Thursday, December 17, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Friday, December 4, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
- Export codes from MaxQDA into Excel
- Edit Excel file so that the relevant information fits onto a regular sized paper (make sure there are lines drawn between codes)
- Print on card-stock paper (I used regular paper the first time, and found them too flimsy to handle)
- Cut out each code into a separate strip (that's where the lines come in)
Monday, July 27, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
Tonight I leave Country-of-Research. I have managed to do 9 interviews over the past two weeks, one more this afternoon. I came hoping to do between 10-15 interviews, so I am happy.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Saturday, February 21, 2009
I've always known that there is a divine purpose for me to be in this program. When I get such confirmations (e.g. a 21-day process taking only 4 days and without any hitch... well, except for my own panicking), I look Up and an impression seizes my heart with these clear words:
"Yes, keep going."
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
And so the IRB is submitted and I am anticipating that the lady at IRB will look at it and say "nah, you can't do this research because you don't have this or that form or you don't have this or that permission" But before all that let me keel over and die for a couple of hours from my non-stop adrenaline filled all-day mad rush with no sleep the previous night
Saturday, February 14, 2009
I had this notion that my IRB application would only take 7 days. In anticipation of contingencies, I called the IRB today. Here is what I found out.
- It takes 21 days for an expedited review (the faster version for minimal risk studies) to be conducted.
- If there are changes or stipulations to be made, that can take another 7-10 days.
- The review board tends to be even more picky when the research is international.
- You are NOT allowed to begin data collection until you have received IRB approval.
- Defend my proposal on Feb 24th. Then submit my IRB immediately after.
- Fly to Country-of-Research (C-o-R) a few days later while waiting for IRB approval.
- Get IRB approval when I am in C-o-R, and collect data for two weeks.
- Fly to U.S. West coast to attend Glaser's Grounded Theory seminar.
Thankfully, I was able to be prepared enough with my IRB training that someone in IRB will help to push through my application so that I might be able to do as I had originally planned.
Moral of today's post: If your study requires IRB approval, plan your timing accordingly!
Friday, February 6, 2009
It's only taken me a total of three days from sending my draft into Adviser to getting my defense date set.
- Monday around 5am at night, I sent my draft to my Adviser.
- Tuesday in the afternoon, Adviser wrote back saying she'd read it soon and that it looks good.
- Tuesday in the afternoon, Adviser follows up with email telling me that it is good, and to get the committee together for a defense date, and to edit her phone number on the consent forms.
- Tuesday in the afternoon, I wrote to Adviser to clarify if she wanted to meet with me before that. I had psyched myself up to spend another few days to edit the proposal. You see, Adviser has high standards (one of the reasons I picked her to be my adviser).
- Wednesday in the afternoon, Friend wrote to say that she met Adviser, and that Adviser "waxed eloquent about the superior quality of yours [proposal]." I took that as meaning Adviser does not require edits on my draft aside from her phone number. And so...
- Wednesday in the afternoon, I emailed committee members a draft of my proposal and requested meeting dates and times.
- Thursday in the afternoon (that is, right now), I am blogging about my proposal defense date. It has been set for 2 1/2 weeks from now.
Monday, February 2, 2009
There was not a
Did you know that adding up hours can turn into days?
Tonight was IRB (Institutional Review Board, or Ethics Board). It took me 4 hours to go through the online training. Completely unexpected and frustrating to no end. Yet, it was good to learn, and it led me to further refine my methodology and write a more solid informed consent. Much better than the one I was trying to plagiarize from another dissertation. o . O
I didn't quit after the IRB. I pushed and I pushed and... ladies and gentlemen, "it is finished."
Okay, okay, I lied. I still have two appendices to edit and the references need to be filled in and APA'ed. But really, can you blame a guy who has been proposaling for six months for wanting to celebrate a little early?
I think not.
Here's how exhausted I am: I discovered a nice little reference to support my methodology, and then found myself laughing my head off when I noticed the author's last name was Dick.
Dick dick, dick dick dick dick dick.
I need to go to sleep.
Nite all. I mean, good morning.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
After talking with her about my dissertation and about Grounded Theory, she encouraged me that I am very much ready to embark on my project, and that it is a very good one.
Then, she introduced me to one of her students: "This is Lonely Dissertator (me). He understands grounded theory more than any student I have ever met."
After all that hard work (and torture), receiving such validation is simply... sweet.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
My kids LOVED it.
When asked what they thought, 7 year-old daughter said, "fantastic!" Even 5-year old son was riveted for the entire 30 minutes. Heck, I was impressed and I did not expect to be.
The new version has some great changes that really work for today's kids.
The Electric Company is a "club" of kids (played by 13-20 year olds) with special SKILLS to do cool things with words. Here they are.
There is an enemy group, Pranksters (I think) and the interaction between the Electric Company and the Pranksters forms a storyline.The story is fast-paced and woven through a network with nodes that represent cool teaching snippets (not part of the storyline) emphasizing certain aspects of English words e.g. hard versus soft "c".
Those of you teaching English as an alternative language can show clips to your students. Although TEC is targeted towards children 6-9 years old, the ideas and special effects are engaging for kids of all ages. Check out the "Matrix.My favourite is Music Man. He is the grooviest. Here's Music Man with his love of that silent "e."
The website is great too. It has games, video clips, and you can watch entire episodes on it.
So much creativity and resources put towards teaching and empowering kids. I love it.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS)
- Software to help with qualitative research.
- Choosing Qualitative Data Analysis Software: Atlas/ti and Nudist Compared (by Christine A. Barry, 1998).
- QSR International (Wikipedia). Largest CAQDAS developer.
- NVivo (previously NUD*IST)
- Handles more than text, can handle simplified Chinese.
- Easy to use.
- Not as many features as NVivo.
- Not available through the U, but has direct cheap student price
- Student software cannot be upgraded.
- Software that helps to organize bibliography and other references, including the ability to churn out a reference page automatically.
- Available for free through the U.
- Is there a software that handles both qualitative data analysis as well as reference management?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
My hard deadline will be Monday January 26th, 2009. It is also the first day of the Chinese Lunar New Year -- the year of the ox.
Thu 22: Complete studying all of the grounded theory works that need to be studied.
Fri 23: Edit first half of proposal already written.
Sat 24: Write second half of proposal.
Sun 25: Complete dissertation proposal.
Mon 26: Send it into adviser and celebrate the New Year!
Sunday, January 4, 2009
I was walking around surveying the dimensions of a large castle. I stepped inside the main entrance, looked around the large entryway, the inner garden, walked through the hallways and decided to go into one of the rooms. I opened the door, stuck my head to look inside, and suddenly, I found myself in the entrance to yet another giant mansion.
This was what happened to me.
Two weeks ago, I started to read Barney Glaser (1992), and realized that I could not ignore his ranting against Strauss & Corbin (1990, 1st ed.). As much as I enjoyed Corbin & Strauss (2008, 3rd ed.), if I were to be a true scholar, I had to take Glaser's words more seriously. After all, he was the first author of the first book on Grounded Theory, "The Discovery of Grounded Theory" (Glaser & Strauss, 1967)--a book which I had not read because when I tried to do so, I could not understand it, and I thought that a latter edition (i.e. Corbin & Strauss, 2008) would be more "up to date."
How wrong I was.
Almost everyone I have talked to (and some dissertations I have read) that have used grounded theory has treated it as a one possible methodology in qualitative research. In fact, some qualitative textbooks also seem to treat it that way. Yet, given everything that I have read so far in Grounded Theory (works using GT, as well as method books on GT), I am coming to realize that GT is not just a method for doing qualitative research, it is a methodology for generating theory using qualitative or quantitative data.
I repeat: Grounded Theory is not just one of several qualitative methods, it is a methodology for a very specific purpose: to generate theory! Thus, it is called Grounded Theory.
Those Creswell texts that put GT as one method amongst others are not correct, especially if we are to properly understand the purpose for which GT was originally conceived (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). GT is for generating theory, therefore, it should not be placed alongside phenomenology or case study methods. Doing so is misleading.
No wonder Barney Glaser sounded like a raving madman in "Emergence vs. Forcing" (1992): he was yelling "wrong, wrong, wrong!" (to Strauss & Corbin who were turning the method into conceptual description, and thus, one of the many variants of qualitative methods).
I get it, Barney. Thanks for hollering.
I've read Corbin & Strauss (2008), "Awareness of Dying" (Glaser & Strauss, 1964) and I've ordered Glaser's "Theoretical Sensitivity" (1978) through interlibrary loan. Yes, interlibrary loan! This is a very important book in the corpus of GT texts, and my university doesn't own a copy of it. Go figure!
Right now, I'm reading the original first edition of GT, "Discovery" (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Mind you, the entire title of that book is "The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research." No wonder people are misled. But now that I've read enough on GT to be able to understanding "Discovery" (1967), I see that Glaser's (1992) ranting was justified. He and Strauss had already made all those claims in 1967, and Strauss (with co-author Corbin) went and discarded some very important basic premises in 1990.
I'm still social constructivist. That has not changed. However, given that Kathy Charmaz (the "originator" of Constructivist GT) was trained by both Strauss and Glaser, I should read her version before I finally finish off my proposal.
Glaser is still alive. He holds seminars for dissertators. I am considering going. All the way to Mill Valley, CA. Did I mention that I am kind of intense that way?
Here's the good news: I still LOVE grounded theory! In fact, I love it even more now. I dig theorizing. I really do.
Friday, January 2, 2009
I GET IT!!! I GET IT!!!
[Side note. Read the link above, and then entertain this question: Is Marriage and Family Therapy a sociologically-derived field of therapy?]
In working through Grounded Theory à la Barney Glaser (whose writings tend to be more resolute about "what is" and "what isn't" [read: positivist]), I am beginning to appreciate what Classic Grounded Theory means when it insists on a difference between Theory and Full Conceptual Description. There IS a difference.
Having done my undergrad in one of the top schools of psychology, I understand psychological theory well. A real snob-school will tell you what is and what isn't about psychology--it guards its turf well. Studying the family is about the intersection of sociology and psychology (with sprinklings of anthropology, communication studies, economics, etc). So none of our coursework "taught" us what sociology--specifically--is about. None of that turf-guarding stuff in family studies, and so we end up a little loosey goosey [read: postmodern?].
Anyway, I am having some fun embracing a more boundaried approach to defining what is and what isn't in terms of sociological theory, and even who can do sociological theorizing:
"This book [The Discovery of Grounded Theory] is intended to underscore the basic sociological activity that only sociologists can do: generating sociological theory. Description, ethnography, fact-finding, verfication (call them what you will) are all done well by professionals in other fields and by laymen in various investigatory agencies. But these people cannot generate sociological theory from their work. Only sociologists are trained to want it, to look for it, and to generate it." (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, pp.6-7)
Snobbish, isn't it?
That's okay. I'll play their bluff and pretend to be a sociologist for this dissertation. After all, if MFT is a sociologically-aligned field of therapy (see side note above), then I can very well claim sociology as my field!