April 18, 2019

Research Design Chapter Philosophical Section: How Much Is Too Much? Part B

Philosophically, how much is too much? There is no definite answer here. I’ve spent the day editing the Philosophical section of my research design chapter following contact with my supervisor. This feedback is proving to be invaluable, because it has guided my editing and also consideration of the content.


Previously I wrote the philosophical section using a comparative, reflective approach. During my time on the Ph.D., I have engaged with a variety of different ontological and epistemological positions. As a result, this led to writing separate ontological and epistemological sections.


Within each section I have attempted to tell a progressive narrative of my engagement with different positions. I discussed how I previously conceived the existence of the phenomenon (ontology) and how I believed that we come to know this phenomenon (epistemology). This led to discussing and explaining how these conceptions changed over time, how this led to me oscillating between different positions, and finally, I explained how I selected the ideal position (with epistemological beliefs drawing from various positions), and offered a justification of their selection.

Why did I do this? I am fascinated with the Philosophical aspects of the research and of the phenomenon, and I also wanted to address concerns in methodological literature about the lack of philosophical discussions within theses.

Recently, I returned to available, relevant qualitative theses and read through their research design chapters again. Clearly, as mentioned in a previous post, there is great variety in the reporting of the philosophical stance with some conflating ontology with epistemology, which I do not agree with. A combination of supervisor feedback and rereading of the theses indicated that what I have produced could be better as future, publishable philosophical essays separate from the thesis, but still relevant in reporting my experiences of the Ph.D. journey. Additionally, these essays could contribute something useful or original to the general discussion of research Philosophy.

The essence of the research design chapter is to discuss specifically about what was actually carried out in the research, as well as developing the appropriate Philosophical, methodological and practical justifications. I find that a lot of theses tend to focus more on methodology and methods than the underlying philosophical stance that underpins or frames the methodology.

I have difficulties with lip service paid to the Philosophical section. Philosophy carries methodology and, therefore, is the foundation upon which methodologies and methods are placed upon. Philosophy provides the framework to how the methodology defines how phenomenon is to be investigated and understood, through the appropriate selection and definition of methods and procedures.

Lacklustre discussions of Philosophies, in my view, make it difficult to validate, authenticate, verify and contextualise the findings. It makes it difficult to understand where the researcher is coming from, and it makes it difficult to understand how the researcher perceives reality. It is difficult to assume, for example, if a theoretical framework is developed from a constructivist or interpretivist perspective unless this is explicitly stated within the research design section.

How much is too much? It depends. The thesis is the core of the Ph.D. It is the core, central artefact of the Ph.D. endeavour that communicates what you have done, how, why, where and when. The Philosophical aspect of your research design, therefore, has to relate very specifically to the ontological and epistemological positions that relate specifically and strongly to your design and to your conceptions of the phenomenon. How much is too much or too little depends on what you are exploring and perhaps arguably how much you value Philosophy, and are willing to engage with philosophical issues of your research. Regardless, however, nothing should lead to lip service being paid to philosophical issues.

The edited version of the chapter now doesn’t consist of extensive comparative discussions of different positions that have been critically and reflectively engaged with, nor is there any discussion of how I shifted and changed positions. Everything is now strictly and directly relative to what was actually carried out, how, and why, their impact on the research design, their impact on the research phenomenon, and the appropriate justification of ontological and epistemological beliefs and their position within existing theories and literature.

Where has all the comparative discussions gone? Where have all the discussions about how I have changed conceptions over time and how those changed entailed shifting between different positions been placed? Has all that been wasted?

Not at all, because now all of that detail can be taken out of the thesis and be turned into publishable, philosophical essays and that is something that I will be working towards! This reason alone made the process worthwhile. The process of engaging with different ontological and epistemological positions increased my understanding of how philosophy impacts methodology and of how I could have interpreted and explored the phenomena within different positions. This enriches knowledge about Philosophy, and empowers the researcher to contribute potentially to academic discourse and existing, unresolved issues.

That, folks, is the ultimate goal of academia, and the ultimate goal of who you are as a researcher. Write and contribute because you want to, not because you have to. If you’re not in the business to contribute in some way, then really, what’s the point?

‘till next time!


April 17, 2019

Research Design Chapter Philosophical Section: How Much Is Too Much? Part A

When writing the research design chapter, and indeed when engaging with postgraduate research, a key issue is Philosophy. Philosophical issues relating to the phenomenon of interest and the research context have to be acknowledged, identified, documented, critiqued, reflected upon, and strongly associated with the research methodology. Philosophy drives methodology, and the methodology provides the framework that guides the research methods and procedures. It is imperative to ensure that strong links, cohesiveness and cohesion exist between philosophy, methodology, methods and procedures of the research within your writings so that the design can stand up to academic scrutiny, and to ensure that findings are consistent, correct, appropriate, and suitable for the context and the main research objectives.


Those are separate topics for another time, but referring to writing the Philosophical section of the research design of a thesis a key question is, how much is too much? This is an interesting question that I continuously have asked myself when writing the philosophical section of the research design. I am of the firm belief that nothing is ever, and should ever, be wasted. Nothing you write on the Ph.D. is ever wasted as something can be turned into something else, even a publishable form of something else.


During my time on the Ph.D. I have written extensive notes on paper and in digital form about numerous philosophical, both ontological and epistemological, positions. Even back at this time I was questioning how I could apply what I was exploring to the methodology, how each position affected my perspective of the phenomenon, and the way I could best record and express the positions in the thesis. Whether you are writing in pre-draft form on paper or in digital form, don’t be afraid to ask yourself questions early, but don’t restrict your creativity and inquiry. Allow your thoughts to come out, to develop, and to become as complex as they are required to be. You know how complex your ideas should be, and you know how complex you want them to be to fit the context. But again, don’t reject anything. I have been writing the draft form of the research design chapter for quite a while. The Philosophical aspect has experienced a number of rewrites as my pre-draft form ideas matured further and as I engaged with more philosophical ideas and different philosophical authors.


Where to begin with this minefield? I began fairly early in thinking about research design to read the theses of other post graduates. It did not take long to find a stumbling block: there is no universal law or standard that appears to guide how much is too much or too little. The problem, and difficulty, is that theses, although they might focus on the same methodology, differ widely in their philosophical coverage. Some theses make a passing suggestion towards philosophy and include it in a discussion about methodology, whilst other theses provide more detail and include a separate Philosophical section followed by a discussion of methodology. Even the Philosophical section, however, differs with some making short references to ideas about reality and knowledge, whilst others talk about knowledge without referring to any sense of reality even though they reference an ontological position.


What is important to remember is that despite the diverse range of philosophical coverage, there is some sort of expectancy to ensure cohesiveness and consistency in your approach. You cannot, for example, say that you’re adopting constructivist ontology and an objectivist epistemology supporting an experimental methodology. You cannot, in my view, talk about epistemology and pay lip service to ontology if you’re making explicit statements about how you come to understand reality. If you are talking about reality, then you’re talking about ontology. If you’re talking about the nature, structure, limits and origins of your knowledge and of coming to know this reality, then that’s epistemology. If you’re talking about how you are to gain knowledge about reality, that’s methodology. It’s important to remember this.


Is it worth reading though these theses? Yes, it is. Engaging with other theses enables us to become more acquainted with the self or being as a researcher. It makes us question how we should present our philosophical stance, and to wonder why such diversity in Philosophical coverage exists.


Engaging with these theses has in party contributed to increasing the value and importance of acknowledging, recognising, critiquing and engaging with my own philosophical stance, and the way my stance could be communicated. There is no particularly strict guide, and it’s important to explore and experiment in order to find what is best. This takes many redrafts. I’m sure many of the longer term readers of this blog have followed my Philosophical battles as I oscillated between different positions in order to situate or locate my views of reality within the extended literature. One needs to be careful to not pigeon-hole their beliefs or to ‘stuff’ their beliefs within a particular position just to tick a box. Your beliefs need to be engaged with critically and reflectively. They need to be intellectualised, and to be intellectually engaged with, so that they can logically be applied to your research, be integrated cohesively within your research design, and communicated consistently within your writings.


How much is too much or too little? It simply depends on what is right for your research, and how you relate your philosophical position to your research, and how valuable discussing ontological and epistemological issues are in relation to your research, research question, and phenomena of interest.


I shall cover this more in the next blog post where I discuss and explain further my experiences so far!


February 21, 2019

Update On The Ph.D Work, Part B: Literature Positionality and Theoretical Framework

Literature Positionality


Because of the nature of inductive based qualitative research, different types of literature are positioned in different areas of the thesis. This took me a long time to understand and to understand where to position different types of literature in order to achieve different purposes, but things are getting there!


As has been mentioned, with the literature review chapter at the beginning of the thesis, literature is being used to develop a context within which I can justifiably place my research. This justifiable position comes as a result of critically analysing the way in which the social learning process and the technology of use has been defined, explored, and used before in various learning scenarios. This builds up a picture of the need to explore the specific social learning process within a particular learning scenario that is arguably unexplored or has not been yet fully explained, facilitated by particular technologies. This involves plenty of comparisons between different learning contexts and scenarios, and explorations and comparisons of the definitions, functionality and use of social learning processes and technologies within different learning contexts. That’s the aim of the earlier literature review in a nutshell. The type of literature therefore takes a broad view of the research context e.g., exploring the social learning process of interest within different technological contexts and learning contexts, and exploring the use of the technology of interest and its facilitation of social learning processes within different learning contexts. This gives weight to the justification of the research context of interest, because it indicates how the process and technology have been used and explored in different contexts, and can be used to explain how a different context can further explain aspects of the phenomenon of interest that arguably remains unexplored or / and unexplained.


Other types of literature shall be included in later thesis chapters specifically relating to the discussion of the themes. In a nutshell, the literature involved here shall involve literature that consist of similar themes to what I have found (if I did not do this, I would be falsifying findings, give misleading accounts, and would reduce the validity and verifiability of the themes), but I would use the discussions to show how I have explored the themes in a different way. This would include showing the differences in how I have explored the themes, the differences in context of theme construction, and the way in which my themes build upon what has already been discovered. The literature here is very specific and has a very specific purpose: to validate and verify the themes, and to provide a platform upon which I can build upon what already exists.


Thematic Framework


This is the core of the research and its development is a continuous and ongoing task and shall be right up to Easter and perhaps a bit beyond. However, feedback has suggested that I am nearly there! The themes appear to be fine and the codes themselves still need some work doing to them, but what I am finding is that changes to the codes do not necessarily mean changes to the theme, and indeed changes to the names of codes do not always necessitate changes to its meaning.


Meaning is a key word here and to write about the meaning of meaning (meta-meaning?) would take a thesis in its own right, but essentially because of the inductive nature I am applying meaning to what I interpret and perceive from the data (note that this does not reduce itself to relativist research as I am not adopting a relativist ontology). Themes and codes therefore capture the meaning that I am interpreting from the data, and together they describe and explain the phenomenon of interest: its behaviour, structure, impact, and existence.


In general I am getting happier with the way in which the thematic framework is going. There is still work to be done to it up to Easter and perhaps beyond, but I am pleased with where it’s going so far!


Update On The Ph.D Work, Part A: Literature Review

During the past few months I have come to grips with what should be included in the literature review, taking into account its nature as part of an inductive, thematic analysis approach that differs from that which can be found in quantitative based theses. With quantitative based literature reviews, the goal is, quite generally, to critically explore existing empirical literature to find a very specific theoretical or practical gap in the collective understanding of the phenomenon of interest. Typically, this gap is then addressed through building a testable theoretical framework that essentially frames the findings and associated discussions. In other words, the theoretical framework predefines data characteristics and findings that are of most interest and use to the research and in answering the research questions that derive from the framework. There is a very strict order here: the literature is explored first, and from the literature review comes the theoretical framework, from the theoretical framework comes the research questions, and as data is found relevant to the research questions their discussion context is framed by the theoretical framework. Every part of the research, as far as I can understand, is framed around the selected theories that guides data analysis.


Inductive based qualitative literature reviews are different in that there is no predefined theoretical framework that is developed, and, therefore, there is no need to test theories or have any discussions and findings framed around existing theories. The core aim of inductive based qualitative literature reviews, from my own understanding of them, is to establish the general overall context of the research and to justify why the research is being carried out. Arguably then where quantitative based literature reviews are used to develop a deductively testable theoretical framework, qualitative based literature reviews are used to establish a justifiable context for inductive analysis (though do note that the theoretical framework still needs justifying!).


With all that then, I am using the literature review to explore the broader questions. For example, with the specific technology I am using to facilitate social learning processes I am asking questions about how that piece of technology has been used more generally in Education. In what way has the technology of interest been used for so far within the context of social learning processes? What are the differences of use of these processes between different technologies and what makes a particular technology of interest more appropriate? What definitions have been provided regarding the particular social learning process? How have these social learning processes been realised in various learning scenarios through technological facilitation?


Questions like these assists with building a picture of what has been achieved before and be able to set the research within a justifiable context. For example, through asking how social learning processes have been realised and explored in various learning scenarios, you begin to understand how social learning processes have been approached, defined, and understood. From this understanding, you can begin to critically question this understanding and of what exists, and this in turn leads to locating your research within the existing literature with justifiable supports.


The literature review is still ongoing although much of it has now been completed. There is still a couple of concepts left to explain, but this can occur at a later time. The core of the literature review has now been completed!


A Year In Reflection, Part C: Thesis Progress

I apologise for the lateness of the continuation of the reflective posts, where I reflect over the past year’s progress. With this final blog post in the series of reflective posts, I shall focus on the thesis.

I find myself in an interesting position when it comes to the order in which the thesis chapters are being written. Typically, the chapters of a thesis are written in order: introduction, literature review, research design, findings and discussion of findings (I accept this is a very simplistic overview!). I appear to find myself switching between chapters at different times, that writing sections in later chapters help to further develop previous chapters, and that I appear to be writing the findings and discussion of findings chapter (albeit in very rough form) at the same time as engaging with data analysis.

Most influentially, the engagement with the data analysis process has shaped the development and direction of the literature review, the use of the literature, as well as the direction of the research design and the construction of the research design chapter. This is probably to do with the nature of the research: I am adopting an inductive approach to qualitative analysis, and I am coming to realise that inductive research shapes our understanding of not just the data but also the wider literature landscape. Additionally, the changes to philosophical and methodological stances, as has been reported in the two previous blogs, have occurred through engagement with the data. Furthering this, it is the process of critical engagement with the data e.g., the act of asking questions about the data, about what I was perceiving and interpreting from the data, that led to alterations of my philosophical and methodological stances. Ultimately this has led to the reworking of the research design chapter’s philosophical sections.

Reflecting further, I did attempt to write the research design chapter prior to data analysis, as is typically the case, but I found this difficult. I found this difficult because I had to predict what methods I was going to use, but because I was experimenting with different ideas I could not rationalise the decision making at that time. Therefore, I found it better to write the research design chapter (particularly writing about the application of the data analysis methods) at the same time as actually performing data analysis. I have found this to be very beneficial because not only have I detailed the different steps that I took (and as I continue to take) to analyse the data, I also detailed reasons why and justified every phase, every step, and every method of data analysis, and continue to do so. I do believe that I made the right choice in writing about the data analysis at the same time as actually engaging with data analysis.

Every stage and every phase have been carefully documented, related, and justified, with every data analysis method used also being justified. In addition to all of this, I have been writing continuous theoretical memos to document the analysis insights, observations, etc. that shall go towards the findings chapter and the chapters related to each identified theme.

Essentially, engaging with the data has not only added to my literature review chapter, but also added to the research design chapter and, as mentioned, impacted upon the directions of the research design including my ontological position as previously discussed. What I am saying is, yes you can begin with an ontological or / and epistemological stance with various research methods, and as much as you might get on well with those methods it does not mean that they are the correct approaches. I was using Grounded Theory for a while and I was getting on well with it till I started to perceive the data differently. These changes entailed a shift in ontological understanding of the data, which led to changes in the methods used.

Have some ideas to begin with but be prepared to be flexible and changeable in terms of your ontological and even epistemological positionality. What’s interesting is that my epistemological positioning hasn’t changed much: it’s the ontological position that has changed. This might sound a bit odd given that ontological concerns impact the epistemological level. Some writers argue that epistemological concerns logically entail ontological positioning. Whilst this is true, what I am arguing for is that there does not have to be a strict adherence to this relationship. A realist ontology should not always necessitate an objectivist epistemology, for example.

In summary, try not to trap yourself in the idea that you simply must write a thesis in a particular order and in a particular way. It’s best to be adaptable and dynamic and allow yourself to be guided by your thinking, your observations and your analyses rather than what could be perceived to be a set institutionalised approach to your writing. Of course you have to get the chapters completed in good time to be reread, proofread, etc, but not in such a restrictive way. If you find, like me, that your research is naturally guiding you towards writing more about the research design at least initially than the literature review then so be it. Be guided by what you do and what you observe. Seek advice and clarification yes, but be true to who you are and what you believe is right for your thesis.

Remember: you are the author of your thesis. No one else can write your thesis in the way and order that you believe shall bring out the best in yourself, and your thesis!


January 25, 2019

A year In Reflection, Part B: Methodological Changes

The relationship between our philosophical beliefs and methodological approach to our research is, as far as I am concerned, a complex relationship. Not only can there be a sense of fluidity between the ontological and epistemological beliefs, but also fluidity between the philosophical beliefs and the methodological approach. As I have spoken about on this blog, what I found during the year was a shift in my conceptualisation of the phenomenon of interest, which led to a change in what I wanted to explore in the data, and, therefore, changes to the directions of my research interest. The changes to the conceptualisations, concepts, and directions of what I wanted to explore and why I think they are important led to me changing methodological approach.


Over time I came to realise that Grounded Theory was no longer working for me for various reasons that I shall explain in the thesis. I came to realise that, out of the various analytical approaches I was then experimenting with (grounded theory, discourse analysis, content analysis, and thematic analysis) thematic analysis revealed itself to be the most appropriate. The type of thematic analysis of most use appears to be a mix of Braun and Clarke’s version along with Guest’s Applied Thematic Analysis approach, with some concepts and ideas loosely based on aspects of Grounded Theory. All this shall of course be explained in the thesis.


Those are the changes made in a nutshell: if you want to know more about these changes feel free to read through my previous blog posts and also read the thesis when it’s written!


Upon reflection, what can be learnt from qualitative research is that it is near enough impossible to know what you are going to be exploring at the very beginning. This is relevant claim to qualitative research that adopts an inductive approach to exploring data, where you are essentially allowing your interpretations and observations of the data to guide your thinking and the directions that you take.


All changes to the research have been recorded with great detail. It is important to record everything. Even the smallest, slightest change to your philosophical beliefs, methodological approaches and the way you perceive and interact with the data can lead to even bigger changes in the future, so it is important to record these small changes and reflect upon their implications, impacts, and meanings to your research. Record them either through your own blog, through theoretical memos that you right as part of your data analysis, or even on a scrap piece of paper that is stored correctly for easy retrieval later.


All these observations and interpretations that you record can be logically ordered, expanded, discussed and reflected upon at a later time as you write your thesis. Remember that a qualitative thesis is a reflexive exercise and you as the researcher become part of the data analysis, so do ensure that you record appropriately, store as logically as you can, and reflect deeply and comprehensively during your thesis write up as part of telling the story of the way in which you approached your research, why, and what changes were made.


Record and detail absolutely everything!


December 31, 2018

A Year In Reflection, Part A: Philosophical Changes

A key change enabled me to understand the data in ways that I had not previously considered. This new philosophical understanding paved the way for changes at the methodological level (my approach to coding and interpreting the data: discussed in the next blog post). These changes are as a result of carefully thinking about the nature, structure, source, and origin of the data. All of this shall be discussed in the thesis.


In a nutshell, several years ago initial thoughts about the social learning phenomenon led me to consider different kinds of texts that could represent the social learning process of interest. Putting the research questions and research issues central enabled me to decide which type of text best represented the possibility for a real understanding (reality, or as close to reality as possible) of the social learning process. Essentially, it came down to deciding between investigating the beliefs and experiences that participants had of the learning process, and the investigation of the learning process itself and bypass beliefs and experiences of the process. Because my research revolves around the search for what is real instead of what is perceived, I decided to investigate the process itself. Thinking back, I know I made the right choice. In order to better understand the process of learning you have to explore the process itself or so I shall argue in my thesis.


The problem I had at the time, even as recent as earlier this year, was this idea of what is “real,” what is “truth,” and the extent to which the particular body of text produced by the participants demonstrated a truthful representation of the process. In a nutshell, my observations during the year, so I came to realise, enabled the transition from a more realist (particularly subtle realist) perspective to a post-structuralist perspective of the data. In a nutshell, this closer, but not necessarily absolute, leaning towards post structuralism came about because I found myself beginning to interpret certain data segments and their relationships or logical connections with other data segments in different ways, and I had not previously expected this. My previous thinking was that I expected myself to perceive or interpret data segments and connections between data segments in a specific (I suppose I could say linear) way. I had previously thought that these patterns of occurrences would be quite common and, therefore, discovering (interpreting?) that “real” essence of a particular process of social learning. What I found, unexpectedly, was something different: I was able to perceive or interpret the same data segment, and the same pattern of segment interactions, in different ways. So, not only did my understanding of the data change in terms of seeking specific characteristics and structures relevant to my research project, but the way that I perceived and interpreted the data changed.


This is not the conclusion of the story, however, and I have a lot of issues, questions, and challenges at the philosophical level with regards to the data, and the phenomenon itself. Some papers suggest that post structuralism does not reduce itself to relativism. In other words, from what I can currently understand, a post structuralist perspective does not necessitate the idea of there being multiple realities. I suppose what could be suggested is that post structuralism acknowledges and enables the possibility of multiple interpretations and perspectives of the same data set. But what does this mean ontologically? What ontological claims could be made? Is there really a form of reality that does exist beyond the text, but it ultimately has to be accepted that we can never truly acquire absolute knowledge about this reality? Is it a case that we can only slowly progress towards the truth of reality without completely attaining it? Is post structuralism, at least as is relevant and appropriate for my research, an epistemological perspective? If post structuralism is an epistemological perspective, then I cannot make any absolute claims of knowledge or knowing about the process of social learning; that, therefore, the segments and patterns relevant to the social learning process of interest can be interpreted in different ways. In other words, different sets of understanding and different threads of knowing can be established from the same set of data. I have been able to identify and interpret different sets of understanding from the same data set, but I have to stick with a “single” set of interpretations that best suit the research questions and the general research agenda, whilst, of course, acknowledging the potential for multiple interpretations. This is where post structuralism, from my current understanding, comes into play. Additionally, all this is, of course, accompanied with the relevant concerns and ways in which interpretations, etc, can be validated, verified, made more accurate, credible, etc. as discussed in a recent blog post. This is quite a topic to get your head around!


Either way, these are some of the questions I am asking myself at the philosophical level. As can be understood and appreciated, this is a complex topic and my ideas and arguments are in continuous development. Indeed, I am coming to accept that there are questions that I simply will not be able to answer, but being unable to answer a particular question that I have should not mean that I cannot present the question and begin to formulate some relevant arguments and possibilities. After all, a Ph.D. is not only a completion of a particular research project but it should also represent the beginning of something exciting and the beginning of new discussion and analytical possibilities.


In general, some of the philosophical concerns expressed here (not an exhaustive list) are ongoing concerns and are a part of a wider ongoing debate in academia. As mentioned, I am not expecting or expected to provide any solid, definite answers to these philosophical questions, but I am expecting to be able to contribute appropriately to ongoing discussions and debate about these, and more, issues.


December 30, 2018

Ph.D Update: Up To Christmas 2018 Part B, The Literature Review

The other key task up to Christmas was the redrafting of the literature review. Whilst this redrafting is continuous, the literature review is really beginning to take shape where I believe that the structure and content of the chapter are aligning with the overall chapter goals and ambitions. I have increased discussions and expanded upon existing discussion directions in relation to social learning, relevant areas of technology enhanced learning, and concerns that are specific regarding the phenomenon of research interest. I am greatly expanding discussions to include not just formal learning pedagogies related to the phenomenon of interest, but also informal learning and informal learning approaches. I also continued, and continue, to check through to ensure that arguments and discussions flow logically, systematically, and are in an ordered fashion from general to more specific.


I think in all literature reviews it is important to discuss from the general to the more specific. This way, you can set the context layer by layer. Through this, you can help navigate your reader through the vast maze of concepts, characterisations, definitions, findings and perspectives in relation to your research project. Additionally, and further to the navigation of existing concepts, etc. you can introduce the reader to your critiques, leanings, characterisations and conceptualisations with reference to each layer, and integrate these across each layer to form a cohesive and coherent literature review.



The aim of the research itself is to create a new coding framework and to develop thematic understanding of the content and behaviour of the phenomena of interest. The literature review offers a context for the research; it offers a platform upon which I can explain what the current and relevant coding frames are, to offer critiques of these coding frames, and to explain why there is a need for a new coding framework to assist with the investigation and understanding of the phenomenon of interest. The literature review goes beyond the critiques and discussions of the coding frameworks, as the literature review shall explain, investigate, discuss and critique existing publications regarding the wider social learning and technological learning and communicative contexts within which the phenomenon of interest is being investigated. Further to all of this, I still have to explain why there is a need to further develop thematic understanding of relevant areas of the phenomenon. I still have to explain the aspects and characteristics of the phenomenon I am exploring, the context of this phenomenon, and why the aspects of the phenomena and its context of choice are valuable and important to explore.



I additionally have to explain the value and usefulness of the coding framework against other coding frameworks, and explain how and why it is different from other frameworks and to explain the way in which the coding framework can work with other frameworks. These discussions shall be left till later in the thesis.



At the moment, the word count of the literature review stands at over 10,000 words, though it is expected to have up to around 15.000 words by the time the final version is complete. Always remember though that quality is more important than quantity. With that, I aim to try to keep the first literature review chapter as short as I can whilst including all the meaningful arguments and discussions ordered in a logical fashion from the general to the specific.



In summary, the literature review work is ongoing but I am more confident in the direction that I am now taking the literature review, and the general plans that are in place to produce an engaging, cohesive and coherent chapter. At least, fingers crossed!


Ph.D Update: Up To Christmas 2018 Part A, Coding Framework and Thematic Analysis

Wishing my blog readers a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! I apologise for not writing any blog updates since the middle of November. There were a few tasks I wanted to complete before Christmas so had no spare time to complete any blog posts. Now that the New Year is approaching, I’m now planning what to do between January and Easter and there is a lot to complete but I shall get to that in a while. In the meantime, this blog post is one of two posts that shall provide an update of my most recent work: this blog post covers the development of the coding framework, and the next part shall cover the progress of the literature review.


Themes, Sub Themes and Coding Framework


When I wrote about the continuous framework development back in mid November, the coding framework was, at least tentatively, complete. I was also in the middle of rechecking all previously coded data to ensure that I had been interpreting consistently and coding accurately. Since that time, the idea of interpreting consistently and coding accurately has become clearer along with understanding how interpretation consistency increases coding accuracy. This is especially an interesting point given that coding is subsequent to, and a reflection of, the act of interpreting.


Whether or not coding accuracy and interpretation consistency increased truth or progresses towards truth is highly debatable given the nature of qualitative research and the characteristics of inductive thematic analysis approach. I could argue for, and apply means to, increasing the validity, accuracy, consistency and credibility of my approach and the findings, but can I really argue that the findings represent truth and that my approach could lead people closer to the truth?


What I can argue in the thesis is for the importance of accurate coding and consistent interpretation leading to more valid and reliable findings, whilst at the same time accepting that different researchers shall interpret the data in different ways and, therefore, could view any data segment differently depending on various personal factors. Essentially, coding is an interpretation e.g., a code represents an interpretation of whatever action, event, etc. is appropriate and relevant to the research question. If you code a series of segments using the same code but the segments are not consistent then that code would represent an inaccurate or incorrect interpretation. I have some possible examples that I could think about in the thesis, but I have to give this some thought when I put the research design chapter together. I shall be going into a lot more detail in the thesis.


Just before Christmas, I had completed the rechecking of the previously coded data and can state that I am satisfied that my coding is accurate and that my interpretations are consistent at least in accordance with my own interests and research questions (again, I shall be talking about this more substantially in the thesis). What I had not expected to complete by Christmas is the categorisation and classification of codes into different sub themes and themes. Contrary to what appears to be the norm, I have been able to develop themes from codes that were not the most commonly occurring, but codes that represent what I consider to be important observations within the data. Important observations in reference to the research questions and the characteristics and aspects of the phenomenon of research interest that interests me the most. It has to be emphasised that the coding framework and the thematic development as currently stand do not represent the final product. The themes shall be developed and reformulated as time progresses. This shall be as a result of the processes of thematic validation and verification using a variety of different processes. These include a further examination of themes to identify similarities and possible opportunities to combine themes, as well as the possibility of identifying “super themes,” and conversations with other academics regarding the codes, sub themes and themes that I am using.


In all, I am pleased with the progress that has been made with the thematic analysis and development. The next stage of the analysis shall begin early next year and this shall involve not just the validation and verification of the themes, but also validation and verification of relationships between themes through both qualitative and quantitative means. The quantitative representation does not necessitate a mixed methods approach but does necessitate a multimodal design where the quantitative data simply supports and adds weight to what was identified and explained qualitatively. Working this out shall naturally take time!


November 19, 2018

Ph.D Update: Up To Mid November 2018, Part B: Continuing To Write Extensively

Writing is a continuous, ongoing task in qualitative research but the question is, what do you write? Obviously, many qualitative methodological textbooks and my own experiences suggest that it is very important to document what you observe and begin to interpret very early in the qualitative process. Typically, quantitative research is fairly set in nature and the writing of the research findings usually take place following the analysis phase. With qualitative research, you begin to write about your findings and interpretations at the very beginning of the analytical process. Your writings, interpretations and coding schemes, etc. all change and evolve over time, and it is always wise to write about these changes as they occur.


Reflect on these changes and alternatives, explain the way in which these changes have impacted your research, compare the changed approach to the previous approach, and evaluate these changes. All these reflections shall form a part of your analysis and overall production of the research design chapter and later thesis chapters.


Typically in qualitative research, data analysis and writing of the interpretations and findings occur simultaneously. What I am finding that is in addition to the norm is that I am writing about the research design as I go through each data analysis stage and phase. I have found that my analytical lens and general analytical approach have changed as I have progressed through the data analysis and as I have reread the data several times. With this, I am not just writing and contributing towards the findings and discussion related chapters simultaneous to data analysis, but also various aspects of the research design chapter.


Trust me, this can be quite mind boggling. But for me, it’s an approach that works as I have always viewed little sense in writing the research design chapter before the data analysis began. I did attempt this before, but as I progressed through the data analysis I found that what I found was challenging what I thought, and continues to do so. It made sense for me from that point to write about the design as I progressed through the data analysis.


It was more than a couple of years or so ago that I started the qualitative journey after moving away from mixed methods approaches to investigating the phenomenon of interest. I suppose back then I was aware of the need for writing about the data itself and what I was to observe, but I had no idea that at the time I would effectively be writing about the research design AND the data observations and thematic development simultaneously but this is the way that my research appears to have been worked out.


Qualitative research is nuanced and there really is no set path towards the way you are to write your qualitative thesis! Plus do remember that it is an ongoing process: you cannot write about an observation once and then leave it. It’s a long running, complex, detailed, deep process of understanding and comprehending what it is you are observing.


'till next time, keep applying that pen to paper! Or hands to keyboard! Or both!


April 2019

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Mar |  Today  |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30               

Search this blog

Tags

Galleries

Most recent comments

  • Thank you :) by Alex Darracott on this entry
  • Keep going! You can make it! by Ya Lei on this entry
  • Thank you for your comment and for your feedback and you are right about the student perspective of … by Alex Darracott on this entry
  • I think that 'objectivism' (like positivism) is over–rated in social sciences (and of course, you wi… by Liviu Damsa on this entry
  • Cider consumption shall come into it when chanting mumble jumble no longer helps :P ;) by Alex Darracott on this entry

Blog archive

Loading…
RSS2.0 Atom
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXIX