QRSIG Newsletter Fall 09

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP

FALL 2009

QRSIG News letter A Special Interest Group of the American Educational Research Association

Message from the Chair Dear QR SIG members, IN THIS EDITION 2 A VIRTUAL INTERVIEW WITH JUDITH GREEN Valerie Janesick 8 TECH TALK: CATALOGING AUDIO AND VIDEO DATA Marlene Montgomery 10 OUTSTANDING BOOK AWARD Kakali Bhattacharya 11 KEYNOTE SPEAKER Mirka Koro-Ljungberg Lisa Mazzei 12 DISCUSSION FORUM Jim Bernauer 14 LETTER FROM PAST RECIPIENT OF OUTSTANDING DISSERTATION AWARD Carolyn Mears 15 OUTSTANDING DISSERTATION AWARD Joseph Maxwell 16 ANNOUNCEMENTS 17 OFFICERS & COMMITTEES

Thank you to all the proposal reviewers and especially Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, and Lisa Mazzei (program chair and co-chair) for their work on the submissions for the 2010 conference. We look forward to another outstanding program in 2010. We have elected new officers to many positions: Joe Maxwell will chair the Outstanding Qualitative Dissertation Award Committee, Kakali Bhattacharya is the chair of the outstanding qualitative book award, Florence Sullivan is the Treasurer, and Jenni Wolgemuth the Secretary. Nora White now has three assistants for the newsletter: John Harris, Adria Hoffman and Sharon Huffman. Jim Bernauer has the QRSIG discussion board up and running. Thank you all for your service! If you are wondering, “is there a place for me at the QR SIG?” The answer is YES! We need your help! Here are a few possibilities: 1. webmaster to keep our AERA website up to date (it is not right now); 2. writing book reviews for upcoming issues of the newsletter;

QRSIG: SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP OF THE AMERICAN EDUCATION RESEARCH ASSOCIATION

3. working with the Chair (that’s me) to investigate AERA’s policies regarding SIG publications; 4. leading a discussion board conversation 5. most importantly, any project that you would like to undertake with the SIG. Please email me if you are interested in any of the above. Again this year I am seeking papers for the International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry in several areas: teaching, poetics, challenges to qualitative inquiry and experiential learning. The 2010 conference at the University of Illinois is scheduled for May 26-29. I will send out an email shortly requesting proposals in the areas listed above. If you have not had the opportunity to attend the ICQI conference, I highly recommend that you do so. I wish you the best in the upcoming year and hope to hear from you soon!

Deborah Ceglowski QR SIG Chair

1

INVESTOR NEWSLETTER QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ISSUE SPECIAL N°3

INTEREST GROUP

FALL FALL 2009 2008

History Column: Three Questions A Virtual Interview with

Judith Green

by Valerie J. Janesick, University of South Florida

Judith Green is a Professor and Director of the Center for Literacy & Inquiry in Networking Communities, Gevirtz Graduate School of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara. In follow-up to the thought provoking topics explored in her interview, Judith has graciously agreed to lead a discussion via our newly developed QR-SIG Discussion Listserv. If you have not had an opportunity to join and participate in the discussion listserve please read Jim Bernauer’s article on page 12. You may correspond with Judith Green directly at: [email protected]

Prologue from Judith: I was excited when Valerie asked me to respond to the three questions for this column. Valerie and I have a long history and share overlapping roots and routes. So reconnecting through this request provided a unique opportunity to explore the roots and routes that qualitative research has taken from invisibility in AERA to a prominent role in different Divisions, SIG’s and Professional Development Sessions. I hope that my responses to the three questions posed will provide a historian’s view that is often not visible in general books on qualitative research. I also hope that in sharing the roots and routes of the research communities in which I live and worked, readers will see new possibilities for actions that they might take in building an intellectual ecology that addresses questions of interest to them and others.

Valerie: Judith what are you currently working on? Valerie, to answer your question, I need to share roots and routes of three different pathways that my work and that of my colleagues has taken. The first project I will share continues work over the last five decades on issues in epistemology and research methodology from an ethnographic perspective on classrooms as cultures-in-the-making. This work has it roots in sociolinguistics discourse analysis, sociocultural theory and anthropological perspectives on ethnography as a philosophy of inquiry. The pathway or route that this work has taken focuses on how the study of everyday life in classrooms and other educational settings (home, schools, legal settings, physical education programs, and communities) makes visible often unexamined factors that support and constrain ways of knowing, being and doing, as well as how actions of actors within and beyond the classroom door are consequential for students, for teachers and for society at large. This work is visible in edited collections for example and to name a few: Ethnography & Language in Educational Settings (Green, 1979; Green & Wallat,; 1981); Multidisciplinary perspectives on classroom discourse (Green & Harker, 1988; Kelly & Green, 1997); Classrooms as Cultures (Dixon, Green, & Frank, 1998); Skukauskaite, Lin & Green, 2007; Rex, 2005); and in synthesis articles including Green, 1983; Green & Bloome, 1997; Green & Dixon, 2007; Rex & Green, 2007. Colleagues and I in the Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group have been (re)analyzing work from three classroom in our ethnographic archive (1991-2002), focusing on methodological as well as conceptual issues needed to examine classrooms as cultures in the making and the interdependence of individual and collective development. By (re)analyzing a common set of ethnographic records in linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms, we are developing theoretical and conceptual arguments about factors that support and constrain equity of access, the social construction of identities, and how students and teachers jointly construct opportunities for learning within and across time(s), actors and events. Because our work spans a period of time 1991-2002 in which California citizens voted for English Only instruction, we are also examining how actions by citizens and policy actors beyond the classroom door first support and then constrained access that linguistically diverse students had to literacy


2


INTEREST GROUP

FALL FALL 2009 2008

A Virtual Interview with Judith Green (continued from page 2) learning, disciplinary knowledge and academic identities. Work by teacher members of this community can be found in a special issue of Classrooms as Cultures for Primary Voices (Dixon, Green, & Frank, 1998). Much of this work has been published in interdisciplinary volumes and journals originating in the EU in English, (e.g., Mercer & Hodgkinson, 2008; César,Kumpulainen, 2009; Kumpulainen, Hmelo-Silver & César, 2008; Wyatt-Smith, Elkins & Gunn, in press); Portuguese, and more recently Spanish (Heras & Green, in press). Resulting from this body of work are articles focusing on theory-method relationships and how ethnographic archives support and limit what can be examined once one leaves the field. One direction this work is taking is to create an argument about video-enabled ethnography as a form of ethnographic inquiry in which video is viewed as an actor/partner, not merely a tool, that supports and limits what can be seen, analyzed, warranted, and thus known. This perspective enables us to question what a video is a record of and whose perspective is represented on the “bit of life” recorded. This work also focuses on how we can use a particular bit of life as an anchor event and then engage in a logic of inquiry that supports backward and forward mapping of cycles of activity across time(s), actors and events (e.g., Baker, Green & Skukauskaite, 2008; Castanheira, Crawford, Green & Dixon, 2001; Dixon, Green & Brandts, 2005; Green & Heras, in press). A second direction examines the limits to certainty, when the ethnographer has been with an intergenerational class for two years and some students and their teacher have been together for four years (e.g., Baker & Green, 2007). Building on Heap’s (1980; 1991) argument about limits to certainty in assessment from an ethnomethodological perspective, we ask questions about what counts as….(whatever is being examined) to construct a grounded analysis from a more emic, or insider perspective, and how, in the moment-by-moment and over time discursive work among participants, ways of knowing, being and doing are socially constructed, taken up and used (or not) for subsequent work Related to this work is work on analysis of video records from other research projects (e.g., Castanheira, Crawford, Green & Dixon, 2001) and over time from ethnographic archives (e.g., Baker, Green & Skukauskaite, 2008; Green, Skukauskaite, Dixon & Cordóva, 2007). These studies, along with work on language-literacy relationships within and across disciplines, have provided a basis for developing a hybrid, technology-enabled approach for students who failed the high school exit exam in California. This project can be viewed at http://www.cahseesteps.net. We are serving more than 2000 students in 40 counties and each step of its conceptualization, development, take up and implementation has studied ethnographically. We view this approach to ethnographic work as a form of archaeological dig that enables us to explore what is involved on both sides of the interface. This approach is visible in a study we did focusing on a community event designed to address racism in the community. This project, the Henrietta Marie Project (A Slave Ship Speaks), was recognized as an innovative technology enabled education project by CENIC, the Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California (Ho, Yeager, Green, Dixon, Tomlinson, Desler & Rogers-O’Reilly, 2008); This work is part of work in the Center for Literacy & Inquiry in Networking Communities (LINC- http:// www.education.ucsb.edu/linc) that was developed from the ethnographic work above. It is a new direction and one that is focusing on how discourse and ethnographic work forms a foundation for hybrid spaces and approaches to education in collaboration with the colleagues in the community colleges (e.g., face to face, video conferencing, and 24/7 access to web-based materials/Moodle environment).

Valerie: What are some key developments? I interpreted key developments you asked about as meaning what are key developments in the field related to research from a qualitative perspective, the methodological direction of interest to members of the SIG. This question led me back to 1975, my first AERA as a doctoral student at Berkeley. In that year, qualitative research was absent from the program. At that, and subsequent meetings at anthropology conferences, a small group of scholars focusing on work on Teaching as a Linguistic Process in a Cultural Setting (1974), and on Functions Of Language In The Classroom (Cazden, John & Hymes, 1972; See also, Wilkinson, 1982) began to meet to support qualitative and interpretive research in classrooms. This body of work was grounded in anthropological theories of culture, ethnography of communication and child language development. It was stimulated by issues of social justice and equity, and focused on uncovering how the language studies brought to school often led to these students as being non-competent academically based on linguistic performance. This work, which has continued to develop crossnationally, examined home-school relationships, and issues of how the talk in classrooms supported and constrained access to particular groups of students. Research communities focusing on this complex issue grew up around


3


INTEREST GROUP

FALL FALL 2009 2008

A Virtual Interview with Judith Green (continued from page 3) sociolinguistic work by John Gumperz and Del Hymes in the US and around work by Michael Halliday and Basil Bernstein in the UK (See histories in Green & Dixon, 1993; 2007; Putney, Green, Dixon & Kelly, 2000; Rex & Green, 2008). These discussions led to the development of an AERA SIG, which is now called Language and Social Processes and is celebrating its 30th year in AERA. A second development came as Egon Guba, Elliott Eisner and Michael Patton, in the US, and Miles & Huberman in Europe began publishing work under the title of qualitative research (See the Paradigm Dialogue by Egon Guba (1990), among other directions). In the area of research on teaching, a primary home of the early work on language of the classroom, interdisciplinary work from England and Australia began to explore more qualitative approaches to the study of classroom life (e.g., Douglas Barnes, Paul Atkinson, Sara Delamont, John Elliott, Neil Mercer; Brian Street, Geoffrey Walford) and curriculum (e.g., Bill Green, Shirley Grundy) (e.g., Baker & Luke, 1991). These bodies of work opened new pathways and brought to the fore new arguments about the need for qualitative research, some of which led to the founding of the SIG on Qualitative Research. While this period was shaped by what has been called paradigm wars (e.g., Gage, N., Hard Findings from the Soft Sciences), the period was an exciting one, the results of which can be seen by the number of qualitative research sessions on the AERA program and the growth of qualitative inquiry across national borders as well as across funding agencies (NIH, NIMH, NSF, and NIE, which no longer exists but has been transformed into IES). It is also visible in the number of journals now publishing qualitative research as well as in the two sets of guidelines for AERA publications: Standards for Reporting on Empirical Social Science Research in AERA Publications and the new Standards for Reporting on Humanities-oriented Research in AERA Publications (both available on AERA website under publications). Another indicator of developments in directions of qualitative research is the Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research (Green, Camilli & Elmore, 2006), which builds on AERA’s commitment to diverse research methods represented in the first two editions of Complementary Methods in Education Research (1988; 1997). The third set of developments relate to the development of theories across disciplines that were they drawn on, and contributed to, by educators. This period saw the development of practice-centered theories of culture, feminist theories, critical theories, postmodern and post structural theories, ethnomethological theories, discourse analysis traditions, and new perspectives in developmental theories. Each of these provided a rich and growing basis for qualitative research (See for example, Handbook of Postmodern Interviewing). Key arguments and directions are now represented in this SIG. While more can be said about this, this is beyond the scope of this column but something that can be part of an ongoing discussion.

Valerie: What are some next steps? When I think about next steps, I think about where in AERA Qualitative researchers can make a difference. One area of this is in collaborations with Division D. Linda Cook, VP of Division D has opened what was traditionally a measurement and quantitative division to all methodological groups. Division D co-sponsors the Qualitative Dissertation Award with the SIG and Audra Skukauskaite and I are Chairs of the Mentoring Committee. Last year, Division D’s Mentoring Luncheon sponsored Communities of Interest that included ones of Ethnography, on Qualitative research and on Mixed Methods. These tables were filled quickly, showing the levels of interest in AERA members. Participants met with senior scholars in the field who served as Distinguished Mentors. This event will occur again this year and SIG members will be able to attend if they elect to join Division D. A second step builds on the need to explore the expressive potential (Strike, 1989) of different traditions, since no one tradition addresses all areas of concern. This state of affairs is true whether we are looking within the Qualitative Sig or across research traditions, as visible in the Handbook of Complementary Methods of Education Research. The challenge of this step is to make visible what is complementary about complementary research, which theories are complementary, and what each tradition enables us to understand about the complex, historical, multilayered, and multifaceted lives of students, teachers, institutions and policy makers. This step will involve exploration of theorymethod relationships related to particular problems of interest and import, and of what each perspective enables us to see, understand and warrant in and through our research.


4


INTEREST GROUP

FALL FALL 2009 2008

A Virtual Interview with Judith Green (continued from page 4) The time for complex and interdisciplinary work on common problems has arrived and qualitative and interpretive researchers have major contributions to make to the future understandings of such complexities involved in building socially just and equitable education for all, just as they have in the past. The difference I see is how we will do that and how we will support the diversity because of what we need to understand. This will be possible if we place theory-method relationships (ontology-epistemology) at the center of the new debates and if we explore what each tradition will enable us to understand. This argument is a central argument in a book on learning disabilities from Australia (Wyatt-Smith, Elkins & Gunn, in press) in which the editors argue for complementary methods to capture different angles and levels of analysis in order to examine the broad range of complex dimensions of the lives of students defined as students with special learning needs. I look forward to a new decade, my sixth, of debates, discussions and explorations of education research. I hope that this column is a step in promoting these dialogues and look forward to rich discussions of next steps, since I view many qualitative and interpretive perspectives as constituting a new language of and for education, a language that honors the complex work of individuals as well as groups.

Valerie: Judith, thank you for a historical journey through these 3 Questions. You have given us much to think about. Correspondence to Judith Green: [email protected]

Bibliography AERA, Standards for Reporting on Empirical Social Science Research in AERA Publications http:// www.aera.net/publications/Default.aspx? menu_id=32&id=1850 AERA, Standards for Reporting on Humanities-oriented Research in AERA Publications, http:// www.aera.net/publications/Default.aspx? menu_id=32&id=1850 Atkinson, P., Delamont, S. & Housley, W. (Eds.), (2007). Contours of culture I, Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press. Baker, C. & Luke, A., (1991). Baker & A. Luke (Eds.), Towards a critical sociology of reading pedagogy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co Baker, W.D. & Green, J. (2007). Limits to certainty in interpreting video data: Interactional ethnography and disciplinary knowledge, Pedagogies, 2(3). Baker, W.D., Green, J. & Skukauskaite, A., (2008). Video-Enabled Ethnographic Research: A Microethnographic Perspective. In G. Walford (Ed.), How to do educational ethnography. London: Tufnell Press. Barnes, D., (1985). From Communication to Curriculum. London: Penguin.

Barnes, D., Britton, J., & Rosen, H. (1969). Language, the Learner and the School, London: Penguin. Castanheira, M.L., Crawford, T., Green, J., & Dixon, C., (2001) Interactional Ethnography: An Approach to Studying the Social Construction of Literate Practices. Linguistics and Education, 11 (4), 353-400. Cazden, C., John, V. & Hymes, D., (Eds.) (1972), Functions of language in the classroom. London and New York: Teachers College Press. César, M. & Kumpulainen, K., (Eds.).(2009). ( Social Interactions in Multicultural Settings. The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Dixon, C., Green, J.L. & Brandts, L, (2005). Studying the discursive construction of texts in classrooms through interactional ethnography. In Beach, R., Green, J., Kamil, M. & Shanahan, T. (Eds.), Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Literacy Research (2nd ed.). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. pp. 349-390 Dixon, C., Green, J., & Frank, C. (Eds.), (1999) Classrooms as Cultures: Understanding the


5


INTEREST GROUP

FALL FALL 2009 2008

A Virtual Interview with Judith Green (continued from page 5) Constructed Nature of Life in Classrooms. Primary Voices, 7(3). Gage, N. L. (1985). Hard gains in the soft sciences. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa. Green, J.L. (1983). Research on teaching as a linguistic process: A state of the art. In E.W. Gordon (Ed.) Review of Research in Education, 10. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association, pp. 151-254. Green, J. & Bloome, D. (1997). Ethnography and ethnographers of and in education: A situated perspective. In Flood, J., Heath, S. B., & Lapp, D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts. New York: Macmillan Publishers, pp. 181-202 Green, J. L. & Camilli, G. & Elmore, P. B., (Eds.). (2006)/. Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research. Mahwah, NJ: LEA (for AERA) Green, J. & Dixon, C., (Eds.), (1993). Talking knowledge into being: Discursive and social practices in classrooms. 5 (3). Green, J. & Dixon, C., (2007). Classroom Interaction and Situated Learning. In Marilyn Martin-Jones and Anne-Marie de Mejía, Encyclopedia Of Language And Education, Volume 3, Discourse and Education, New York: Springer. Green J. and Harker, J. (Eds.), (1988). Multiple perspective analyses of classroom discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Green, J. & Heras, A. (in press). Identities in Shifting Educational Policy Contexts: The Consequences of Moving from Two Languages, One Community to English Only. Lopez Bonilla, G., & Englander, K. (Eds.) Discourses and Identities in Contexts of Educational Change. New York: Peter Lang Green, J. L., Skukauskaite, A., Dixon, C. & Cordova, R., (2007). Epistemological Issues in the Analysis of Video Records: Interactional Ethnography as a Logic of Inquiry. In R. Goldman, B. Barron, S. Derry & R. Pea (Eds.) Video Research in the Learning Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Green, J. & Wallat, C. (Eds.), (1981). Ethnography & language in educational settings. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Green, J. (1979). Communicating with Young Children. Special Issue of Theory into Practice, Theory Into Practice, 18(4). Guba, E. (ed) (1990). The paradigm dialogue. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Heap, J. (1980). What counts as reading?Limits to certainty in assessment. Curriculum Inquiry, 10(3), 265–92. Heap, J. (1991). A situated perspective on what counts as reading. In C. Baker & A. Luke, Towards a critical sociology of reading pedagogy, 103–39. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Heras, A. & Green, J. (in press). Identidades Y Políticas Públicas Educativas. Las Consecuencias De Cambiar De Una Comunidad Bilingüe A Inglés Como Única Lengua De Instrucción. In Spanish language publication of Lopez Bonilla, G., & Englander, K. (Eds.) (forthcoming). Discourses and Identities in Contexts of Educational Change. (publisher pending) Ho, H-Z., Yeager, E., Green, J. L., Dixon, C. N., Tomlinson, H. A., Desler, G., & Rogers-O’Reilly, J. (2008). Archeology of a virtual tour: Uncovering the layers of student engagement with complex issues of race in digital space. Screening Noir: A Journal of Film, Television and New Media Culture, 1(2), 63-80. Kelly, G., & Green, J., (1997). Editorial Introduction: What counts as science in high school and college classrooms? Examining how teachers’ knowledge and classroom discourse influence opportunities for learning science, Special Issue on Research on Science Teaching Journal of Classroom Interaction, pp. v-vii Kumpulainen, K., Hmelo-Silver, C. & César, M., (Eds.) (2008). Investigating classroom interaction: Methodologies in action. Sense Publishers


6


INTEREST GROUP

FALL FALL 2009 2008

A Virtual Interview with Judith Green (continued from page 6) Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.). (2008). Exploring Talk in Schools: Inspired by the Work of Douglas Banres. London: Sage. Putney, L., Green, J., Dixon, C., & Duran, R. (1999) Consequential progressions: Exploring collective-individual development in a bilingual classroom. In C. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry: Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 86-126. Putney, L., Green, J., Dixon, C. & Kelly, G., (2000). Evolution of qualitative research methodology: Looking beyond defense to possibilities Reading research quarterly 34(3), 368-377. Rex, L. (2005), Discourses of Possibility. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Rex, L. & Green, (2007). Classroom Discourse and Interaction: Reading Across the Traditions. In B. Spolsky & F. Hult (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Skukauskaite, A., Lin, Y., & Green, J., (2007). Logics of Inquiry for the Analysis of Video Artefacts: Researching the Construction of Disciplinary Knowledge in Classrooms, Pedagogies, 2(3). Street, B. & Heath, SB. (2008), On Ethnography, NY: Teachers College Press. Walford, G., (2008). How to Do Educational Ethnography. London: Tufnell Press Wilkinson, L. (1982). Communicating in classrooms. NY: Academic Press. Wyatt-Smith, C., Elkins, J., & Gunn, S., (in press), Multiple perspectives on difficulties in learning literacy and numeracy. NY: Springer. We thank Dr. Judith Green for her thought provoking conversation with Valerie and graciously agreeing to lead a follow-up discussion via our newly developed QR-SIG Discussion Listserv. If you have not had an opportunity to join and participate in the discussion listserve please read Jim Bernauer’s article on page 12.

Announcement 31st Annual Ethnography in Education Research Forum Creativity, Crisis and Qualitative Research: Re-imagining Education in a Changing World February 26 - 27, 2010 Center for Urban Ethnography http://www.gse.upenn.edu/cue/forum


7


INTEREST GROUP

FALL FALL 2009 2008

Tech Talk: Cataloging Audio and Video Data by Marlene Montgomery, Texas Woman’s University

Management of data through organizing and cataloguing media files during the data collection phase of your study can facilitate data analysis in a qualitative research project. These are suggestions for researchers who are or will be collecting audio and/or video data for their qualitative inquiry projects. Compatibility is a primary issue that needs to be addressed when planning data collection, especially when a computer assisted qualitative data analysis software will be utilized in the data analysis phase of a research study. The tools that will be used to gather data ideally should produce audio and/or video files that will dovetail with the software that will be utilized for data analysis. Before purchasing or using hardware to gather audio and/or video data be sure to check the compatibility of the file format produced by the device with your analysis software and computer hardware. Without thorough planning, the collection of audio and/or video files may commence before the researcher realizes that the accumulated files will have to be reformatted with costly hardware and/or software to convert them from one format to another format. This process can be very time consuming as well. For example, converting VHS files to files that can be imported into NVivo 8 is done in ‘real time’ meaning that the running time for the VHS tape is the length of time that is needed to convert the file. It can be a lengthy process, so it is important to plan ahead. Organizing and cataloguing audio and/or video files as they are collected are essential routines. These media files can be considered the same as any other documents collected during the course of a study. If these files are not methodically catalogued and organized by the researcher, s/he may feel trapped by an impending avalanche of digital audio and/or video files. If procedures are designed and followed, you will know how to access the digital files, where each one is filed, how to recognize one from another, how to identify the participants in that episode, and how to identify its contents without having to open each file. Knowing these aspects about the collected data will ensure that the process of data analysis will be more efficient. Another preparation to guarantee the organization of media files is to keep a media data journal. Divide the journal into sections so that there are designated spaces for each audio folder and each video data card or memory stick. As episodes are recorded, list the file numbers or names created by the recording devices in the matching folder sections of the media data journal. Also record these file numbers and folders on the field notes. A “breadcrumb trail” of media files linked with document files can be created through consistent and precise accounting. If an episode is recorded with a digital voice recorder, make a notation on the field notes sheets to document the digital file number and the folder in which it has been recorded. Likewise, when an episode is recorded with a digital video camcorder, document the pre-assigned media card number, disk, or media stick number. When the files are downloaded to the computer, they can be renamed to reflect what the files are using a consistent shorthand system. List the newly created names in the media data journal as well to create cross-references and a cross-checking system. An example of the compiled information from a media data journal and the re-named audio files is provided. Downloading the digital audio and video files is simplified by utilizing iTunes. This program streamlines the process of downloading digital files and organizes them for transcribing and/or viewing during the data analysis phase of a research project. Renaming each digital file is a simple process after the downloading procedures have been completed. Organizing the digital files into folders based upon the requirements of the research project is easily accomplished. For example, in the screenshot shown the audio files listed are individual peer writing conferences or sessions. Each of the files has been renamed within the iTunes program to clearly delineate its content. The “WS” at the beginning of each file name indicates that this is a recorded writing session. The purpose of next portion of the shorthand is to designate which students participated in the session. The participants’ initials are used to clarify their identities in the file name. The date of the specific peer writing conference is listed in the next part of the “breadcrumb trail.”


8


INTEREST GROUP

FALL FALL 2009 2008

These new file names have been included with the original file names on the observational field notes of each session to link the audio data to the documents. So the audio file for a writing session would have the file name: WS.HJ. 03.25.09. The field notes that were written about that writing session would have the file name: FN.WS.HJ.03.25.09. The transcription of that same writing session would be nominated as: TS.WS.HJ.03.25.09. The video file of the same writing session would be named: VID.WS.HJ.03.25.09. Cross-checking the files and linking them is easily and expediently accomplished. Systematically organizing and cataloguing media files can be a great support for qualitative researchers who collect and analyze numerous sets of data over extended periods of time. Devising a system that is tailored to the needs of the individual researcher or team of researchers is the optimal course of action.

Marlene Montgomery is a Doctoral Candidate and Graduate Assistant working in the Center for Qualitative Inquiry at Texas Woman’s University. Correspond with Marlene Montgomery at [email protected]


9


INTEREST GROUP

FALL FALL 2009 2008

Nominate a Book! by Kakali Bhattacharya, Texas A & M University The Qualitative Research SIG invites nominations for Outstanding Book Award for significant contributions to methodology of qualitative educational research. The Qualitative Research SIG will also recognize the winner of this award during the 2010 annual meeting of American Educational Research Association. Books published with 2008 or 2009 copyright date will be considered for this nomination as long as they were not previously submitted for this award. The book may have been published anywhere in the world, but for the purposes of consideration must be available in English. Criteria for judging the merits of the books include the significance and timeliness of methodological issue(s) addressed, integrity and quality of the discussion of the methods used for an empirical study, and contribution of the book to the advancement of knowledge about an area in educational research that can benefit qualitative inquiry. Books that use qualitative methods but do not advance methodological issue(s), or theorization of methodology, or do not substantially address contemporary issues in educational research through advanced use of qualitative inquiry are not eligible for this award. To be considered for this award, please submit 4 copies of each of the following: 1. Letter of nomination that includes a brief clarification of the purposes, scope and quality of the book, an explanation of how the book contributes to the field of qualitative methodology (theoretically/ pedagogically) and a discussion about why it is deserving of this methodological award. 2. A summary of the book, prepared by the nominator, that gives an overview of the book, a description of individual chapters, and a statement that provides a context for book's place in the field of qualitative research. 3. A table of contents from the book. 4. One representative chapter from the book that best exemplifies the contribution of the book to qualitative inquiry. Nominations may be submitted by the author of the work, another scholar, or by the publisher of the work. Nominations must be received by Monday, November 30, 2009. Late nominations or incomplete nominations will not be considered. Award finalists will be contacted the third week of January 2009. The finalists may then be asked to supply 4 copies of the book to distribute to the committee for further consideration. Send nomination packages to: Dr. Kakali Bhattacharya Texas A & M University Corpus Christi Educational Administration and Research Faculty Center, 224 6300 Ocean Drive, Unit 5818 Corpus Christi, 78412-5818


10


FALL 2009 FALL 2008

2010 AERA ANNUAL MEETING FRIDAY, APRIL 30 – TUESDAY, MAY 4

Denver, Colorado

Program Theme: Understanding Complex Ecologies in a Changing World Colorado Convention Center, the Hyatt Regency Denver

AERA QR-SIG Egon Guba Distinguished Lecture Keynote Speaker We are pleased to announce that Handel Kashope Wright will be our QR-SIG Keynote Speaker at the upcoming annual AERA conference in Denver. The title of his presentation is: What Difference Does Difference Make: Identity (and) Politics in Qualitative Research in Education Handel Kashope Wright is Canada Research Chair of Comparative Cultural Studies, David Lam Chair of Multicultural Education, Director of the Centre for Culture, Identity and Education http:// www.ccie.educ.ubc.ca/ and Professor of education at the University of British Columbia, Canada. Prof. Wright is co-editor of the book series African and Diasporic Cultural Studies (University of Ottawa Press); Associate Editor of Critical Arts and serves on the editorial board of several cultural studies and education journals including Cultural Studies and the Canadian Journal of Education. He has published extensively on continental and diasporic African cultural studies, cultural studies of education, critical multiculturalism, anti-racist education and qualitative research. His publications include the book, A Prescience of African Cultural Studies (Lang, 2004) and co-edited journal issues on paradigm proliferation in educational research (International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19, (1), 2006) and Transnationalism and cultural studies (Cultural Studies, 23, (5), 2009).

Mirka Koro-Ljungberg and Lisa Mazzei QR SIG Program Co-Chairs


11


FALL 2009 FALL 2008

New QR-SIG Discussion Forum by Jim Bernauer, Robert Morris University (USA)

Approximately 50 members have signed up for the new Qualitative Research SIG Listserv! A listserv (sometimes referred to as a “forum”) is a way for a group of common-minded folk to communicate about a mutual area of interest. For example, if you are interested in conducting research in a school for gifted children and you would like to find out if anybody has had any experience in this area, you would send an email to the forum and ask your question. You can also use the forum to discuss an emerging idea and see if a colleague might want to collaborate with you on a future research study! To get us started, Dr. Judith Green has agreed to lead a discussion in follow-up to her interview responses published in this edition of the newsletter. Because there have been some bumps and bruises along the way in getting our discussion board up and running, I wanted to summarize what you need to do to join the forum, send messages, and respond to a message / discussion thread. Although the steps may initially seem complex, it will become second nature after awhile so we can then move on to substantive interchanges rather than listserv mechanics! Signing up for the Listserv If you have not yet signed up for the Qualitative SIG Listserv, here are the steps: Put the following URL into the address line of your Internet browser and hit enter or return. http://listserv.aera.net/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=aera_sig_qualitative_researchforum&A=1&X=7F8BFF2F543814CD82&Y This link will take you to the AERA request page. Simply, type your name and email address in the spaces provided and then click “join AERA SIG Qualitative Research Forum”. If you would like me to send you the link, send a request to [email protected] and I will gladly send it to you electronically. After you have requested to join the forum, you will receive a verification email that is designed to ensure that all information is correct – just click the appropriate link and then you will receive a confirmation that you have been added to the list. You should print and save this confirmation because it has valuable information about how to send messages, etc. You are now subscribed! Sending Messages Now that you are an active member, you can send messages. Here is how to do it! In the address line of an email message, type: [email protected] The easiest thing to do is to simply save this email address in your address book and give it a name such as “ Qualitative Listserv”. Then when you want to send a question to the membership, just call up this address, type in the subject on the subject line, type your question, and send it – that’s it! Again, if you want me to send you this link electronically, just let me know!


12


FALL 2009 FALL 2008

New QR-SIG Discussion Forum (continued from page 11) After you send your message, you will receive an email asking you to confirm that it was indeed you who sent the message. There are two ways to respond to this message – either click on the link at the bottom of the message or click “reply”, type “OK” in the body the message, and send it. AERA tells us that although this adds another step to the process, it is necessary for security reasons. Responding to Messages Let’s make believe that a member sent an email to the listserv asking for advice about doing an ethnographic study in a school for gifted children and you had previously done some work in this area -- here is what you do: The address on the message that you reply to should already have the AERA listserv address: [email protected] so your response will be sent to the entire membership. In this case, just hit reply, type your message, and hit send! If, however, you find that the name of the sender is in the address line (rather than the AERA address), and you want to share with the entire membership, you should delete the individual name and copy and paste the AERA address above. You can then email or phone Tracy Young at AERA to let him know about this problem so he can try and fix it. Tracy can be reached at [email protected] or 202.238.3240. In Summary We now have a forum to be used as much as we the members see fit! We think that it can be a useful way to share ideas among members and to learn from each other. If you have any additional questions, please contact me at [email protected] or Tracy Young at AERA at [email protected]. We encourage you to take the leap and begin some interesting conversations with fellow members!

Jim Bernauer, Moderator, QR-SIG Discussion Listserv

Conference Announcement The School of Music at University of Queensland will convene the 3rd international conference on Narrative Inquiry in Music and Education November 24–27, 2010. Details are available at: http://nime3.com/ The deadline for submitting proposals is May 15, 2010. Abstracts or full papers may be submitted for consideration. Abstracts of 500 words should indicate preference for one of the following three modes of presentation: • Paper Session: Paper presentation, followed by chaired discussion. Grouped papers (3) of 25 minutes presentation followed by group discussion (15 minutes); • Symposium: Three to five related papers by different authors addressing a single topic or theme scheduled in one 90-minute session and hosted by a moderator or discussant proposed by the authors; • Narrative Gallery: The Narrative Gallery is a one-hour forum for presentation of vignettes from ongoing inquiry or works in progress. Presenters are asked to dialogue with conference participants during the forum. Enquiries to Margaret Barrett, School of Music, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia.

Sharon Huffman Newsletter Committee


13


INTEREST GROUP

FALL FALL 2009 2008

Letter from Past Recipient of Outstanding Dissertation Award Dear QR-SIG Members, In 2006, my dissertation, Experiences of Columbine Parents: Finding a Way to Tomorrow, was recognized by AERA as the Outstanding Qualitative Dissertation of the year. As a parent whose child survived the 1999 attack on Columbine High School, I had committed to doing this research as a way to help others learn about the impacts of community-wide trauma and what can be done to help in the aftermath. To accomplish this end, I had enrolled in a doctoral program at the Morgridge College of Education at University of Denver so I could conduct a study that would be considered of scholarly merit. In the process of completing my research, I looked at numerous methodologies before deciding that no standard approach really met my goals for the study. As a result, I cobbled together strategies and improvised techniques so that I could investigate a painful situation, learn lessons that would help others, and do so in a way that would preserve the integrity of the narrators’ perceptions and emotions without imposing my own. The unanticipated result was a cohesive, responsive approach to in-depth interviewing, a narrator-centered model for research that helps traverse the boundaries of experience, connecting the researcher, the narrator, and the reader with principled transparency. While particularly useful for investigating sensitive issues, it has utility for learning from other situations as well, whether an incident of historical merit, an event of social significance, or simply interesting occurrences within the range of human experience. In making the award, the Qualitative SIG had commended my study for drawing on distinctive epistemological traditions to develop a methodologically significant approach. Members of the review panel encouraged me to publish and help others “understand how to do this, so we too can help hear others what they are unaware of or lack access to.” This recognition set me on a path that I otherwise might not have attempted. Without it, I might have felt that what I had done simply accomplished what I wanted in terms of my own investigation. However, seeing that others found value in my process, I began sharing my approach, deciding to call it gateway, since it provides a gateway to deeper understanding of experience. I first presented papers, then published articles, and now have completed a text that makes explicit the process so that others, should they be so inclined, might employ the approach in their research. The text, Interviewing for Education and Social Science Research: The Gateway Approach, was released by Palgrave Macmillan in August 2009, and is available through the publisher and major outlets. The book describes the step-by-step methods for in-depth interviewing, analysis, and editing so that the “essence” of the recalled experience preserves the narrator’s voice and expression. It provides a model for accessing the often hidden human responses and perceptions about an event or situation so that others can better understand. I would like, once again, to say “thank you” the SIG for the encouragement and support that started me on this journey. Sincerely,

Carolyn Mears Please respond to Dr. Mears via our new Discussion Listserve or directly at [email protected]: Carolyn L. Mears, PhD Morgridge College of Education University of Denver Denver, CO 80208


14


INTEREST GROUP

FALL FALL 2009 2008

Qualitative Research Methods Outstanding Dissertation Award CALL FOR NOMINATIONS The Qualitative Research SIG of the American Educational Research Association invites nominations of dissertations in educational research that exemplify excellence of qualitative methodology and that may also typify the SIG’s mission to emphasize “ways that qualitative research may contribute to reducing inequality and injustice in schools and society.” The winner of the qualitative award will also be recognized by the American Educational Research Association. Dissertations completed during the 2008-2009 academic year, prior to December 1, 2009, will be eligible for consideration. Nominations must be received by Friday, December 4, 2009. Late nominations or incomplete nominations will not be considered. Award finalists will be contacted the third week of January 2010. Finalists may then be asked to supply 3 copies of the dissertation to distribute to the committee for further consideration. Send nomination packages to: Dr. Joseph Maxwell College of Education and Human Development, MS 6D2 George Mason University Fairfax, VA 22030-4444 or electronically at [email protected] (electronic submission preferred) To nominate a dissertation, the nomination packet must include the following five (5) items (if submitting paper copies, submit 3 complete sets): 1.

2.

3. 4. 5.

One letter of faculty endorsement from a member of the student’s dissertation committee who is an AERA member, attesting that the dissertation was completed by the student during the time period specified and that the faculty member nominating or endorsing the nomination served on the dissertation committee. Please also include the oral defense date. This letter should include a brief clarification of the purposes, scope and quality of the student’s dissertation research, an explanation of how the dissertation contributes to the field of qualitative methodology (in terms of theory and practice) and a discussion about why it is deserving of this methodological award. A title page for the dissertation (including university/college, name of the professor chairing the dissertation committee and a complete list of committee members). In addition, please add to the title page complete contact information (postal and e-mail) of either the student or the nominator that can be used for all correspondence regarding the award. The Table of Contents from the dissertation. A summary of the dissertation, prepared by the student, that gives an overview of the research, a description of individual chapters, and a statement that provides a context for how the representative chapter that is being sent fits within the overall dissertation (double-spaced, 12 pt. type, 10 pages maximum). One representative chapter from the dissertation that best exemplifies the contribution of the dissertation to theorizing and implementing qualitative methodology.

Criteria for judging the merits of the dissertations include the significance and timeliness of the methodological issue(s) addressed, the integrity and quality of the discussion and implementation of the methods used for an empirical study, and the contribution of the dissertation to the advancement of knowledge about an area of or issue in qualitative research methodology. Dissertation nominations might also add to the theoretical and practical knowledge about contemporary methodological issues to be considered for the award. For example, a recent winner examined fictional writing genres and reflexive analyses of the researcher’s relationships with those studied. Dissertations that use qualitative methods, but do not contribute significantly to the theorization or implementation of methodology, and do not substantially address contemporary issues in methodology, are not eligible for the award.


15


INTEREST GROUP

SPRING FALL 2009 2008

ANNOUNCEMENTS Conferences Fifth International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry Advancing Human Rights Through Qualitative Research University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign May 20-23, 2009 • http://www.icqi.org/

New Blog Please plan to visit my new blog at http:// QualitativeInquiry.com. The goal of this blog, entitled: Qualitative Research, A Blog about Teaching and Mentoring, is to write about my work as Faculty Coordinator of the Center for Qualitative Inquiry at Texas Woman’s University and my passion for

New Book / DVD Recommendation Members are recommending:

nurturing a growing multidisciplinary interest in

qualitative research at TWU. An overreaching goal is Preschool In Three Cultures Revisited to open up dialogue with others engaged in qualitative research endeavors. Nora White Chair, Newsletter Committee

Joseph Tobin—along with new collaborators Yeh Hsueh and Mayumi Karasawa—revisits his original research to discover how two decades of globalization and sweeping social

A Call for “Best Practices”

transformation have affected the way these

The Qualitative Research SIG newsletter committee

three cultures educate and care for their

invites written submissions highlighting “best practices” in advising doctoral students through the

youngest pupils. In Preschool in Three

qualitative design processes. What have you learned about advising doctoral students? Selected submission(s) will be published in the next SIG’s newsletter. If you have a particular approach, technique, or insight in assisting doctoral students in any aspect of

Cultures Revisited (book and DVD) the authors return to the three schools featured in the first book and also take a look at three new, progressive schools in each country— once again armed with a video camera to capture a typical day. http://joetobin.net/videos.html

qualitative design, consider sharing your best practice with other members. Sharon Huffman Newsletter Committee


16


INTEREST GROUP

SPRING FALL 2009 2008

Qualita've SIG Oﬃcers

Commi6ees

SIG Chair Deborah Ceglowski ([email protected]) Ball State University (USA)

Speakers Committee Gaile Cannella ([email protected]) University of North Texas (USA)

Immediate Past Chair Leslie Bloom ([email protected]) Iowa State University (USA) Program Co-Chairs Mirka Elina Koro-Ljungberg ([email protected]) University of Florida (USA) Lisa Mazzei ([email protected]) Gonzaga University (USA) Treasurer Florence Sullivan ([email protected]) University of Massachusetts, Amherst (USA) Secretary Jenni Wolgemuth ([email protected]) Charles Darwin University (Australia) Moderator of Qualitative SIG Forum Jim Bernauer ([email protected]) Robert Morris University (USA) Webmaster Unfilled. If interested, email Deborah Ceglowski ([email protected])

Nancy Zeller ([email protected]) East Carolina University (USA) Cinthya Saavedra ([email protected]) Utah State University Outstanding Dissertation Committee Chair, Joe Maxwell ([email protected]) University of Chicago (USA) Monifa Beverly ([email protected]) University of Central Florida (USA) Karen Monkman ([email protected]) Depaul University (USA) Outstanding Book Committee Chair, Kakali Bhattacharya ([email protected]) Texas A & M, Corpus Christi (USA) Alison Anders ([email protected]) University of Tennessee at Knoxville (USA) Linda Evans ([email protected]) University of Leeds (UK) Newsletter Committee Chair, Nora White ([email protected]) Texas Woman’s University (USA) Adria Hoffman ([email protected]) Henrico County Public Schools, Va. (USA) Sharon Huffman ([email protected]) Southeastern Louisiana University (USA) John Harris ([email protected]) Claremont Graduate University (USA)


17