge personal experience?

I answered briefly in the chat to say that I would not challenge any one else’s interpretation, but rather I would offer my own interpretation and ask for them to comment about it. I also mentioned that this was the approach that used in my own PhD thesis, and I referred, as I often do, to the parable of the blind men and the elephant:

I don’t know the questioner’s opinion of AE, he didn’t give it, so I don’t want to assume that he was misunderstanding what AE is and is not. But this type of question is often asked by those who do misunderstand the nature of qualitative research – often because they hold to some ideal of universal, objective truth, and they consider qualitative research to be inferior because it does not meet this standard. And the answer to the question from this perspective is to point out that you don’t challenge an AE by simply saying that it is not necessarily true, and that there are other possible interpretations. An AE does not pretend to be objective, and it is open about the fact that it is based on a personal story, although it is not just a story. As Ellis, Adams and Bochner say:

Autoethnography is an approach to research and writing that seeks to describe and systematically analyze personal experience in order to understand cultural experience.

Carolyn Ellis, Tony E. Adams & Arthur P. Bochner (2011)

So rather than asking if an AE is true, we can ask if it is plausible to use the story to understand the relevant experience, whether it is a useful interpretation, whether it helps us to better understand the issues at hand. And, of course, we can ask whether there are other AEs that can help to give us a fuller understanding of it all.

Researcher Visibility⤴

from

Lurker
Lurker” flickr photo by NomadWarMachine shared under a Creative Commons (BY-NC-SA) license

In my last post I shared a quote from Joanne McNeil introducing the idea of researcher as lurker. Since then I have been thinking at some reasons for researchers to show or hide themselves from their participants, and the related issues of visibility of data and ethical considerations. Here is my starter for ten about levels of researcher visibility and possible research reasons.

Researcher VisibilityResearch Reason
Status as researcher disclosed to participants from the outsetParticipatory research
Ethnography
Status as researcher initially hidden (not disclosed to participants), disclosed at/after data analysis stageConcerns about researcher influencing behaviour (e.g. Hawthorne effect).
Later disclosed so participants can authenticate interpretation
Status as researcher never disclosed to participants during data collection or analysis stageParticipant point of view not relevant
Researcher as ‘god-like’/expert
Data is being collected after the event
Participants are anonymous
Data VisibilityHow?
Public throughoutOpen research/open data
Public at publication of projectShared to institutional database
Shared with participantsVarious ways
Shared on requestVarious ways
Never shared 

My next stage is to think through types of ethical (approval) to match these.

[I think more and more, by the way, that the insistence on the need for ethical approval by institutional gatekeepers is problematic (and not at all ethical). I say something about this in my PhD thesis (see ~ p 82).]

Researchers as lurkers⤴

from

Researcher as lurker
J McNeil p129

An interesting paragraph in a book I am reading at the moment (Lurking, by Joanne McNeil). We are used to talking about learners as lurkers, but here’s another perspective. What images do we invoke when we think about the researcher as lurker?

The picture of researcher as outsider – as a profiteer swooping in to steal content and to cherry pick meaning to fit their own agenda – was one that gave me pause during my own PhD (I am sure some of you remember the story of the ‘researchers’ who came across a Google Doc that some of us were using to start writing a journal article and used it in a conference presentation without asking or attributing – the affront we felt at that unethical behaviour has stayed with me). I chose participatory research as my methodology, and ultimately ended up writing an autoethnography because I wanted to try to allow my community to have a voice in what I was doing, and to make it clear that what I was saying was my own interpretation.

Of course Twitter is public, and the ToS make it clear that researchers are permitted to use tweets without attribution, but imo that is not the full story – there are also ethical considerations (I say some things about this in my PhD thesis if anyone is interested).

I’m not sure where I am going with this yet – as always I am writing to find out what I am thinking.

The emergence of participatory learning: authenticity, serendipity and creative playfulness⤴

from

Thesis word cloud

Today I got the final confirmation that I have been awarded my PhD in Education, with the title The emergence of participatory learning: authenticity, serendipity and creative playfulness. The thesis is now uploaded to my Uni library repository, and anyone who likes can read it.

Thanks again CLMOOC, for everything. Hat tip to DS106.

The emergence of participatory learning: authenticity, serendipity and creative playfulness⤴

from

Thesis word cloud

Today I got the final confirmation that I have been awarded my PhD in Education, with the title The emergence of participatory learning: authenticity, serendipity and creative playfulness. The thesis is now uploaded to my Uni library repository, and anyone who likes can read it.

Thanks again CLMOOC, for everything. Hat tip to DS106.

Tying it all together⤴

from

Nearly there. This week I spoke to my supervisor and my Graduate School and I have sent off my “intention to submit” by March 31st 2021. It’s almost done- I just need to finish the final chapters and give it a thorough edit.

Thesis Structure

It’s been a long journey – as I scrawled down on a scrap of paper this week, my thesis has gone through changes from looking at collaborative learning, through to thinking about peer interactions and ending with a rich picture of participatory learning.

Nearly there

I’ll leave the thanks for the acknowledgements, but for now I will give a shout out for my loyal little research assistant, who keeps me going through it all.

Research Assistant
Research Assistant

Past me⤴

from

Thank You

Sitting, pen in hand, with blank paper in front of me, I chastise my past self.
I shout at her for being lazy, for not writing more, so that I would need to write less.
But my past self was not ready to write: she didn’t know what I know now.
Her thoughts had not crystallised, she had not read what I had read.
I need to stop blaming past-me for what she did not do
And start thanking her for what she did.

Thank You” flickr photo by Orin Zebest shared under a Creative Commons (BY) license

Writer’s Block⤴

from

I’ve stalled. With just under five months till I submit my completed thesis I have run out of steam. I have no time to waste, and so I waste time. I know all of the advice – I have given it many times, but still I pause. My bookshelves are tidied, my yarn is sorted, my fridge is clean.

I still feel that I need to give myself permission to write. I’m framing my thesis as an auto-ethnography because that feels right – it feels authentic – but I still struggle to justify my approach. Maybe I worry that it is not rigorous enough – maybe my background in anglo-analytic philosophy has trained me to privilege an argumentative style over the explanatory … Maybe I need to channel my inner philosopher (note to self: do not channel your inner Deleuze).

Whatever, the time has come. I remind myself of one of my favourite quotes:

“Fool,” said my muse to me. “Look in thy heart and write.”

Wish me luck …

Catching my breath⤴

from

Bee

Phew, I am glad May is over. Annual review and a deadline to submit a draft lit review in the same week – both done. I am apparently on track to submit by January 2020. I hope I can cope – I have spent the last few weeks either writing or feeling guilty that I was not writing. Today I gave myself permission to take a day off. I have gardened, doodled, read for fun, relaxed.

I’m not going to share my draft lit review here – it’s not that interesting. A whistle stop tour of some educational theories with a nod to constructionism, and a note to myself to think more about tinkering as an approach.

Creative playfulness⤴

from

I submitted a draft of my PhD discussion chapter yesterday. It’s over 7,000 words, so I won’t post it all here! I can never remember the actual title of my thesis – but I am looking broadly about how peer interaction helps to support learning, and I am using CLMOOC (and a bit of DS106) to think about the question. My draft thesis statement at the moment is this:

CLMOOC is best conceptualised as being an affinity space, or affinity network, in which the principles and values of connected learning support and facilitate a participatory culture of lifelong learners who engage in reciprocal and collaborative practices such as remix. This ethos of creative playfulness leads to meaningful learning because members of CLMOOC perceive themselves to be in a safe space where they can experiment and learn new skills without fear of ridicule or censure, and can ask openly for help and advice as they need it. Much of the learning that occurs in CLMOOC is emergent and thus unplanned in one sense, and the structure and ethos of CLMOOC are carefully designed so that they support and facilitate this emergent learning. However, although this structure is carefully designed, this design is not immediately obvious.

I’ve done various types of analysis – some social network analysis (using TAGS), and a textual analysis of some CLMOOC tweets. To do this, I focused on the 2016 summer pop-up, as looking at the 40K tweets I have in my TAGS database would have taken me years. My summary of that analysis is this:

CLMOOC is a highly connected, non-hierarchical community of lifelong learners with an ethos of social justice who support each other and learn through creative play. In summary, CLMOOC has the following features:

  • Connected community: the social network visualisations in particular show that CLMOOC is a highly connected community of learners, and the thematic analysis shows that many members feel a sense of belonging and being connected to each other;
  • Communicative conversations: the content analysis shows that many of the conversations in CLMOOC are more than just informal chit-chat. They are:
    • highly cognitive and meta-cognitive: members talk about teaching and learning and consider how to apply what they are learning to their own teaching practices;
    • highly social and supportive: members praise each other, are not afraid to show their feelings for each other and their appreciation for what others are doing;
  • Creative and collaborative: the thematic analysis shows that CLMOOC is a maker space where participants engage in reciprocal creative play and that this leads to serendipitous and surprising happenings and emergent learning.

I am calling CLMOOC an affinity space, or affinity network, based on my reading of writings by James Paul Gee and Mimi Ito (especially the book some of us recently read together), and characterising the interactions that we engage in as HOMAGO. In order to explain this, I’m adding some examples of the sorts of collaborative and reciprocal activities we play around with. I’m also adding pictures to make it look pretty (all CLMOOC designed with CC licences, of course. At the moment my examples are:

  • Off the cuff play: I’ve used our giffing around as an example here,
  • Volunteer suggestion: I’ve used the badges from CLMOOC 2016, and Ron’s artwork,
  • Shared practice: I thought Silent Sunday would be good here. with a collage of a few pf the pictures,
  • Collaborative: I’ve chosen Story Jumpers for this, with a pic of Miss Direction,
  • Transcending the virtual: well, the postcards have to be mentioned, don’t they? I have a pic of my pin board to illustrate this,
  • I have not added this yet, but I will write something aboutdaily rituals – either the daily creates from DS106, or the daily doodles some of us have been drawing.

I’m also suggesting that the broad values we subscribe to are those of connected learning: that is, learning that is socially connected, interest-driven, and oriented towards educational opportunity.

In the next section, I’m going to look at the design of CLMOOC, using papers written by Anna, Christina, Mia and Stephanie as a starting point.

So what do you think? Does this sound like CLMOOC to you? What have I missed out? What would you want me to say about CLMOOC?