Week 2 Research Journal

Creswell and Poth, Chapter 2: Philosophical Assumptions and Interpretive Frameworks

We bring so much academic "baggage" with us when we approach our research studies, but being aware of it is key. We can also use these beliefs and assumptions to enhance our research and shape the study.

Philosophy--the use of abstract ideas and beliefs that inform our research 

Paradigms--a basic set of beliefs that guides action

What we as researchers bring into the research process: personal history, view of ourselves and others, ethical and political issues, philosophical assumptions (phase 2--ontology, epistemology, axiology, methodology)

Theories/theoretical orientations--provide a general explanation as to what the researcher hopes to find in a study or a lens through which to view the needs of participants and communities in a study

Basically, we cast the net wide as we begin research, and then refine and apply all of these "filters" as we add layers and shape the study.

Four philosophical assumptions: ontology (the nature of reality); epistemology (what counts as knowledge and how knowledge claims are justified); axiology (the role of values in research); methodology (the process of research)

Ontology actually embraces "multiple realities," as in different people have different lived experiences--including the researcher. We have to be aware of this when conducting the research and be open to the other realities. Just because the researcher has not experienced a particular phenomenon/feeling/situation/whatever, this does not negate the reality of the study participant.  

Epistemology emphasizes that "knowledge is known through the subjective experiences of people"; seeking to understand this--getting as close to the participants being studied--is at the core of this assumption. Researchers need to conduct their research "in the field," and the longer they stay in the field, the more information they can gather from firsthand experience. I really feel like this is where a lot of studies about Appalachia are lacking; for instance, if people from "outside" are trying to make meaning of interviews/surveys/whatever from native Appalachians, there is a lot of context that is missed. This is one of the reasons why I'm passionate about pushing for research on Appalachia conducted by researchers from the area, who understand the people and its rich culture and heritage.

Axiology emphasizes the values of the researchers. This is when researchers position themselves within the study, discussing not only their values but also their possible biases. For instance, when writing my autoethnography of place for Dr. Hanauer's class, it was essential to establish my position within the place that I was studying. Defining my personal connection added multiple layers of meaning to the information I was gathering. Additionally, being able to identify my personal biases in regards to the subject matter helped pinpoint tensions which could then be explore further, yielding richer results.

Methodology (not methods!) are the procedures followed when conducting qualitative research; these procedures can be changed if the research questions need to be modified. 

Philosophical assumptions can either be explicitly discussed within the text of the study, or they can be hidden, leaving the reader to identify them independently. Additionally, these assumptions are applied within frameworks.

Postpositivism: scientific approach; couples well with quantitative research; social science theoretical lens. Researchers using this framework often use computer programs to help with their analysis and write up their findings like scientific reports. Lots of data and different methods of analysis seem to be used.

Social Constructivism: seeking to understand the world through understanding the experiences of the participants. This framework often requires the researcher "positioning themselves" within the world of the study. I'm not sure why, but I keep thinking this is tied to anthropology and sociology--maybe just because I studied social constructs (like gender) in my sociology classes in undergrad.

Transformative Frameworks: the purpose of creating knowledge is to improve society; action agenda. Marginalized groups tend to be the focus. This framework seems very freeing in that it gives voice to the voiceless, and it really takes into account the needs of the participants. This really speaks to me, given the fact that my greatest research interest is Appalachian dialects. Knowing the members of my community as I do, I think that they would be much more receptive to researchers espousing this framework, especially with its emphasis on collaboration with participants to find solutions. People in Appalachia have been taken advantage of for so long and told what to do that actually having someone care about our ideas and seeking our input would be very refreshing.

Postmodernism: a family of perspectives that focus on power and control (who has it, who wants it, and the resulting dynamics). Deconstruction plays into postmodernism, particularly in regards to looking for these power dynamics. For me, deconstruction always reminds me of the literary analysis papers that I wrote in undergrad and my first MA program; we were always deconstructing texts to find the inequalities in power, whether due to race, gender, class, or whatever particular element was under consideration.

Pragmatism: The problem being studied and the questions being asked about that problem are the most important factors in pragmatism. There seems to be a lot of openness to pragmatism; it doesn't follow a single philosophy, doesn't box researchers in in terms of methods or procedures, doesn't have a fixed way of analyzing data. The text says it can be present in studies that utilize both qualitative and quantitative data. I'm not sure that I've really seen studies that follow this framework, but with it being so open, maybe I have and it just didn't register with me. Honestly, I think I'd really like to learn more about this because it seems very trippy.

Feminism: uses a wide range of orientations, contexts, etc. in studies that center issues facing women. Research can focus on different subgroups of women; common theme are the domination of the patriarchy and injustice within society. I am very familiar with feminism in terms of literary analysis, having written many papers using it as my framework, as well as teaching several classes on feminist literature. While I am aware that the approach is not quite the same, this framework feels very familiar to me.

Critical Theory and Critical Race Theory: concerned with constraints such as race, class, and gender. It is critical for the researcher to acknowledge their positionality in this framework, especially since this can influence their power within the dynamic. CRT, in particular, delves into the connection between race and power, so researcher background can play heavily into these studies. This is of particular interest to me, as the reading indicates that narratives of participants are used to build cases against the dominating perspective. My work with oral histories has shown me that the stories of marginalized individuals paint a completely different picture than the generally accepted narratives put forth by dominant groups, institutions, etc.

Queer Theory: Like feminism and CT/CRT, various methods and strategies can be used for queer theory, but the central focus is individual identity. I like that the text emphasizes that it's called queer theory to keep it open. I also have some experience working with this theory through literary analysis, and I'd like to gain a deeper understanding of it in regards to qualitative research.

Disability Theories: disability as a dimension of human difference, not a defect. Again, this is about power, differences, and socially constructed meaning as viewed through a "disability interpretive lens." This section felt fairly vague, so I'd like to do some more independent research into this theory. 

 

Randez, "Acknowledging immanence in applied linguistics qualitative research"

Introduction 

There has been a push to define what what qualitative research is, not what it is not. It has operated in the realm of what it isn't (namely, it's not qualitative) for so long that it has almost given it an excuse to not be as rigorous as quantitative. However, clearly defining what qualitative research is and using self-reflection ensure the rigorous nature of the research conducted.

Onto-epistemology: Our lived experiences formulate the very questions we ask. 

Qualitative research is being presented as subjective (opinions, interpretations, emotions, etc.), so does that mean quantitative is objective? 

Life capital: the lived experience of the researcher which helps situate them within the study 

Immanence

While immanence seems to be extremely important to Randez, he gives a very confusing explanation of what it is, stating that it is basically everything. He clarifies this when discussing that it is opposed to transcendence, or existing outside of what is being studied. This means that immanence can be boiled down to existing inside; essentially, we can't truly divorce ourselves from what we are studying.

Virtual (how we think about something) vs. Actual (what we actually do) are linked, but not necessarily the same. I really appreciated the example to illustrate these points.

"Each individual has a concept of truth; however, the definition is indicative of the environments in which they were socialized and exist." I particularly liked this quote; it validates all experiences and all "truths." Just because my life experiences have caused me to believe a particular truth, this does not automatically make my truth true for everyone.

We cannot transcend immanence (makes sense because they're basically antonyms); we cannot look at ourselves from an outside perspective; our research processes do not occur on a different plain of existence than our normal selves. Because we can't get away from ourselves, we must know who we are and what we are bringing with us to any study we approach.

Reflexivity

Reflexivity: "self-reflective practice that contextualizes the researcher within and outside the study;" we share this so readers know why we pursued a particular area of study and particular research questions; many argue that it is an essential part of the research process. Again, the examples given were great at explaining the concept of reflexivity.

A lot of this reading so far is very reminiscent of the work we did in Dr. Hanauer's class, with good reason. Autoethnographies are mentioned within this reflexivity section because the positionality of the researcher is so crucial to these types of studies. 

Acknowledging immanence through research

Ontology influences the entire study (all participants and the researcher have their own backstories), but immanence of the researcher has shaped the entire study. 

I'm glad that the ontology of the participant has been acknowledged. We've seen how the researcher shapes the study, but what of the participants? What do they bring to the table? How does the process of research affect them? What changes does it cause going forward? In scientific studies (I'm thinking about tests for recently developed medicines, for example), participants are warned of possible side effects and then monitored to see the changes that the study produces. They are told what to expect in advance, in the name of transparency. However, it seems that the ramifications of a qualitative study, while possibly more subtle, are just as important.

Pre-inquiry: All entities must be acknowledged. Anything that could have an impact on the study needs to be explained. In this phase of the study, the virtual is being turned into the beginnings of the actual (as in, the researcher is taking their ideas and creating tools to conduct the research, be that open-ended questions, surveys, etc.), so it is important to acknowledge the influences on this part of the process. The ontological basis of the participants (or source, as the text uses) must also be considered because what they bring to the study will also change the study (and, by extension, the results of the study). Outlining this prior to the study helps solidify the distinction between the researcher and the source prior to the distinction becoming blurred once these two entities come into contact during the study.

 During-inquiry: The "seeker" now officially becomes the researcher, and the "source" becomes the participants. The study itself has now become an actual entity (as opposed to the virtual form it existed in when the researcher was conceiving it), and interaction with each other and with the study will influence both the researcher and the participants. 

Presentation vs. representation: At this point, the researcher becomes the "reporter," and the framing of the results is based on what the researcher deems is important. Participants, who are now the "documented," move away from the study, but still carry the experience with them. The researcher self-reflections and, as the reporter, curates the experiences. What they share is not "the truth," just what they experienced in the study.

The backbone of this whole section: "acknowledging immanence states; here is why I believe what I did is correct (pre-inquiry), this is how all entities adapted during the study (during-inquiry), and here is how the study impacted the entities involved and what I am sharing with you means to the phenomenon (post-inquiry)"

I appreciate that the author practices what he preaches with the inclusion of his "author immanence" statement at the end. 

 

Discussion Question 1: With all of the different philosophies and frameworks, how do researchers choose what will be used for a particular study? Is this a deliberate choice, or one that just naturally evolves based on the study being conducted? Are certain types of studies more aligned with particular philosophies and frameworks?

Discussion Question 2: Randez makes the statement, "It could be that AL reflexivity is doing too much trying to appeal to all types of inquiry." What constitutes doing too much? How do we know if we've done too much self-reflection in a study? What are the parameters?

Discussion Question 3: Reflecting on immanence seems to be crucial throughout the entire research process. How do we best incorporate these statements into our findings? Randez states that our immanence is most prominent in our methodologies, but how do we make ourselves more present within the other steps of the research process without taking away from the study? Is a statement at the end (like the one Randez provides) in personal narrative form always the best option, or are there other ways of incorporating this information within the text?