Jeta's Growth as a Researcher

Growth as a researcher
Subjectivity as a Tool
I've been raised in a post-modern generation, one that willingly accepts relative, contextual truths, that has largely abandoned the larger, universal Truths in acknowledgement of the social contingencies of our beliefs. I've grown up in a hyper-culture conscious society that gives great validity to contextual, social influence on truth, meaning, and values. It is therefore not surprising that on the first evening of class when we wrote our definition of "truth," I wrote a very pragmatic definition--truth that is useful to us in a particular context given our particular experience.
Given this conception of truth, I entered into this course more than willing to accept the premise that the "truths" of research are highly contextual, that our subjective experience will always and everywhere be a presence in the work that we do. But, as I came to realize early on in the semester, I began to see one's subjectivity not only as a reality to be accepted but also as a tool to be used to improve our research. In my residency project and mini-inquiry for this class, I have tried to be aware of both how my subjectivity influences the study and how it can be a useful means for getting a fuller, more complex picture of the participants. I am interviewing students at my old school, and I taught the majority of participants when they were in 6th grade. Seeing this simply as a bias that must be acknowledged would not fully appreciate the advantages of having close, personal relationships with the participants. This allows me both to have more open, comfortable conversation with participants and to write about these students' with an ardent level of care, compassion, and respect.
Cohesion vs. Progression
College was hugely influential in my development as a writer. In high school, I had been taught the classic thesis statement method, where I wrote a thesis statement and developed body paragraphs that all supported that original thesis. Spring semester of freshman year, I took my first philosophy class (which would later become my minor), and I started to see writing in an entirely new way—as a logical progression of ideas, ideas which propelled my argument forward rather than continually reverted it back to that thesis touchstone. I say all this because I think in these past few months I seem to be adding to this model of writing. As I’ve been reading qualitative articles this semester with an eye for their writing style, I've started to get an appreciation for the cohesiveness and interconnectedness of the ideas in the writing rather than simply the forward-movement of ideas. I think much of this stems from the kind of research approach that Creswell argues for, where a sound theoretical stance grounds all choices--both methodological and stylistic. In working on my own qualitative paper for this course, I think a lot of my frustration springs from the fact that I feel that I'm not achieving this level of coherence and solidarity. This experience has definitely made me a believer in the need to begin a project with an explicit theoretical stance and to continually confirm and scrutinize my choices through that lens.
Development of Ideas vs. Validation of Ideas
Boote and Beile's scathing critique of doctoral students' literature reviews has, needless to say perhaps, made me hyper-conscious this semester of the quality of my own. Boote and Beile call for a critical synthesis of prior research that artfully and logically situates your own study rather than a blind regurgitation of any and all research on the topic. For these authors, the literature review should construct an argument for your study instead of just showing that you have read everything on the topic.
For myself, I think that early on in this program, I understood Boote and Beile's point of view. I think I have always seen the literature review as an arena for me to make my own argument for the study at hand. In this semester, however, I have actually realized that I perhaps was a bit too self-centered in my literature reviews, too apt at deciding on the argument I wanted to make and seeking out sources to help me make my argument. Working on my residency project and the mini-inquiry for this course, I have gained a new information for the way that other research can develop my argument verses validating what I was already believed. Reading the Godley et al.'s article on language ideologies, I think my willingness to let this article shape and influence my own study has hugely benefited my work. While there remained a temptation to simply "take what I needed" from the article, I made an effort instead to consider how the work of these authors might change or alter my own study. While I think Boote and Beile make a compelling case for the need for thoughtful, critical evaluation in the literature review to make your own argument, I think equal attention needs to be given to researchers (especially perhaps know-it-all doctoral students like myself) being willing and open to the knowledge and experience of others.