What was new? What did you already know that was refined?
What methods were you most attracted to and why do you think that is?
Which methods are likely to be ones you use regularly in the future?
I thought I would begin with prior semi-formed existing knowledge or “known knowledge”. I have experience in designing surveys and performing interviews fully self-aware that I have room for growth in both methods; however I list them in the realm of known. I did not however consider surveys and interviews in relation to non-positivism as they provide information about the subjectivity and relative properties of phenomena. This realization caused me to go back to the beginning with my processes for sensemaking. I previously understood constructivism but through this class I was able to refine my theoretical approach to phenomenological sensemaking by including positivism (objective reality that we can know through logical observation). Working in Higher Education and being surrounded by biological scientists all day, I didn’t realize how much effort I was putting into developing and framing hypotheses about phenomena instead of using topics of inquiry and sensemaking to discover meaning from phenomena around me. So something new that I learned how to do was to allow topic of inquiry to develop from sensemaking therefore not having a hypothesis at the beginning of the research. Other topics that were new or that I understand at a greater level now are the extent and exercise of thick notes through annotating as you go as an advanced form of sense making. Even more topics that were new include the extensive case studies that are needed for grounded theory as a methodology as well as the need for triangulation of qualitative data findings from at least two additional peer researchers.
From the proposed advanced qualitative methods list, I initially chose Critical Theory analysis, Interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA), and Ethnographic analysis. I am attracted to critical theory analysis because in the exploration of my dissertation topic, I have found competing digital literacy theories and discourse developing a critical approach to digital literacy for future citizen and workforce success. I am drawn to IPA to further understand how college students make sense of diverse information systems for learning, applying, and creating new knowledge. I think IPA can show us what digital “desire paths” might look like for different users’ groups and which paths create strong academic success pathways. For this same reason, Ethnographic analysis would be useful to understand digital literacy as a cultural phenomenon in Higher Education and to understand from a students’ perspective and not an educator, instructional designer, or administrator. After the one-on-one discussion, I changed my mind and chose computer mediated discourse analysis (CMDA), interpretative phenomenological analysis, and cine-ethnography.
Soft systems methodology (SSM)
Concurrent systems methodology (CSM)
Systems dynamics
Usability testing
User experience testing
Content and document analysis including data mining
Bibliometric meta-analysis
Interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA)
Grounded Theory
Critical CineEthnography
Narrative inquiry analysis
Ethnographic analysis
Action research and analysis
Design-based research
Critical Theory analysis
Care Theory analysis
Formal ontology development analysis
תגובות