First of all, I apologize for being late getting this posted. I've had a few set-backs recently, including some technical difficulties. Thanks for understanding.
Now that I have decided to expand on a research project I began last semester, about the conflation of business and education discourses and whether/how it's problematic, I find particular sections of this book really enlightening. The discussion on pp. 27-28 regarding “productive ways to formulate and phrase research questions” is an example; the authors break-down MacLean and Mohr's (1999) process into manageable baby steps that make the whole exercise seem less daunting:
They start by suggesting that you take your general topic or problem and write it as three questions beginning with each of the following phrases:
• What happens when … ?
• How … ?
• What is … ?
Each beginning, they say, implies a slightly different approach to the problem. "What happens when … " and "How … " questions imply observational and descriptive approaches to your inquiry (i.e., "What happens when students are given time in-class to work together in peer critique groups?" or "How do technical writers take their audiences into account when creating documents?") "What is … " questions, on the other hand, imply more of a re-examination of concepts in the field, often in more theoretical ways (i.e., "What are peer critique groups?" or "What is usability?"). We have found that asking researchers to start with these phrases can help reduce some of the common problems that occur with the language of questions (e.g., wording questions so the answer is "yes" or "no," or using wording that already implies the answer to the question).
Developing research questions has been really difficult for me so far, because at first, I end up implying the answer to my questions during the process of writing them, which seems disingenuous and sloppy at the same time. By re-framing the questions in the above ways, I've simultaneously made things easier on myself while also allowing for more triangulation to take place. Later, Blakeslee and Fleischer talk about the importance of researchers knowing their lenses and pre-conceived notions going into a project. Ultimately, we are venturing into unknown territory, even if we have certain expectations of how things are going to go. We can only anticipate so much. There will be many snags and “ah-ha!” moments along the way. Our research questions need to accommodate those engagements. I wonder if it's sacrilegious to have somewhat flexible research questions to start out with and modify them as you see what the initial data uncovers. While I think that some veteran researchers would say that it's perfectly OK to have specific-yet-mallable questions, deep down I worry that it's unprofessional to admit that we sometimes have to amp-up our recursiveness in that way.
On page 52 begins a conversation about choosing an appropriate and adequate setting for one's research. While picking a site for research seems like a no-brainer, this discussion speaks to my concerns about looking in my own backyard, so to speak, for researchable topics. I continue to ask myself, “Is it OK to look to my own classrooms, my own writing commons, etc, for 'felt difficulties'?” So many other researchers have done just that – explored their surroundings more closely – but, particularly upon receiving CITI training and talking with others in my field, I can't help but wonder if I need to expand my horizons. This practice seems risky, especially because I am so new to gathering my own data. Again, Blakeslee and Fleischer help ease my mind:
Identifying a setting: Think about the setting you would like to research. Why is it a good setting for your research question? What are some things you think you will need to do to negotiate entry into the setting? Consider the following:
• With and from whom will you need to talk and seek approvals? If you are not sure, whom can you ask?
• What concerns are those individuals likely to have, and how will you address those concerns?
• How will you establish rapport with these individuals? What can you do to facilitate establishing a good rapport with them?
With these questions in mind, I can decide how I want to proceed after I've chosen a setting. I also have to keep in mind the community at large, or at least the community who benefits most from my research questions and their answers. Knowing how those individuals will be affected, hopefully positively, allows me to more successfully build rapport. Because I'm looking at the discourse used in writing centers, and because I happen to be one of the new assistant directors in this setting, I have a great opportunity to build rapport with this community by trying to address their concerns with my research: with the overlap of domains taking place, with business/marketing rhetoric picking up momentum and gaining agency in educational settings such as the writing center, how will various learning communities be affected by these new situations? I want my findings to foster dialogue, but I also want these findings to positively affect the people who are intimately tied to the setting. And in an important way, I'm intimately tied as well, both as researcher and as writing center administrator. By looking over the strategies discussed by Blakeslee and Fleischer, I hope to better understand my roles and how to develop them responsibly.
0 comments:
Post a Comment