The Year that Was a Dumpster Fire…

Past Justin was aware that 2020 was going to be the “year that wasn’t,” considering I completely ignored it and wrote nothing in anticipation of the year. So, here I am revisiting my 2019 intentions and dropping some for Future Justin to have to grapple with in 2021.

2019 INTENTIONS RECAP

Drink more water – Let’s see here… NOPE.

Read at least 2 books a month – Surprisingly, yes! Once my official course work ended in Spring 2020, this became quite easy to complete. I still have a tendency to read in spurts and would like to get more consistent.

Eat more – I have definitely been doing this, especially the past few weeks. Working from home has not changed too much from what was my normal work activity, so I am eating less during the day, binging at dinner, and then snacking at night.

Continue working out and adding running – This has ebbed and flowed throughout 2020. I am currently in a downswing as a slight knee issue is making me hesitant. Thankfully, it is starting to feel better.

Buying a house – I can happily report this happened, and I am dying in this house. The process is still not complete as we are in the midst of selling our previous home. Luckily, it should be wrapped up in the beginning of the new year.

Doctoral program/dissertation – As I mentioned earlier, I finished my course work in Spring 2020. My reflective competency portfolio was submitted and I successfully defended my dissertation proposal. I then took a short break before submitting my for my IRB approval. Once that was signed off, I was in a bit of a back and forth to obtain the data for my study. With so many people working remotely and needing signatures from various individuals at two different institutions, the process drug out a bit longer than preferred. Ultimately, I had what I needed by the end of the year.

2021 INTENTIONS

#DadLife – This will always be a part of my intentions now that Rylie is in my life. What I have recognized in her almost 17 months of life is that being a “good” dad requires one to be a “better” partner and that these roles are not mutually exclusive. They are intricately linked and improvement in one necessitates attention to the other. It means being attuned to needs and wants, open communication, patience, listening, and sharing. All things I hope to instill in Rylie through actions and words.

Working out – Similar to the previous intention, this will probably always be on here in some capacity, which I have accepted. Like most people, my habits with working out tend to ebb and flow. I am thankful that my partner has more discipline when it comes to this and frequently encourages me to do something with her. She also purchased me tennis lessons as a gift, something that I have been hoping to play. I also would love to get back into paddling outriggers once I am done my dissertation and life settles back down a bit.

Read at least 3 books a month – There is soooo much good television out there to consume. On the other hand, there are more great books to read. What I really want to do is balance my consumption habits and honestly tip them more in the direction of reading when possible. I am also expanding my reading to different authors and genres and topics as a way to broaden my thinking.

Doctoral dissertation – The plan is to have this complete by Summer 2021 at the absolute latest. I have everything I need and simply have to bury myself in this work over the next few months. Working from home has actually made it more difficult to make progress, as it is easier to make excuses and divert my attention to far more enticing things. Normally, I would go the office or Starbucks to focus; however, with the pandemic, those locations are no longer available. This would hopefully turn into something publishable so that would be another component to pursue by the end of the year.

Learn a language – I know… pretty typical. My daughter, Rylie, is at a point where she is starting to say actual words and clearly she understands what we are saying as her subsequent actions are directly related to our words. So, this feels like a good time to delve into this with her. I had learned Spanish in my youth and surprisingly retained a lot of the vocabulary. We use Arabic words around her too. Unsure of what to go with and realistically, this will not be a true focus until I am done my dissertation.

Seek a new challenge – This is purposefully vague, as I am not quite sure what I want this to be just yet, but I know it is something I need to do. Obviously, learning a language or tennis both could easily fit into this intention, yet I want to pursue those separately. This could mean a change at work (new responsibilities), a new hobby (woodworking/landscaping), writing (D&D campaigns in particular), or something not even mentioned here. I am feeling a bit restless in light of everything. Extremely happy, just recognizing I need to try my hand at something new.

2021 WORD

In 2019, the word was anticipation because of Rylie’s imminent arrival. Well now she is here and has lived a pretty remarkable life to this point considering what is happening in the United States and world. In thinking about 2021, anticipation could definitely still apply but for different reasons.

I am choosing PRIORITIZE. I am an organized individual, but sometimes struggle with deciding the order to pursue tasks/intentions/goals/relationships. I want to make sure that how I am spending my time and energy is in the best interest of what I am aiming to accomplish and is a means to an end. It is not to say that everything I do has to be associated with my intentions. What I am saying is that when provided a choice, I should more often lean towards my intentions to help make those decisions.

2019 Intentions Check-In…

It’s already May 2019, so I figured checking in on these would not be a bad thing to do… You know accountability and all that stuff…

• Drink more water – Well this started strong as I was tracking this daily.  I know that I consume more water than I previously did, so I will consider this an overall net gain.
• Read at least 2 books a month – Crushing this one.  Read a bunch of books that I received as gifts.  Plus a couple others that I purchased on my own.  Completed three of the five books of A Song of Fire and Ice, and let’s be real, each of those is like three books in its own right.
• Eat more – Not much progress here.  It goes in waves.  Right now, I have been struggling.  I am at least eating something each morning.  Lunch tends to be the problem on most days.
• Continue working out and adding running – Well this has been a disaster.  I pretty much completely stopped any activity on this front altogether outside of walking Lucy.  The motivation has completely left me.  I need to get into a routine again.  I am hoping the slower summer months will give me the boost I need to dedicate time to this again.
• Buying a house – This has been exactly what I thought it would be: THE ABSOLUTELY MOST STRESS-FREE THING I HAVE EVER EXPERIENCED IN MY LIFE.  Basically, if this isn’t done by Memorial Day it isn’t happening this year.  So like three more weeks of frustration.
• Doctoral program/dissertation – Another semester in books.  It was frustrating but it is over.  Two more classes this summer, then one in each the following fall and spring semesters.  I have a committee chair.  I have ideas of my other two committee members.  I was asked to be a part of a research team this summer (that will compensate me for my work) so that is great too!  Creeping closer and closer to the finish line.

My word for 2019: ANTICIPATION! Well, this had multiple meanings the biggest one is that in August I will be a dad!  Little Rylie will be here soon!  This is what also prompted the buying a house and our Memorial Day deadline.  Plus, trying to take care of some other things with the doctoral program/dissertation, when I can.

Wrapping It All Up…

As I am nearing the end of the semester, I am realizing that I have been able to develop the foundations of a qualitative study that I would consider pursuing.  Coming into the Ed.D. program, I was dead set on pursuing quantitative research with little thought of qualitative designs.  Through these past months, I have become far, far more confident about developing and implementing a study using qualitative methods.  I understand how my ontology and postpositivist epistemology influences my worldview and how to align these elements with methodological decisions and the formation of research questions.  I have a basic knowledge of qualitative research methods, can conduct observations and interviews, and then make sense of those data through analysis.  Overall, this semester has been enlightening and one of the most fruitful.  I know that I am closer to what it is I will study.

The ability to take qualitative and quantitative methods simultaneously was extremely beneficial.  I greatly appreciated working on a similar problem of practice through the lenses of these two methods, as it was challenging and rewarding.  Each assignment was a little bit stronger because I had could see the similarities and differences in the research traditions.  I was able to see how the decision-making and justification process with qualitative research could create stronger studies using quantitative design.  I experienced the differences in the literature review processes.  I understand how theoretical frameworks are associated with both, yet applied differently.  I know when to use credibility and trustworthiness (qualitative) and validity and reliability (quantitive).  I comprehend the importance of positionality in both research traditions, though it is often ignored in quantitative works.  More importantly, the notion of alignment in research and that it may appear different yet it is necessary for both quantitative and qualitative designs.

I am on the precipice of making a major decision that will be with me for the rest of my academic career, What do I want to study for my dissertation?  This reality is that I came into this program with QUANTITATIVE being my only thought.  Now, even though I am still leaning in that direction, I am starting to have a slight bit of doubt.  As I reviewed my PRPP #4 for submission, I felt a deep sense of pride and interest in wanting to pursue that study.  It may not happen as part of the process to obtain my terminal degree, yet the bigger disservice would be to never pursue it all.  One of my end goals of this program is to have a problem of practice that could be developed into a larger research agenda post-graduation.  I would love to pursue a career on the faculty-side of academia so this would be crucial to have.  Easily, I can see how this qualitative study I have developed could fit into that larger research agenda around Assessment, Evaluation, and Research competency development.

Feedback Is Love…

This morning I received a notification that comments were being made in my Google doc for the Pilot Research Proposal Project (PRPP), and I found myself reacting like a child on Christmas morning.  I was practically running to my office so I could get to my computer and start looking through the comments and suggestions.  Basically, I am a giant nerd.  The thought of editing my PRPP was so exciting that I reprioritized my morning to focus on the document and respond to the various comments.

Being the first time I have written a proposal for a qualitative study, I knew that I was going to have to address the methodology section.  Reviewing the various dissertations in class and through assignments were helpful in understanding how to structure this particular section.  What I needed to do most was provide more in-depth descriptions in regard to definitions of terms, actual processes, and making sure my choices aligned with my research questions.  Since the generalizability of qualitative research is difficult to do, one of the main ideas is that the study itself easily could be reproduced.  This means being more description of processes is better than less.  In addition, defining terms so that way others understand what I meant versus taking for granted we are using terminology in the same way.

The other area that needed similar treatment was the section on credibility and trustworthiness.  Because I am most familiar with quantitative research, this section was taken for granted.  As long as the instrument being used has high enough eternal validity (Chronbach’s alpha higher than 0.70) and the data collected is analyzed using the appropriate methods (ANOVA, MANOVA, t-tests, Chi-square, logistic regression), then typically credibility and trustworthiness is assumed.  The justification needed for this section is therefore foreign to me.  Yet at the same time, this is familiar considering that for every other part of the PRPP and developing a qualitative study, I have had to provide the rationale for my decisions and how they all align.

Another revelation from this process of reviewing and incorporating feedback into the PRPP was that a part of one of my research questions was not addressed in any part of the document.  My third research question asked, “How have mid-level student affairs practitioners developed their capacity and self-efficacy associated with elements of the AER competency?”  Based on one of the comments, I realized that at no point in any part of the PRPP did I discuss the idea of capacity.  Everything in the document was structured around self-efficacy.  Therefore, it made sense to remove the word capacity from the research question as clearly, it is not something that I am as interested in, at least for how this study has emerged.

Again, this reflects the importance of feedback and revision.  There is a chance that I would have not realized this because to me it made sense to have included.  Yet, there was nothing else throughout the document to support its inclusion.

Ultimately from the feedback received, changes made, and additional information added, I know that I have a much stronger PRPP and feel more confident about the process.  Typically, I have at least one other person review and provide feedback on assignments before I submit them.  Since I knew we would be receiving consistent feedback on the PRPP, I eschewed this process this time around.

Actually for both classes this semester, this is the first time I have not sought outside review and feedback for assignments.  It is a weird feeling to submit work without it being reviewed in advance.  This semester warranted it, but I will not continue it for future semesters.  I find the feedback I receive from others invaluable and makes for a better product.  It forces me to clarify, expand, and edit.  It often leads to conversations that require to explain what I meant, which leads to more editing.

A long time ago, I learned the phrase from my involvement in LeaderShape, Inc. that “Feedback is love.”  You provide feedback because you care about the person and want them to better.  Sometimes it can be tough to hear, but it is important to remember that a person would not provide feedback if they didn’t want you to be better.  This is why I was so excited this morning to see comments on my PRPP.  I knew that I was being given guidance, comments, and suggestions to develop a better document, and in all reality, to become a better Ed.D. student.

Read, Reread, Reread, Reread, Reread…

This week’s assignment has by far been my favorite part of this entire endeavor.  Well parts of it, at least, but more about that later.  Through Gallup’s StrengthFinder, my top five “STRENGTHS” are learner, input, strategic, achiever, and analytical.  This analysis process for qualitative research allows me to use three of these and perhaps four depending on who you ask.  The three that I definitely get to use are learner, strategic, and analytical.  Strategic more so about the approach to the analysis.  Learner as I am uncovering and discovering new knowledge through reading transcripts and looking at data.  Finally, analytical, well, I mean it shares etymology with analysis, so there is that.

With that being said, I could do analysis like this all day long, and as I stated in class I would prefer to do analysis rather than conduct the interviews myself.  If I could pay someone to do the interviews, then I would do that.  Like most assignments this semester, what I thought going into it is definitely not what I thinking after completing it.  Again, more about that later in the post.

For the analysis of our interview transcripts, I decided to start with the one I conducted.  Actually, I completed this before class on Thursday evening (March 7) because I thought it was part of our assignment for the night.  It was the one I was the most familiar with so I figured it would make the process easier and allow me to find a rhythm for the rest.    I started by reading the transcript one time through without doing anything else.  No highlighting.  No markups.  No writing.  Just simply read the transcript from beginning to end.  Once I did that, I pulled out my trusty highlighter, went back to the beginning, and highlighted phrases that I felt could be important based on the overall research question.  At this point, I was not discriminating or trying to make distinctions between the various phrases.  It was simply this seems like it could be important, so it was highlighted.

Once I got through the transcript with the highlighter, it was time to switch to the pen.  I had intentionally left space in the transcript between lines to allow the opportunity to write notes and set-up the page to have 1.5 inch margins for additional writing space.  I started with going back to all the highlighted phrases and then writing notes either above or below in the space I had left.  Notes could be a single word, a short phrase, or a code.  I tried to do this for every phrase that I had highlighted in my initial pass.  I went from back to front on the transcript doing this twice.

For the next step, I looked at my handwritten notes and started to determine where there connections between those words, phrases, or codes.  If the phrases were close together, I would draw lines connecting and then add additional phrases with the new thoughts.  I also started writing notes in some of margins or larger ideas that I saw starting to emerge.

From there, I went back to the beginning of the transcript again and read it in its entirety to see if any new phrases that I may have missed previously started to align with some of the larger ideas and themes I was forming.  If I identified something, I would either highlight or underline it and then add notes similar as I did earlier in the process.  I would then indicate how this was connected to a larger idea.

So, as one can see, this is clearly an iterative process.  If I tried to do all of this on one pass, I definitely would not have seen some of the things that I did.  The process of reading, rereading, marking, rereading, confirming, rereading, more marking, confirming, rereading is crucial to analysis (copy of my transcript with notes).  If I had my way, I would then ask someone to look at the clean transcript as well, ask them to identify what they see (understandably, this is what we are doing this week), and then compare to my own thoughts.  In particular, it would be a third-party not connected to the work (the damn postpositivist in me).

Though it may seem tedious or tiring to others, this is the kind of stuff that I love.  Looking at data, in this example interview transcripts, and pulling meaning from it is exciting, and super nerdy, but exciting nonetheless.  Its like finding buried treasure.  You know that there is something there.  You aren’t quite sure what is there, but if you have patience, a system, and the willingness to dig, you are going to find what it is.

I got my process.  I tested it.  It worked for me.  I was feeling great.  Then, it was time to review everyone else’s interviews.  I went into the process ready to do what I did with my own and realized that it would not work in the same way.  We had all asked different questions.  I could use the system I structured for myself, but realized that not all of the questions being asked in the interview protocols addressed the research question (even some of my own questions).  First, I still read each transcript from beginning to end, and then I identified the questions that I felt had the most to do with the overall research question and focused on those for the next phases of my process.

The next part was a little tough too.  I was still able to highlight key phrases, but everyone structured their transcript differently.  Some had pinched margins.  Some had extra spaces between lines.  Some had clear indications when the interviewer was asking questions.  Some had additional information, like timestamps, bolded certain words, or actions.  This required careful reading of the transcripts and made the process a little frustrating.  It was like transcribing a transcript.  Ultimately, I got back into my system and was able to do the highlighting and mark ups as I did my original transcript for all of the other transcripts.

This is where the other problem arose.  I did not have access to anyone’s memos from their respective interview.  This is makes the analysis part slightly problematic as I may be missing key parts from the interviewers perspective.  Not having that information makes this process feel more like a document analysis compared to an analysis of interviews.  When I did my analysis for my own interview, I had more information from that experience that helped to contextualize it for me.  I knew when my participant smiled, laughed, chuckled, made hand motions, body shifted, took pauses, and I could incorporate that into my analysis.  With reviewing others transcripts, if that information was not in the transcript, there is no way to access those pieces without having the interviewers memos.

Back to the beginning, I enjoyed the process immensely but also realized that actually conducting the interviews is extremely important because of what else I would be missing by not being the interviewer.  I guess I need to start practicing on developing that skill as I found out it will ultimately make my data analysis that much stronger.

Um, Uh, and Other Utterances…

Yesterday (Saturday, March 2) was transcription day and, well, I wasn’t a fan.  It was a tedious process and I was relatively lucky since I had a short interview to transcribe.  On top of that, I was introduced to a trick where the vast majority of my interview was transcribed for me via technology.  The biggest problem with using this shortcut was that it was perhaps a little too good, meaning I had to go back through and add some of the many utterances (uhs and ums).  Overall, the transcription was about 90% accurate.

My experience was definitely clouded by the fact that I was dealing with a lot of distractions while transcribing, so that was definitely a reason it was so time consuming.  I was constantly starting and stopping to deal with other issues and could not get into a good rhythm.  If I had dedicated time with no other interruptions, I feel that it would have gone much smoother.

The other difficult aspect of the transcription process was knowing how to punctuate the interview.  People do not talk the same way they write and academic writing is its own beast.  Having been accustomed to academic writing the past five semesters (and before), this made figuring out where to introduce punctuation a bit more difficult.  Ultimately, this was a subjective process.  There were definitely some clear instances where punctuation made sense, but most of the time it seemed that I was making decisions based on my writing influences.  Like most things, I feel this will get easier with practice.

Beyond the technical aspects of transcription, it made me realize that I need to work on the actual interview process itself.  I am an extremely structured person.  In fact, it was something I was kidding about with the person I interviewed in advance of our actual interview.  If it is not on the piece of paper in front of me or a part of the protocol, then there is a good chance that I am not going to ask it.  This results in a very rigid process.  That became pretty clear when listening to the interview.  I need to get comfortable with flexibility when it comes to interviewing.  This seems like it has a lot to do with my postpositivist worldview.

Some initial thoughts on the interview itself.  Rapport with the participant was helpful and made the process go smoother.  It also kept me from asking some additional probing questions because I knew things about the person I was interviewing separate from the interview process itself.  Therefore, instead of asking the participant to “tell me more about that” or “what do you mean about this,” I just kept moving on with the interview because I knew what the person was referring.

The content of the interview led me to consider a few areas I would want to focus more on in subsequent of follow-up interviews.  Support, pressure, expectations, and adjustments are four areas that I think would be beneficial to explore more in depth.  For the time being, I would probably stick with my current protocol for at least a couple more interviews to see if my initial thoughts are confirmed.

At the end of the day, this goes back to the more iterative process of qualitative studies that is difficult for me.  Observation and open-ended responses are more my speed when it comes to this work because of the structure associated with them.  I have a feeling I would also really enjoy analysis of unobtrusive data as well.  Interviewing people is something that I do not do well and is a skill I will need to continue to develop.

Honestly, I feel that the formality I infuse into the process, and then I get into my own head about the recording and the protocol, of wanting it to be perfect, instead of just letting it happen.  If I had a more casual approach to the process, then I feel it would be better.  I am fairly confident that there would be less ums and uhs because it would feel more natural.

Jason Bourne, I Am Not…

Hi!  Yes, I am “reading” this book on my kindle.  Yes, I am taking furious notes what seems like every line that I am “reading.”  Yes, I know I have my sunglasses on indoors and keep taking sips from an empty coffee cup.  Please just let me “read.”

That is a bit how I felt during this observation experience.  I chose my local Starbucks that I frequent at least three times a week, as it would be a place that I am familiar but at the same time not.  I typically pre-order my drink via the Starbucks app and then am in and out of the store in less than a minute.  Even on the rare occasions I need to wait for my order (trenta iced coffee with hazelnut instead of the classic syrup, light skim milk, and light ice), I do not think I have spent more than five minutes in the store in quite some time.  However, I have been there frequently enough to feel welcomed (most of the baristas know my name), that I had good enough sense of the comings and goings, and that if people saw my eyes darting around the room and taking notes it would not raise alarms.  Mainly, I felt that I had the needed access to observe without having to ask someone.

Howard Schultz wrote to his employees in this final days, “Providing the world with a warm and welcoming third place may just be our most important role and responsibility.  Today and always.”  So I thought to myself, “What does it mean to be the ‘third place’?” and that was my research question for this observation experience.

Before I went to my site, I decided that I needed to develop a coding system to help identify people in a clear and concise way.  Starbucks can easily and quickly have numerous people in and out its doors, so I knew that I could not go in there trying to figure it out along the way.  I settled on four larger signifiers of race, gender, age, and transaction.  Each group within the category was signified with a letter to make it easier to identify people.  For example, an older Black man was coded as BME (Black for race, Male for gender, and Elder for age).  I would also code their transaction, C for counter or P for pre-order and S for stay or G for go.  This would mean five letter codes for each patron.  All of the codes and their letters can be found next to the maps I drew (document 1 and 4), which led me to the next part.

Before I could really observe, I needed to know where the people were in relation to one another (document 1 and 4).  So I drew my first map mostly from memory and filled in a few of the gaps once I arrived to the Starbucks (exact locations of tables and numbers of chairs).  Scarily enough, it was pretty darn accurate.  Once I had my map drawn, I decided to number all of the tables and chairs to assist with orienting people.  Again, this made things a lot easier for me as people moved throughout the space.  Then, I simply selected a start time and went for it.

It was a bit clunky at first, as I did not have an exact way I was going to document things.  I oriented everyone who was already in the store to my map as a starting point, then decided on my start time.  From there I documented any person who entered the store and then any significant actions from those who were already on site.  This continued for a little over thirty minutes.  After a few minutes, I found a nice rhythm and luckily, patrons were entering in waves so it provided me a few minutes to review what I had just documented for accuracy.  I decided my official cutoff would be the last couple of people who approached the counter at my thirty minute mark.  I would finalize their “coding” before completely ending my observation.  My actual field notes for each day are documents 2 and 5.

Once, I finished observing, I took time to write down some notes about the experience itself.  This included some initial thoughts about what happened overall, some of my own interpretations, questions that arose, descriptors of the people, my thoughts, and other thoughts that I had (documents 3 and 6).  Each time I did this I kept in mind my research question, “What does it mean to be the ‘third place’?”  The best I can gather is “ehhhh…”

After the first day of observation, I thought “third place” may mean a hybrid of “first” being home and “second” being work.  But I was not really sure.  I did make the note that maybe the “third place” is just free WiFi.  However, to provide some credence to my initial thought, the majority of people were doing something they could potential do in their home or at work, instead at a Starbucks.  Yet, my observation on day two seemed to lean more towards my inkling of “third place” representing a space to get free WiFi.  I feel that in order to really dive into this issue and concept of “third place” it would be important to interview some of the patrons and baristas about the topic.  Asking them about what “third place” means to them.  In addition from the baristas, I would want to know what they see from the patrons, particularly behaviors of customers that may indicate “third place.”  From the patrons, I would want to know why they frequent Starbucks and why not somewhere else and how that may relate to the concept of the “third place.”

Thinking about continuing this study, it would likely be from the constructivist perspective and a basic qualitative study.  Perhaps I could couch it as an ethnography, if I decided to really study the culture of a particular Starbucks through the lens of it being the “third place.”  I would prefer the former, but could be convinced that the latter would be worth pursuing, especially if coffee would be involved.

Overall, the process itself was not as bad as I thought it might be.  I was intimidated at first because I did not think that I would be able to keep up with the amount of “stuff” that could be taking place.  Taking some time in advance, allowed me to anticipate some things that I could encounter and therefore, I was able to have a plan in place to conduct the observation.  If I would have just went in and sat down and started observing, I definitely would have been overwhelmed and I know I would not have been able to make sense of what happened; having a preliminary strategy was extremely helpful.  At the same time, I knew that I could not be too rigid, as things would happen that I could not anticipate going in, so I needed flexibility in how I would observe what was occurring.

Ultimately, having a research question was the most important part.  It allowed me to keep an eye on what was essential as I was documenting what was happening and then make sense of that information after the fact.  If I would have done this without a research question, I really do not know what I would have ended up with at the conclusion.  Perhaps, just a bunch of gibberish, symbols, and notes with no way to organize and analyze what I experienced.

Choices…

At this point, I am still wrestling with whether to conduct a basic qualitative study or phenomenological study.  More often than not, I feel that I am in the basic qualitative study camp at this point based on my topic and research questions.  But, I am still leaving the phenomenological door open as this process continues to evolve.  This has been one of the more interesting components as I learn more about qualitative research.  Not only is the design emergent, but the overall process of decision-making has also been such for me.

I am not intending on doing a qualitative study for my dissertation.  Yet this process has been extremely beneficial in thinking through the issues I will need to confront even for a quantitative study.  With a quantitative study, there are important inflection points in the process where decisions need to be made.  Because of the highly-structured nature of a quantitative study, I feel that these points are often neglected and overlooked.  Taking a moment to pause and reflect on these decisions are a hallmark of qualitative design.

With quantitative studies, it seems that many times assumptions are made and the level of justification is minimal.  This is a detriment.  I would argue that the energy it takes to justify why decisions are being made makes for a better design and study.  It is not to say quantitative designs are without thoughtfulness.  In fact, there is a whole movement emerging to create socially just instruments for quantitative work (The Assessment for Social Justice Project; Moving Towards Socially Just Assessment), where critical qualitative studies have pushed quantitative researchers to rethink and integrate more inclusive language and processes to this methodology.  This is a long way of saying that if more quantitative designs were developed using qualitative design principles, I believe we would have better information.

To circle back to the pilot project research proposal and this week’s readings, I am finding myself leaning towards interviews as my primary method of data collection.  Because my research questions are pushing me towards a basic qualitative or phenomenological study, interviews make the most sense.

One of the interesting components of this has been considering what questions I may be asking as a part of an interview protocol and how structured I would want this process.  With a postpositivist perspective, I am more inclined to have a more stringent semi-structured interview protocol as I want to make sure that participants are answering the same questions.  I do not want to influence the direction or responses of participants, as I feel this would cloud the results.  Therefore, the safest way to do this would be to have questions that would be effective to the point that very few prompts would need to be included in the actual interview.  This would mean several “test” interviews to evaluate the protocol and determine how I may need to alter questions, remove questions, or add new questions.

This harkens back to our last face-to-face class where I was grappling with a non-grounded theory qualitative study with a postpositivist perspective.  I am seeing that it has more to do with the other decisions that I am making about the study and how I conduct the study itself more so than a particular methodology and analysis.

Previously, I mentioned interviews as my primary data collection method, which means that I am considering a secondary data source which would be artifact analysis.  This stems from the fact that my topic is focused on professional competencies for Assessment, Evaluation, and Research, where there is a physical artifact that participants can respond to and we could explore together.  How this would be conducted is still elusive and I feel could become more clear as I learn more about this process of data collection?  My initial thought would be less of artifact analysis and perhaps more of using the artifact as part of the interview process.

This brings me back to one of the overriding themes of this post and previous posts, CHOICES.  Perhaps, more importantly, comprehending why I am making those choices and how I am justifying those decisions.  These things cannot be made in a vacuum, nor should they be done rashly.  Each inflection point is important and should be treated as such.

Asking the Right Questions…

Overall, it feels that all of this is starting to come together in a more seamless way.  As I have tried to be less structured and rigid in my thinking, the pieces have begun to fall into place.  Last time, I was struggling with a theoretical framework; however, I am starting to feel better about that after the recent PPRP assignment.  As I am learning, it is important to know what options may be available, but perhaps, more importantly, to explain why I am making certain decisions.

In writing out my theoretical framework, it was the process of explaining the theoretical framework that helped me realize that my choice was appropriate and it may not be “the” theoretical framework, but it is “a” theoretical framework that can inform how I structure my research design both at the points of data collection and analysis.  In retrospect, I feel that I have been conflating theory and theoretical framework.  Once, I took a step back and realized that I am not trying to prove a theory things became more clear.

Abandoning grounded theory as a methodology also assisted with this process.  The thought of trying to generate theory made it almost debilitating to choose a framework.  It is a relief that postpositivist worldview and grounded theory are not mutually exclusive; that my worldview is compatible with other methodologies.

After Thursday’s class (February 7), I feel that I need to expand on the theoretical framework section of my PPRP.  I identified Carpenter and Stimpson (2007) as the basis for my theoretical framework and justified why I feel their work is appropriate based on my research topic and questions.  What I have failed to do is incorporate my worldview into this rationale.  I will need to go back and revisit this section and add this perspective and how it is informing my overall approach to the research.

Finally, the revelation I just had was based on the sentence in red below.  I had written a portion of this blog prior to class on Thursday night and this sentence was added after doing some of Assignment 6A.  What I realized is that a research methodology is just that a methodology.  It is okay for me to be sagacious in determining what is best for me.  This was elucidated through some of our conversations in class.  It is important that I am aware of all types of qualitative research, but knowing it does not mean I have to do it.  It seems far more advantageous to comprehend a couple of qualitative methodologies really in depth and have a casual knowledge of what else is out there.  Research just does not happen on the spot, so if I needed to use a methodology that I am not as familiar with, I would always have the ability to read more about it before I used it.

Assignment 6B

This was a difficult question to answer as M&T only provide six options in chapter two, so my response is more a process of elimination than a process of selection.  To be blunt, the options in chapter three would be even worse options and are not of any interest to me based on my research topic, so I am not even going to mention them here.  A narrative inquiry does not make sense as I am not trying to tell a story about the process.  A case study is also misleading since I am not necessarily talking about a bound system.  After reading more about grounded theory, I know that I am not trying to develop a theory.  Finally, I am also not trying to understand a particular culture as one would do in an ethnographic study.  Therefore that leaves me with two approaches that may be relevant to my current research area:

1. Basic Qualitative Research
2. Phenomenology

Questions associated with these approaches are:

1. How do mid-level student affairs professionals define and understand assessment, evaluation, and research (AER)?
2. What experiences have contributed to mid-level student affairs professionals to feel that they have achieved intermediate or advanced levels of the AER competency?  What was it about these experiences that led to this feeling?

Why is this particular methodological approach appropriate for the question being asked?

1. As written, this is a generic open-ended, unbiased question with the purpose of hearing how the participant defines these term(s) and understands them.  Part of the understanding of terms is how they are defined by the participant.  As there are formal definitions for these words in the field, it is insightful as to how a practitioner defines these term(s).  Does their definition align with the one in the field?  If not, where do they diverge?  Is so, how did they come to define the term(s) in this way?
2. The reason question two aligns with phenomenology is that I am trying to understand the phenomenon of how mid-level professionals comprehend their achievement of intermediate or advanced AER competencies.  There is no test one takes to say they have reached these levels.  Yes, there are outcomes statements for the competency; however, it is still up to the professional to determine if they have met those outcomes statements and how they may have done that.  This question is aiming to explore how mid-level professionals make these determinations, what types of experiences may contribute to this attribution, and finally what is it about those experiences that assists with this assessment of achievement.  Overall, the central factor, or guiding phenomenon, is the mid-level professional meeting these intermediate or advanced levels of the AER competency.

Digging Deeper…

One of the areas that I am still figuring out is identifying the theoretical framework(s) of the research process.  With qualitative research, I find myself gravitating to grounded theory as being the potential methodology because of the postpositivist paradigm alignment.  However, as one of the purposes of grounded theory is to develop a theory grounded in the research, I keep running into roadblocks as to the theoretical framework for my study.  I feel that I have grasped the conceptual framework of what I am proposing to study, but the theoretical framework still eludes me.

My frustration stems from a feeling of having to select the “right” theoretical framework as if there is a correct answer.  Would certain theoretical frameworks fit better depending on the problem statement and purpose statement?  Of course.  There are frameworks that would probably make no sense in being used based on what it is I am interested in exploring.  It is easy to recognize those.  It is more difficult in deciding between the various theoretical frameworks that could inform my study.

This is also presenting issues with research question formation.  A beneficial task was looking at other dissertations with similar topics and grounded theory methodologies.  This allowed me to start seeing how the researchers were asking questions and what frameworks they were using to shape their work.  As this has been somewhat helpful, I am still wrestling with what framework(s) to choose.  Even in completed dissertations, it was sometimes difficult to identify their theoretical frameworks.  I think the work of Carpenter and Stimpson (2007) on the professionalization of student affairs provides a good starting point, and I have seen it used as a framework for other studies (quantitative and qualitative).  Other potential theoretical frameworks could be theories on professional competency development and self-efficacy.

My graduate degree is in College Student Personnel which was a theory based higher education administration program.  From those studies, I know of student development, student engagement, and environmental theories as they relate to higher education and student affairs.  However, I am still struggling to find the one that I feel would fit my study.  As I review those theories, there could be a couple of useful frameworks associated with learning environments and learning communities.

Not to mention, as Merriam and Tisdell (2016) surmise, I feel that I may also be confusing aspects of conceptual and theoretical frameworks.  For example, one of my proposed conceptual frameworks will be the ACPA/NASPA Professional Competencies for Student Affairs Professionals, specifically the professional competency for Assessment, Evaluation, and Research (AER).  I know that the professional competency for AER is not a theoretical framework, however, there are theoretical frameworks that undergird the professional competencies, so perhaps that is what I should be looking towards for guidance.  At the very least, this could lead to other studies that could illuminate frameworks that I have yet to consider.  Or maybe, I just need to stick with the one I identified by Carpenter and Stimpson (2007).  Or maybe, I need more than one theoretical framework for this study, so I do need to keep looking.

In summation, it is pretty clear that I am still trying to sort this out and need to keep digging a bit.  I just am trying to avoid digging so deep that I cannot see myself out of the hole I have created.  The odd thing is that I feel that I have a somewhat solid problem and purpose statements and struggling with the theoretical framework; contradicting the Merriam and Tisdell’s The Theoretical Framework figure (p. 87), which seems to depict that the theoretical framework should come first and encompass the other two.  Which leads back to one of my original issues of struggling to formulate research questions.  I have plenty of questions that I could ask based on my interest, problem statement, and purpose statement; however, the problem is that the questions should be reflective of my theoretical framework which will then support the methodological decision.

Taking a step back, it seems that I am running into potential alignment issues as I am trying to answer these critical decision junctures as discussed in the article by Koro-Ljungberg, Yendol-Hoppey, Smith, and Hayes (2009).  If only they had also provided a postpositivist orientation, maybe this would be easier for me.  😉