Thoughts About The Upgrade Process

The upgrade paper is no doubt met with a diverse range of opinions and experiences of both writing and presenting the paper, and it’s probably safe to say that more times than not there are Ph.D. candidates who begin to bang their heads on the keyboard as they attempt to unravel the mysteries of the upgrade process, nevermind the mysteries of their own research. But does it have to be so much of a mystery? The upgrade process is an academic process by which it is expected that an academic document, the upgrade paper, is produced along with a presentation but it’s also an emotional process. Doing a Ph.D. itself is not devoid of all human emotion and it does play on your emotions: happiness, sadness, anxiety, doubt, elation, depression, it’s an utter mixed bag relative to the mindset and perspectives of the individual. There is no getting away from that, hence why Universities have a set of student support services that are available for both undergraduates and postgraduates to use when they need. If you ever need them, use them!

Anyway, I am going off topic. I have been asked a question recently as to whether or not I view the rewrites of the upgrade paper as an unneeded distraction from the core of the research work that needs to be completed. It did not take me long to reach the conclusion that I do not find the rewrites and edits annoying at all, nor do I find that it distracts me. Why is this? Each rewrite and edit demonstrates further progression of the research and pushes and stretches my ideas into new directions I had not previously thought about whether that be philosophical, methodological, conceptual understanding of the phenomena of interest, or the structure and content of the earlier chapters of the thesis and potential, indicative ideas for the later results and discussion chapters though obviously it’s too early to determine those chapters.

Although, is the process of research development directly because of the process of actually writing the upgrade paper, or is it directly from my continuous reading and thinking about the subject? In a sense it can be a mixture: I am thinking about the subject as I am reading, and I am thinking about the subject as I am writing therefore the processes of reading, writing and thinking are all interlinked. As I am reading about the subject, my thoughts are linking together and as I am writing about the subject the ideas can forge new relationships with other ideas I never thought possible, and this can set up a whole new chain of thinking and reading requirements, and the cycle continues and the reedits flow. I do find this to be a positive process as my ideas progress, the directions of the research and of the thesis become clearer, arguments improve, and abstract relationships between concepts are established and recorded in each edit of the upgrade paper. I have a stack of digital copies of previously amended upgrade papers, which really only serve the purpose of demonstrating and tracking the development of my research. If you read the latest version of the upgrade paper that I have sent earlier for feedback, it looks near enough completely different to the first draft that I wrote. The original version is not even recognisable and I don’t even recognise it as my upgrade paper: but just the first draft that was completed in late summer.

What has proven to be of key importance with the process is that, in addition to an internal dialogue between my thinking and thought development, it has led to an effective, open, honest and productive dialogue between myself and my supervisor where we are really becoming acquainted with each other’s ideas and where we are coming from, and this I think is healthy and productive. I have stacks of emails sent between us as we discuss and debate different aspects of not only the upgrade paper but also of different aspects of my research and we have really engaged in that effective dialogue of thought development, and has helped to create new ideas and directions and upon researching these further, further ideas and directions have developed.

Do I find the process distracting? Not at all: the mixture of rewriting and reediting the upgrade paper, the internal dialogue between my thinking and thought processing, the dialogue between myself and the supervisor, and the almost you could call the general triangulation of thought development between thinking, reading and writing is a really beneficial experience. But it is important that this relationship between reading, writing and thinking go beyond the upgrade paper and onto the thesis.

Some Ph.D. candidates might become frustrated with the upgrade process, but stick with it and think of it as a means to opening an effective dialogue between yourself and your supervisor, and the internal dialogue as mentioned earlier. Think of it as a positive, beneficial experience of enhancing your research ideas, enhancing the directions, and a process that can take your ideas to places you never thought possible and relationships between ideas you never imagined existed.

Most importantly: be happy, be humble and feel blessed in that you have the ability and capability to enhance your thoughts and thinking, and to take your research to directions you never imagined possible and relationships established between ideas you never even considered at the beginning of your Ph.D. journey.

It’s a long journey: buckle up and enjoy the ride!

Alex Darracott : 10 Feb 2017 18:23 |  Tags: Upgrade |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

The Problem With Reality

Positivist perspective suggests reality is fully independent of human perceiving, thinking, knowing and knowledge of that reality, with all knowledge of that reality being readily accessible to the researcher through objectivist methods e.g., experimental methods and closed ended surveys. Interpretivism suggests reality is fully constructed within the mind, therefore fully dependent on the mind, and therefore no reality or aspect of reality exists independently of human perception or knowledge of it therefore our understanding and knowledge of reality mirrors reality itself. Realism suggests that there is a reality independent of the human mind but we cannot ever attain a full understanding of it, whilst Pragmatism does not really care either way (basically). At least, this is the way that onotological beliefs are presented in typical academic texts and research papers but in reality (no pun intended) there are nuances within each therefore the spectrum of ontological beliefs is more complex than what most authors tend to express. And, this is where my problem is.

Typically, a researcher at the ontological level is defined as either a realist, where there is a reality independent of the human mind, or a non-realist, where to some extent the researcher perceives reality as being dependent on the human mind. But in the context of my research and as a researcher, I find it difficult to imagine a reality that is completely independent of all human perceiving, understanding, and knowing. There simply cannot be a reality that is completely independent of the human mind when it comes to social sciences because humans are far too complex socially, emotionally, cognitively, spiritually and psychology to simply dismiss as empty states within research projects. Researchers also cannot be treated as empty states completely divorced from any influence upon the research process, as they come with a background of experience, perspectives, knowledge and preconceptions. Conversely, there simply cannot be a reality that is fully dependent on the mind of the participant or the researcher; in other words, I find it difficult if not impossible to imagine a reality that is constructed solely by our language, thoughts, perceptions, knowledge and experiences of that reality. This is primarily because ordinary observers can be misguided in some way with their thoughts, perceptions, knowledge and experiences of reality: just because we observe empirically that a stick bends in water does not mean that a stick really bends when it enters water. The mental states that are involved with developing our thoughts and perceptions might not be functioning properly, and therefore perceive objects that might not actually exist, or have certain thoughts that do not mirror what is really going on in that reality external to the observer, or believer. Or, we might have a sound set of mental states involved with the production of our perceptions and interpretations, but objects might be perceived differently based on our knowledge schemes and definitions of these objects. I’ll give an example:

Is a mountain bike a mountain bike because of a successful mapping between our knowledge schema and the reality of a bike? Or is it a mountain bike because of the way that we perceive its behaviour perhaps based on an internal knowledge schema: that it moves and functions as a mountain bike? Or is it a bit of both? What about if the mountain bike has a wheel missing: can it then be called a mountain bike if we define a bike in its characteristic of being able to move and transport a person from place to place? Can it still be called a bike just because it is similar to our knowledge schema of it? What about a bike that is left to rust for many many years and is no longer functional? Is a bike still a bike even if it can therefore change its formation from time to time?

A key ontological question here is: does a mountain bike really exist in itself, in its own form within reality, or does the mountain bike exist in accordance with the internal knowledge schema and successful mapping of this schema onto reality? It can be tentatively suggested here that a bike or a form of a bike really exists independent of our knowledge of that bike whether a person knows of a bike or not. A mountain bike might not exist in a person’s world, but that is not to suggest that it doesn’t exist at all: it has simply yet to be discovered. Now this is important because if we say that a mountain bike really exists in reality then we simply discover it, and the knowledge schema in our minds about a bike’s formation is simply an interpretation of what it really is. Another, shorter, example: some argue that a tree is a tree because it is a tree: it exist independently of our imagination and our minds therefore it is simply waiting to be discovered and not perceived or constructed. Others argue that a tree is a tree because we define or interpret it as a tree: a tree still needed to be defined in the first place as a tree, therefore its general shape and behaviour is interpreted as a tree.

What I am thinking currently is, in order to perceive an object of reality, that object has to have existed or exist in some form within the external reality. We simply could not have perceived a tree to be a tree or a bike to be a bike if some sort of formation that led to such definitions had not existed in the first place. Therefore in the context of my research work on learning processes within the social sciences, there has to be an independent reality or, more likely, there has to be aspects of learning processes that exist independently of my own understanding and knowledge of those aspects and independent of the understanding and knowledge of the participants. When we think about an interpretivist perspective, surely my interpreting of these aspects or objects of a learning process entail the existence of these objects, but those interpretations are what they are: fallible notions and theories of what is going on, and therefore susceptible to constant revision.

Therefore, interpretation is different to construction; interpretive philosophy, therefore, has to be different in form and function to constructivism philosophy despite them sharing aspects of relativism and subjectivism; but at the moment I find it difficult to adhere completely to an interpretive philosophy because I have the belief that aspects of reality exist independently from our interpretations. All interpretations are not necessarily wrong, but it might be the case where certain interpretations are closer to what is really going on in reality than other interpretations, but in what way can this be known? Can we really find out exactly what is going on in reality? Will it really be the case that our interpretations could match exact reality? This might be difficult to realise, because of the complex backgrounds that researchers bring to data analysis of learning processes and also dependent on what aspect of the learning process they are exploring. But if the learning process or even aspects of the learning process really exists, what aspects are they? And, in what way can I tell if they really exist or if I just perceive them to really exist?

More questions can be asked: what does this all mean for an interpretivist and constructivist methodology? Remember my previous blog post about methodological liberalism: I do not believe that methodology has to be tied to a particular philosophy; therefore in my research the case study methodology and grounded theory method can align with either realism or interpretivism. But what are the implications on case study and grounded theory?

I have starting points, backed up with the firm epistemological belief that our knowledge of reality is simply an interpretation of objects, object behaviours and of their relationships, and each researcher therefore shall attain different knowledge and understanding of these objects and their relationships relative to their experiences and knowledge of the phenomena of investigation. This does not suggest, though, that there are actually multiple realities but does suggest that to some extent there are independent objects and object behaviours that are interpreted by us. As mentioned, all interpretations would not be completely right, but some might be more right than others. I have starting points so I will be building up on these.

Ideas and arguments are continuously developing, but currently in the context of my own research some questions are: what exactly are the aspects that are independent of the mind, and what aspects are dependent? To what extent, therefore, can I claim to be a realist or an interpretivist? And, although I shall be able to ground my own interpretations of the data within the data itself, in what way can I judge which interpretations and hypotheses accurately reflect reality the most? Therefore, what would be the criteria for this grounding? Would my interpretations be different to others, and if so to what extent? And in what way would this affect the validity and reliability of the new theory?

And, no, I’m not going to talk about perceptions of fairies and pixies!

Alex Darracott : 23 Jan 2017 21:32 |  Tags: Constructivism Interpretivism Ontology Philosophy Realism |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Philosophical and Methodological Relationship: Beginning of Higher Level Understanding

Finding a starting point in developing a higher level of philosophical awareness and understanding of the position of philosophy within the overall research design (not to mention tackling the limitless and diverse range of approaches, debates, discussions and analysis of approaches) is not easy. I originally approached the position of philosophy through coming to understand my own philosophical beliefs from which I selected the methodology and methods. Now the Ph.D. is beginning to enter the stage of more intense engagement with philosophy with the following guiding question: what is the precise relationship between ontology, epistemology, methodology, theoretical purposes, and methods? Perhaps the answer here is more subjective and relative to my research: surely the answers that I shall form to explain and detail the relationship are not universally acceptable? There is no right or wrong or easy answer to this question in general.

Philosophical and Methodological Independency

To begin forming an answer to this question it is important to understand Philosophy as an abstract, domain independent discipline. Philosophy as a general discipline explores reality in terms of the study of appropriate behaviour (ethics), the study of interactions with and beliefs about reality (metaphysics or ontology) and the study of our knowledge about reality and whether or not there is any real sense of knowing about reality at all (epistemology). It is domain independent because philosophy itself is not exclusive to any discipline although every discipline and category of disciplines has their own philosophy. For example, there is a philosophy of the natural sciences (natural world) and a philosophy of the social sciences (social world or social reality), and within each there is a philosophy associated with each discipline: with social sciences, a philosophy of economics, philosophy of religion, philosophy of psychology, philosophy of education and so on.

Understanding philosophy as an abstract, domain independent discipline enables ontology and epistemology to set out assumptions about the nature and structure of reality and the way in which this nature and structure can be known, but allows the theories and methodologies of a discipline to determine the specific approaches to knowing this reality. In other words, in the context of my research my own ontological and epistemological beliefs are imposed onto the research therefore the research investigation has set assumptions about the nature and structure of social reality and the way in which this social reality can be known. The methodology and methods detail the approaches used to come to understand and know this social reality, continuously working towards the development of a theoretical framework that conceptualises and explains certain aspects and relationships between certain aspects of social reality. They key here now is to begin enhancing, detailing, elaborating, and fully establish the relationship between the philosophical assumptions and methodological approaches.

When I began thinking about philosophy’s position in general in my own research, I came across Yeung’s paper titled “Critical Realism and Realist Research in Human Geography.” (For the record I’m not strictly following a critical realist route nor am I doing research in human geography but it’s an ideal situation to be able to expand your reading scope and think about concepts and approaches in other disciplines: but that’s another topic). In this paper, Yeung offers the position that “philosophy deals with the ontological and epistemological aspects of the social world whereas substantive social sciences themselves address the theoretical and methodological issues” (P.2). His position not only enables the beginning of understanding the relationship between philosophy, methodology, theory and method but also notions independency between them.

Methodological liberalism

The independency enables an argument to be made about free movement occurring between philosophy, theory, methodology and method or in other words methodological liberalism. But this is not usually observed as there is a sense of exclusivity among methodological writers: particular methods are associated only with particular methodologies and particular methodologies are associated only with a particular set of philosophical assumptions. Linking back to the previous discussion, philosophical and methodological considerations are related in the context of a research project, but are in general independent of each other in that a particular methodology does not necessarily have to always associate with a particular set of philosophical assumptions. This independency and liberalism of methodology can be quite a difficult idea to grasp but I am beginning to develop a firm belief that this is what is or should be really happening when learning about all these different philosophical and theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches. I’ll give you an example.

An original key author of grounded theory, Glaser, did not explicitly state ontological and epistemological assumptions therefore grounded theory is classed essentially as being independent of any philosophy. This has worked in its favour (or not, depending on your perspective) because different versions of grounded theory developed over the past few decades carry different philosophical (e.g, pragmatism and constructivism) and methodological (e.g., ethnographic grounded theory, phenomenological grounded theory etc.) assumptions and approaches suitable for a variety of different research designs and different types of data. Despite this sense of liberalism, most texts I have come across associate grounded theory with a qualitative methodology and therefore relativist assumptions about reality. Glaser and his writing partner Strauss professionally parted ways and Strauss with Corbin developed a different version of grounded theory, termed Straussian grounded theory, that was more methodologically comprehensive in that it contained a wider and broader set of principles and guidance for coding data. But even then, no explicit philosophical assumptions were made about Straussian grounded theory until several decades later when Strauss and Corbin made explicit associations with pragmatism and symbolic interactionism. Even so, this version has been used in a variety of different research contexts and it could be argued that its pragmatic nature enables it to be used in a variety of different contexts.

In my research I am using a case study as the methodology and grounded theory as a method, guided by a realist philosophy therefore both have to align with the realist assumptions adopted for the research. This is where I begin to establish that detailed, intricate relationship between philosophy and methodology: not only shall I explain the way in which case study and grounded theory aligns with the adopted realism principles in general, but also the specific version of grounded theory and case study and in what way they align with each principle. You can’t just say “I’m doing a case study” or “a grounded theory study” as you have to be explicit with the variety and variation of variety of the method and methodology you are using, as well as being explicit about the philosophical assumptions. Not easy, but it is worth it.

Therefore, when you are developing your research projects try to think about philosophy, methodology, theory and method as independent but related and important constructs of your research. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that certain methods belong to certain methodologies or that certain methodologies belong to a set of certain philosophical assumptions because this stifles and limits potential and creativity.

A question therefore has to be asked: in what way, exactly, do we justify the use of methodology and methods in our research? Perhaps the answer here lies not just in the common approach of comparing methodological application within empirical literature in order to identify knowledge gaps and therefore methodological needs, which itself is important, but also through philosophical justifications. Why are we always explicit in the comparison of different designs and base justifications on this comparison and existing methodological gaps in the literature, but yet are not explicit and reflexive enough on our own philosophical assumptions of reality and therefore offer little in the way of philosophical justifications?

And that, readers, is a different topic entirely.

‘till next time, keep thinking!

References:

Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L (1967): The Discovery Of Grounded Theory: Strategies For Qualitative Research, USA: Transaction Publishers

Strauss, A., Corbin, J.M (1998): Basics Of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, California: SAGE Publications

Yeung, H.Wai-Chung (1997): Critical Realism And Realist Research In Human Geography: A Method or a Philosophy In Search of a Method? Progress In Human Geography, 21 (1), pp. 51 - 74

Alex Darracott : 13 Jan 2017 19:13 |  Tags: Methodology Philosophy |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Welcome the New year, and welcome back to my blog!

Hello dear readers and welcome back to the blog at the start of a new year, 2017! It appears that you’ve all recovered from eating far too much turkey (insert vegetarian alternative) and consumed far too much cola (as if) so you can get down to the serious nitty gritty of understanding what I am going to be talking about so if anyone can work out what it is I am saying during the year, do let me know!

The year is shaping up to be the busiest year yet for the Ph.D. with the key tasks of the year being the formal drafting of early draft thesis chapters namely the background, literature review and methodology chapters, and also contribute significantly towards the development of the theoretical framework, which shall be the main output of this research. There are going to be various opportunities during the year such as attending research conferences and also writing conference papers as well as research papers, as well as taking part in various courses that shall help improve my skills and myself as a professional in general. It’s a bit too early to begin writing research papers so I predict that around half of the year will be spent working on the theoretical framework as well as drafting the thesis chapters. Opportunities for conference papers will come in the summertime and probably around autumn time I shall be ready to formally approach research journals to ask if they would be interested in a paper idea of mine at the time, more than likely based on an emerging theoretical framework but not sure if this is actually possible. Either way, I shall be searching for many opportunities to get myself published beyond the blogosphere.

Speaking of the blog, what’s the aim of this blog for the next year?

For the past couple of years, I have been writing primarily about the development of the research design and longer term readers shall probably remember the many changes this design went through before being settled on a research design. That’s the way research projects work! Now that I am much more settled on a research design (still some specifics to work through but in general it’s in place) and the general phenomenon of interest, assuming that everything is alright with the design I am changing the purpose of the blog. I want to engage more at the philosophical level because I am developing a substantial and deeper fascination with philosophy particularly in relation to research design. Therefore, discussions are going to be shifting more towards general methodological and philosophical discussions but still keep these grounded in the context of my own research. What I mean by this is, discuss different philosophical theories and perspectives and engage with debates and discussions about methodologies in the context of my own research design e.g, realism, case study and grounded theory, but also where appropriate and necessary discuss other philosophical and methodological approaches. The idea is to now slowly and carefully build philosophical justifications for the research design, and contribute towards existing debates and discussions. Obviously not everything will be discussed on this blog as a lot of ideas to come will probably be kept for research papers and the thesis, but anything I feel is appropriate and general for this blog I shall put it up on here. I will still be writing weekly or fortnightly posts keeping you all up to date with progress and shall be writing on here about my engagement with theory development, data management, thesis chapter structure and writing, and perhaps discuss specific research papers but primarily the focus is going to shift more towards philosophy of research designs. The overall aim of the blog is still to chart and track my thinking, through processes, and development of these.

It’s going to be a challenging and exciting year with potentially lots of opportunities and possibilities, and I will keep those interested up to date through this blog!

Welcome to the New Year, and welcome back to my academic blog!

Alex Darracott : 13 Jan 2017 18:20 |  Tags: Planning Reflections |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Update On Work Since Upgrade Presentation

During the period between submitting the original upgrade paper and attending the upgrade presentation I developed concerns about my own research design, and, during the further use of grounded theory, discovered insights that was causing a change to what I really wanted to explore. However, it was too late to change the upgrade paper to reflect my new thoughts so it was left to the upgrade presentation to discuss the new ideas. During the presentation it was thankfully and surprisingly realised that the concerns and ideas that I had were aligned with the concerns and ideas of the assessors. Since that time, I have been pushing further the development of my ideas and therefore reconstructing certain sections of the upgrade paper to reflect these changes. The methodology section in particular has been completely changed with the mixed methods design dropped in favour of a grounded theory case study approach. The trial study report has also been updated to reflect upon the new insights from grounded theory, and expanded on existing discussions through providing extra literature analysis to justify the change of approach, though obviously relevant concepts shall be explored further in the thesis.

The result is a much clearer vision of what I want to achieve with the research and that is to develop a new theoretical framework of a certain collaborative learning process that shall explain the structure and sequences of that process, and to compare that process between differing contexts. Ideas are currently being passed between me and my supervisor, but at each stage the research is becoming clearer and the upgrade paper is becoming a more precise, explanatory document. It’s a document that in time that I shall be pleased with, because the upgrade paper and indeed the whole upgrade process has enabled me to really question what I really want to do, where I want to go with what I want to do, and in what way. It’s certainly been and still is a learning process, which I feel I will benefit from in the months to come as I embark on the next stage of the journey and that is the full application of the research methods

Once the upgrade paper has been completed, the assessors shall make their decision in January as to the suitability of the research. The only difference now is, it’s a research project that I feel more confident in and more able to complete to a Ph.D. level. That’s not to say that before I didn’t have this confidence, but I did have doubts creeping in which proved to be true, realised doubts and not just confidence issues creeping in.

It’s getting there, and if things go to plan as in the assessors giving my work the approval that is needed then I can get on with the extremely busy and challenging business of writing the thesis, and constructing the new theoretical framework!

I don’t intend on writing any further blog posts between now and the New Year as I am now winding down for Christmas, so if I don’t write any further blog posts this year then have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Alex Darracott : 16 Dec 2016 14:51 |  Tags: Reflections Upgrade |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Reintroducing Grounded Theory As The Research Methodology!

The mixed methods methodology has been dropped due to reasons outlined in the previous blog post. I am now taking the research back to my original idea of using just a grounded theory approach, underpinned by guidance from Strauss and Corbin along with possibly other authors as time progresses but this shall be determined in time. What does this mean exactly for my research? What does this change of methodology mean now? Changes might now occur at three different levels:

Philosophical level

A philosophical question now is whether or not I can proceed with the research using a critical realist philosophy. This will need a great deal of thought beyond the second upgrade paper, but at the moment I am not sure. The idea of critical realism is that ontologically there are events and activities that occur outside of our own thinking and perceiving of them, whilst epistemologically our understanding of these events and activities are continuously fallible and we can never really fully know the truth behind, for example, a process, and why a process occurs.

Perhaps using multiple observations or “cases” of phenomena along with using other methods contained within a grounded theory analysis could promote a critical realist perspective, because whilst the researcher is allowed under grounded theory to generate their thoughts and theorising during coding ultimately all thoughts must be grounded within the data. The theory emerges not from our thoughts and thinking, and perceiving, but from the grounded theory data. A question here though is that it could still be subjective: my grounding of my own thoughts and thinking within the data could still simply be based on the way in which I interpret the data. If this is a case, are there any events and activities that occur outside of our perceiving or thinking of them? If so, what? And how, and why?

Critical realism’s ontology is based on post positivism or empiricism; epistemologically, it subscribes to interpretivism or relativism. Is this really the right way? Do I have to rethink the ontological and epistemological aspects? I am not totally sure at this time; however, philosophically speaking grounded theory is somewhat pragmatic in that it can neatly fit within near any philosophical orientation as long as this is fully understood and justified.

Lots of questions have risen since the trial study particularly with regards to the relationship between the researcher and the participant. From what I can currently understand, philosophical orientations describe the relationship between the researcher and the participant, but what about relationships between researcher and the data where there is a sense of detachment between researcher and participant? What then? Challenging, but exciting, and will be exploring this much more.



Methodological level

Obvious and clear changes: the mixed methods methodology has been dropped. The research design is now based on a grounded theory approach possibly centred on critical realism. I am not sure about adopting a full case study approach due to analytical incompatibilities between case study, critical realism, and grounded theory, but this might be something that I shall have to revisit in the future. It is possible to do a grounded theory within a case study, but then critical realism would have to be dropped.

The methodology now is grounded theory based on principles from Strauss and Corbin and perhaps other grounded theory authors. Potentially, some amendments might be made to grounded theory in order to represent the exact context of the research. These amendments might be based on resolving the philosophical issues some of which have been outlined in the previous section.

A question that has come to me due to potential philosophical issues is deciding whether or not qualitative is the correct term to use to describe grounded theory, because of the relationship between the researcher, the participant and the grounded theory data. This is something that I shall be exploring further.

Practical Level

In more practical terms, the change of methodology will enable me to focus on mastering a single methodology, a single set of methods within grounded theory methodology, and be able to channel my thoughts towards resolving existing philosophical issues either in general, specific to the context of my work, or a mixture of both. Not to mention being able to fully comprehend and propose ways in which existing reliability and validity issues can be resolved.

Placing grounded theory at the level of methodology was the original proposal before I latched onto mixed methods methodology. But interestingly I did not realise or was aware of the practical benefits of using only a grounded theory approach for my research, but now I do realise these benefits, and therefore happy to drop the mixed methods approach.

A key feature of my previous methodology was theory testing and refinement through the use of quantitative findings. This might still occur within qualitative grounded theory through ideas based on theoretical sampling method in order to test the emerging theory, and also use constant comparisons between each case in order to identify similarities and important differences in order to refine the theory. However, should these really be classed as approaches to theory refinement, or simply refining the validity and reliability of qualitative, grounded theory findings?

Summary

Plenty of philosophical and methodological challenges are no doubt ahead, but my passion and enthusiasm of philosophy and of grounded theory methodology will no doubt be able to carry me through, resolving any problems that come along, and form solutions that are workable, practical, and lead onto contributing new knowledge and understanding of resolving existing problems that have not yet been resolved, or even identified in the first place.

Alex Darracott : 04 Dec 2016 17:06 |  Tags: Design Groundedtheory Methodology Philosophy Upgrade |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Highlighted Problems With The Questionnaire Approach

A while after the submission of the original upgrade paper, I had concerns about my own methodological approach. The sequential exploratory mixed methods design, which I thought was faultless, was being questioned by my own thoughts and increasing awareness of potential problems. The concerns that were raised and discussed with regards to the questionnaire approach were as follows:

Response Rate

Literature shows that response rates to online questionnaires, no matter their quality, is usually fairly low and usually does not meet the requirements of the researcher or the general requirements to reach data levels needed to produce a quality set of results and a quality set of insights based on these results. I did express my concerns about not reaching these levels and I did say that if I did not reach the required levels I would be disappointed. On this fact alone the assessors advised me to drop the questionnaire approach and just use the grounded theory approach as I would be able to attain and analyse much more data.

Precisely Measuring Phenomena

Construct validity is a key issue in questionnaire design. Given that new insights have been found after the submission of the upgrade paper questions were being asked from myself about whether or not I could really capture what I really wanted to capture. Could the questionnaire capture all that I really wanted to capture? Would it be even able to measure what I want to measure? The problem I had at the upgrade presentation was I could not present a questionnaire nor give much in the way of what could be on the questionnaire because the entire design would be based the findings of grounded theory. This point was appreciated. But even so, even if it were not mentioned I would have still had my own concerns of my own approaches.

Time

This wasn’t mentioned at the presentation, but a key issue here is time. It takes time to develop a grounded theory, convert it into a format suitable for the development of the questionnaire, trial and deploy the questionnaire, wait for the appropriate responses, and then analyse the data using various appropriate quantitative measurements. Not to mention writing an eighty thousand word thesis and writing various conference and research papers in between all that. Again although this wasn’t mentioned, I do wonder if time factored into the advice to drop the mixed methods approach and stay with grounded theory.

Overall

Sometimes I wonder if there really was a secret message underneath all this. Something along the lines of, “listen, we know you are enthusiastic about this and we don’t doubt your ability to do what you propose but you have to think about the practical aspects such as time, and whether or not you can do everything that you plan to do within the time allocated to complete a Ph.D.” Which is, obviously, a fair assessment to make as I was questioning myself about the element of time. It’s all fine and dandy producing a research design that is workable, but really pointless in an administrative sense if it cannot be completed within the allocated time and also if there is a chance that some aspects of the Ph.D. could remain uncompleted at the time of the need to write the rest of the thesis.

Perhaps a sequential, exploratory mixed methods approach would take too long to do for a Ph.D. project; perhaps sometimes playing it “safe” is the best option. I say “safe” in quotation marks because whilst the approach might appear to be safe in terms of own ability to do the work in the allotted time, it doesn’t mean that it’ll be easy!

Alex Darracott : 04 Dec 2016 16:51 |  Tags: Design Upgrade |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Key Highlights From The Upgrade Presentation

The upgrade presentation, including the subsequent time spent with the supervisor, took up about four hours. Reflecting back that might appear like a long time, but this was a crucial time where my own concerns were confirmed leading to a change in methodology and explorations of the phenomenon of interest. This blog post highlights the key insights of the upgrade presentation:

Revert Methodology Back To Grounded Theory

Methodological concerns that I had realised and had been playing on my mind since submitting the original upgrade paper, and therefore was too late to do anything about these concerns, were confirmed. As I personally predicted, and hoping for, the grounded theory aspects were well received and my passion for the grounded theory appreciated, but the questionnaire and general mixed methods methodology were dropped as a result of the assessors confirming my own concerns.

Whilst I appreciate that some Ph.D. researchers would view this as a negative outcome; for me, this was a positive outcome. The fact that I realised concerns about the questionnaire aspect before being told by Professors simply builds my confidence in my own ability to identify methodological faults before being told by those far more qualified. Plus, a little while before the presentation began I told myself that as long as I can continue with the grounded theory research that is all that really matters from a methodological perspective. This has been achieved, and therefore I consider this a positive outcome.

Update Upgrade Paper With New Insights

Since the completion of the upgrade paper, I have had new insights and ideas into what exactly I am exploring. Aspects of the upgrade paper are therefore to be rewritten, whilst other aspects (namely the literature review and all references to grounded theory) are to be left as they are. The methodological section is to go through a near complete rewrite in order to completely remove all references to mixed methods and replace with grounded theory. Objectives, research questions, discussions of anticipated findings, and the introduction aspects of the grounded theory trial are to be updated to reflect insights and directions that I have considered since the completion of the upgrade paper.

This is the way the Ph.D. works: you cannot submit a certain paper then stop work till you receive feedback or attend a presentation. The work simply continues at the regular pace. As I explored the data and continued to code data during the trial study, the need to perhaps redefine phenomenon of interest started to emerge during the data coding, and became obvious during the upgrade presentation. Again, this confirmed my own ideas and concerns that I had about my own approaches. Again, a positive outcome.


Use Of Literature And Critique Of Literature

The literature review aspect of the upgrade paper is to be left as it is as the literature review approach impressed the assessors from what I could make out, including the analysis and synthesis of literature and the use of literature to evidence the need for my research. Additionally, the assessors do not appear to have any concerns about my writing and my ability to write a thesis: my supervisor has even encouraged me to write conference and research papers as soon as I am in the position to do so. This is obviously a key, important outcome of the upgrade paper because if they had concerns about my writing and my ability to write a thesis then it would be just silly to continue it.

I personally feel that I can write a thesis. I personally feel that I can write conference and research papers; if anything, the upgrade presentation has simply boosted my confidence in my ability to do so. That’s not to say that I think I know everything: there is still much to learn about constructing a thesis but I am learning and refining my skills all the time. Reading theses certainly has helped.

I have started some literature review work, but will have to put most of the work towards it on hold whilst I update the upgrade paper.

In all however, this was a key, positive outcome!

Use Of Grounded Theory

Assessors appeared to have no problems with my use and understanding of grounded theory nor did they appear to have any problems with the way that I explained the use of grounded theory in the upgrade paper. Although, personally, I might make some changes to relevant aspects of the upgrade paper to upgrade my thoughts of grounded theory that have developed since the original submission of the upgrade paper.

Overall:

Personally I think I did alright. Could have been better I suppose but the supervisor said that I performed and came across well with what I was saying. What was interesting was the background of the assessors background: they had a background in language (Professorships) and discourse, and were viewing my research from a discursive, linguistic perspective rather than my own technical, process based approach. Never actually thought about what I am doing from a discourse, linguistic approach and I appreciated their insights, and might be something to consider more significantly whilst developing the theory.

What I am particularly pleased about with my own general approach was having my own concerns about my own methodology confirmed, along with being offered the chance to update the paper with insights and ideas that I have developed since the submission of the upgrade paper.

Alex Darracott : 04 Dec 2016 16:34 |  Tags: Groundedtheory Methodology Research Upgrade |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Considering The Literature, Part B: Applying Considerations

Considering The Literature, Part B: Applying Considerations To My Research

In the previous blog post I briefly discussed what I think are the main considerations of the literature. In this blog post I shall apply these considerations to my own research as it currently stands.

The Research Design

Those who have been following my blog and research progress for a fair while will probably have observed the various changes of the research design. Now I have settled on a research design: an adaptation of the sequential exploratory mixed methods methodology using grounded theory and possibly a questionnaire, guided by critical realism. As the research design has changed, so to have the role of the literature, the types of literature, and the way in which literature shall be analysed and synthesised. Now that the design has been settled upon, I can start to really think about all the other considerations.

The Role and Purpose of the Literature

Whilst this is work in progress, in general the literature shall have the following roles: contextualise the research, to act as data, assist with developing concepts from the qualitative data, to develop further concepts to be explored in the later research phases, and to help verify and validate concepts and aspects of the emerging theory throughout all the research phases.

The exact details of the way in which each role shall be carried out are being worked out, though it is expected that different types of literature shall be used to satisfy each role, and possibly different types of literature shall be used across the different stages. There is expected to be, however, heavy use of literature during the qualitative grounded theory stage as this is where the literature shall carry the roles of acting as data, assist with developing concepts, to develop further concepts to be explored at later stages, and to verify and validate emerging concepts from the grounded theory analysis. In the literature review although again work in progress, it is likely that a role of the literature is to contextualise the research. The exact amount of literature required cannot be determined at this time as this is determined by continuous reading along with analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data. Therefore, there is no actual fixed point where reading shall be completed; it’s not a case of simply writing the literature review then determine the reading as complete: this is an ongoing process throughout all stages of the research, and throughout the construction of each chapter of the thesis.

Types of literature to include

Straightforward: shall likely be using all the types of literature mentioned in the previous blog post.

Approach used to analyse and synthesis literature

This is also work in progress and has not been worked out fully. However, because there shall be various types of literature used in the research, it is likely that a mixed methods approach shall be used to analyse and synthesis the literature. Which exact type shall be decided soon.

In summary: The research design and the types of literature have been decided upon; the role of literature, the exact way in which literature shall be used to satisfy each role across the varying phases, and the approach to be used to analyse and synthesis the literature are all currently work in progress. This and the previous blog posts are just introductions to what I am considering, and as time moves on these considerations and perhaps more shall be explored further and more blog posts shall be written about them.

Alex Darracott : 11 Nov 2016 20:21 |  Tags: Litmanagement Litreview Research Thesis |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Considering The Literature, Part A: Set Of Considerations

As I have said in previous blog posts referring to literature reviews, a literature review is a serious piece of work probably in some theses the most important chapter as this directs the readers to what the research is about. It is best to leave the literature review, from my opinion, till after the research design has been fully decided upon because it is, usually, the research design that directs the structure and content of the literature review. Do, however, write extensive notes about each paper that is read even before beginning the first draft of the literature review.

Having selected the research design, the next step is to consider a series of issues regarding the way in which literature plays a part within the research. The main considerations are: the research design itself, the types of literature, the approach used to analyse and synthesise the literature, and the role and purpose of the literature. A number of blog posts referring to each consideration, and a combination of them, shall be written but in the meantime this blog post briefly introduces each of them.

The Research Design

I would say that this is the most important consideration: from my own experience no other issue should be considered until the research design has been decided because the research design, whether that’s quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods based, can determine the structure of the literature review, along with the purpose of the literature.

The Role and Purpose Of The Literature

This is the second most important consideration, in my opinion. The role of the literature I would say is strongly associated with the research design because different types of research design entail specific roles of literature. Writers have come to a general consensus as to the role of literature within quantitative research: it helps to develop and clarify research questions and hypothesis, for example, as well as develop a theoretical framework within which data is collected and analysed. The purpose of the literature within qualitative data is commonly observed as verifying and validating concepts and theories generating from qualitative data and acting as data itself in some cases, whilst mixed methods is not quite so clear but should be able to combine both general roles of literature. With mixed methods research there needs to be the best of both worlds, but the extent to which their roles are realised could be arguably based on the importance of each strand of a mixed methods research. For example, in mixed methods approaches where emphasis is placed on the quantitative strand should literature be used in the same way as pure quantitative approaches? If emphasis is placed more on the qualitative strand, should literature be used as a method of theory verification and validation, and as data? What if both quantitative and qualitative strands are considered as important as each other? What then? Perhaps in this case it is best to use both approaches to literature: the trick is figuring out exactly the way in which literature shall be used within each strand and the way in which literature or discussions of literature can be combined or integrated to form a complete narrative of findings and theory development.

Either way I think it can be suggested that a general role of literature is to contextualise the research. Contextualise as in to situate research within the broader picture or in other words to contextualise research is to ask where exactly does a research project fit within the wider picture of the research landscape of the field and phenomenon of interest.

The types of literature to be included

Once the research design has been decided upon and the role of the literature has roughly been figured out, the next task is to think about the types of literature that shall be used. This relatively straightforward compared to the research design and the role of literature: decide what types of literature to include, and the way in which each type of literature shall play a part in not just contextualising the research but to help build conceptualisations of data. Contextualising research and building conceptualisations of data are fairly independent processes in other words you can do both activities regardless of the type of literature that you have. This is what makes choosing the types of literature fairly straightforward, in my opinion.

There are various types of literature known broadly as empirical papers: quantitative literature (research carried out using quantitative assumptions and designs), qualitative literature (research carried out using qualitative assumptions and designs), and mixed methods literature (research carried out using both quantitative and qualitative assumptions and approaches). There is a plethora of other types: theoretical papers, where a writer develops and explains a theory or model; philosophical papers, which involves papers exploring ontological and epistemological issues; literature reviews, where sets of literature are analysed and synthesised to illuminate a point referring to a particular concept or set of concepts; and critical papers, where existing theories, models, philosophies, and so on, are evaluated and critiqued either from a theoretical or empirical perspective, or both. Regardless of the type or types chosen, it is important to remain clear why each particular type is important, why each particular type has been selected, the role of this type of literature, what each type of literature states, and in what way, if possible, it combines or integrates with other types of literature.

The approach used to analyse and synthesise the literature

This is a big topic as there are many ways in which literature could be analysed, but the approaches that are selected is determined by the types of literature selected because most if not all literature analysis and synthesis approaches are strongly associated with particular types of literature. Meta Analysis, for example, is strongly associated with analysing and synthesising quantitative based literature, whereas Meta Ethnography, for example, is strongly associated with analysing and synthesising qualitative literature. Mixed methods approaches are, you guessed it, strongly associated with analysing and synthesising a mixture of literature. Examples of this type include Narrative Summary and Thematic Analysis.

In summary: there is plenty to think about when considering the literature in the context of a research project. It is important to try to remember, perhaps, that it's impossible to decide on anything for sure until the research design has been selected. Really though, there are no right or wrong answers and there is no strict regimented path through this. You might think about a role of literature initially and as you go through your research you might find that this role is no longer relevant, or that you had perceived a particular role incorrectly. That's fine: the important thing is you address the situation, propose a new solution, apply the new solution, and try to record what happens. Make notes of everything: that way you can chart and track your progress. That's a reason this research blog exists!

Alex Darracott : 11 Nov 2016 20:13 |  Tags: Litmanagement Litreview Research Thesis |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem