kastukes-blog

[kastukes-blog]

EDA7410 - Final Application

This semester I really enjoyed reading about qualitative research, and not only because I found it easier to understand compared to Quant. -teeheehee. Here is how I applied the last few readings, to my pilot research study paper on university accountability and how a university’s strategic plan may create a roadmap to success in institutional effectiveness! Thanks for following!

Data Collection

Hatch (2002) describes primary data gathering strategies of qualitative research as observation, interviewing, and unobtrusive data collection (pg. 71). Triangulating various methods of data collection amplifies this pilot study, as the goal is to intensely study a university as a bounded system that has an implemented strategic plan, studying for culture and perceptions of how that strategic plan may serve as the roadmap for the university to operate effectively.

It was really hard for me to not add even more data collection methods. I wanted to add surveys, interviews with the president, focus groups, interviews with students, etc. I also had to scale back on the methodological approach, because I also wanted to have an ethnographic focus. Getting tremendous feedback really helped me to align my research design and understand that my research agenda needs to start narrow and focus. Thus, focusing on a strategic plan while also triangulation unobtrusive data, observation, and interviews, definitely allows for a rich meaningful study! Also, articulating these processes, and ensuring that trustworthiness is executed, is equally meaningful. Trustworthiness in my study resembles:

Documenting all of the steps involved in the research process building a detailed report as outlined in case study procedure and utilizing measures of validating the data by triangulating all data sources for categories, patterns, and themes

Checking for usage of member checking obtaining participant feedback to ensure interpretative accuracy

Research designs have options, so trustworthiness speaks to conducting a good quality design in applicable and appropriate manner

Proposals providing specific details for a pilot study thoroughly aligned

After interviews are transcribed, participants presented with a written account to obtain their agreement

All data sources are to be kept secured

The data sources and related materials will be kept for three years

[kastukes-blog]

EDA7410 Qual. Blog 9

Interview analysis and reflection

M&T described the goal of data analysis as a process to find answers to research questions, where these answers are also called categories or themes or findings (pg. 203). In practicing conducting data analysis for the research question "how do doctoral students experience the period of their lives when they are in graduate school?", I started off feeling quite comfortable with going through the transcripts/data because I expected it to be familiar territory of my classmates' doctoral experiences. But with this comfort level, I did not want to approach this activity too relaxed - I wanted this experience to be meaningful, and provide continued practice for how my phenomenology worldview and methodology should all align in my research process. I wanted to first gain a framework of how M&T and also Hatch described ways to conduct data analysis, so I narrowed down my understanding on typological analysis (as a postpositivist worldview) and also the category construction process. I realized I needed to step away from prior knowledge especially because although I may know my classmates, there is so much more that I could make sense of with inductive exploration. (It also helped to remind myself that since I did not do the interviews myself, I was technically working with data that I was being exposed to for the first time.)

In completing my data analysis, my next step was to become familiar with the data by reading through each transcript without looking for themes, categories, or theory, to first get an overall idea of the interviews. In doing that I almost got caught up in analyzing the interview questions, the length of responses, and even how the interviews were transcribed. I quickly got out of this rabbit hole because these reactions/merging questions to the data we're irrelevant to the actual research question at hand. Also when starting off with an overview/quick glance at the data, I reached a point where I wanted to stop code the first three transcripts to find themes/categories, and then continue to search for those themes throughout the rest of the transcripts (moving more so to a deductive process), but I felt that I had already committed to the process I outlined in first going through all of the transcripts at least once. Now in hindsight, I realized that I could have deviated from my outlined process, which would have demonstrated the art and science behind true inductive data-analysis where analysis is refined and revised until the writing up of my findings.

Overall, I approached the activity by following some structure and guidelines provided by our authors. I used M&T's "trees" and "forest" approach, moving from an inductive to deductive process, and ended with possible linkage to theoretical conceptualization. Also, I attempted to answer at least one inductive question that was sparked with an ethnographic study focus. Furthermore, I attempted to answer at least one inductive question from a typological analysis.

My themes, categories, and findings were as follows:

Ethnographic questions: What would have been the pre-existing categories (M&T, pg. 230)? - demographics such as race, age, sex, social class, career status; basic situation such as marriage status, family size, home residence, research interest, motivation and support to beginning doctoral program

What schemes can employ terms commonly found in the culture (emic perspective) (M&T, pg. 230)? - terminal degree, motivation and objective for beginning a doctorate, education and career passion and intentions; or terms from an etic perspective such as stressors, prior/current research knowledgebase, time management

Typological analysis: identify groupings to perform a deductive, systematic review; mark transcripts related to identified groups and themes, recording related main ideas from each transcript

Some groupings I would have used: stress management, time management, family/friend support level, intentions beginning the program, current assessment of progress, expected timeline

To end a typological analysis, I would look for patterns among the groups, to decide if patterns are supported by the data and to then make generalizations for future inference

[kastukes-blog]

EDA7410 Qual. Blog 8

Reading reflection

My first reaction to the recent readings, I really enjoyed the description that Hatch provided in research questions and data collection strategies where he emphasized how the role of the researcher relates to the participants, and epistemology aligning with data collection strategies and data analysis. These examples helped me put my research topic into perspective where I can now feel a little bit more comfortable identifying a methodology that will work, while also aligning my epistemology. For instance, I can see myself doing an ethnographic study where I try to better understand the culture of a university strategic planning process. I realize that I have a lot of biases and assumptions for strategic planning, with various facets relating to university accountability, effective leadership, employee workmanship, student services, satisfaction and success, and also institutional improvement. I also have a lot of assumptions about how a few accountability practices may overlap, and if considered in the strategic planning process, can create a holistic plan that engages all of these facets and lead to overall institutional effectiveness. (My ontological view is grounded with belief that strategic planning can be the answer to institutional effectiveness.) So, when considering aligning my epistemology, methodology, research design, data collection, and analysis process, and how this all relates to my overarching theoretical framework for strategic planning for university leadership and accountability, here is how the readings have shaped my understanding up to this point:

Epistemology: Postpositivist view – seek to maintain an objective position in relation to how executive university leaders strategically plan and utilize leadership for accountability practices and overall institutional effectiveness; using disciplined techniques and constant comparison, removing prior impressions and ensure empirical data

Methodology: Ethnographic study – focus on culture and nature of university strategic planning to produce a rich description and understanding for effective leadership as it relates to accountability

Research design: Need observable interaction; carefully work with executive leaders/constituents of strategic planning process to plan to observe meetings and other environments parties will interact while creating plan. Form relationships to use participants to identify patterns in the strategic planning process.

Data collection considering immersion in site(s) as participant observer and complete intimate study to depict etic understanding of the cultural meaning behind what executive leaders experience in strategic planning process; artifact collection and unobtrusive data.

[kastukes-blog]

EDA7410 Qual. Blog 7 observation

Field notes 1st observation:

Field notes 2nd observation:

Reflection:

For my observation activity I decided to visit UNF’s on-campus Starbucks, with the goal of observing patrons, students, staff, faculty, and Starbucks associates’ social interactions. Although I am a full-time UNF staff member in a student-serving department, I realized that I really have not paid attention to social interactions between students. Usually when I am interacting with students, I pay attention to their academic engagement and performance. Furthermore, even though I have been to our campus Starbucks too many times to count, I never really embraced student social interactions that could have been taking place, where social norms, trends, do’s and dont’s for the current college generation were at play. Although I tend to be an observant person and pay attention to my surroundings (more-so out of paranoia), and when I “enter social situations with which I am not familiar I watch others operate to learn and demonstrate expectations of the setting” (Hatch, pg. 73), I have never observed from the lens of a qualitative researcher.    

1.      What happened?

During my observations I noticed the usual interactions at all Starbucks – patrons entered, ordered beverages and/or food, and then they left or lounged. When I first entered it was pretty crowded and noisy, but I was able to find a seat with a view of the entire room. I started my field notes by contextualizing the setting and scene. I accounted for how many people were there, trying to see if there were any distinctions in students, faculty, or general patrons. I took note of the dress code, accounting for the cold weather outside; for any commonalities in age, gender, and race; and for any norms with group size and interactions. Because it was pretty noisy, I was unable to fully hear conversations, but I did account for body language and overall communication styles. I also looked for “presence” – determining if people were using cellphones and such while they interacted with others in-person. I gauged the level of friendliness of the Starbucks associates, all while bracketing questions and reactions that surfaced during my observation. Towards the end of my observation, I was noticed and approached by one of my students, which did lend suggestions for the comfort level of student-faculty interaction outside of the classroom.

2.      What did you think about what you saw?

Overall, I think I saw normal college student social interaction. I saw how this setting was used as a space to lounge and study. This made me wonder what other on-campus settings create this type of social space, especially considering UNF is a smaller campus with limited options. With that, I was not surprised about the amount of people there. Furthermore, I wondered about the level of friendships, whether students were just classmates, roommates, or have established closer bonds. Also, for my second observation I was intrigued by the level of interaction with patrons and Starbucks associates. Every individual who entered and ordered were friends of the employees, as they stood at the counter chatting for quite some time and shared high-fives and hugs before leaving. This made me wonder about the ratio of students who work on-campus, and how this working status affects their friendships if at all. Finally, I wondered what are the differences between our on-campus Starbucks to those off-campus in the community. I think most people assume the type of cliché coffee shop setting Starbucks creates, so I think that furthering qualitative research on possible phenomena would warrant interesting findings.      

3.      How did you feel during the observation?

During the observation I initially felt like a creeper. I was concerned that someone would notice that I was observing them. However, for the first time I felt like I had more purpose to be in Starbucks, and I was mission-driven. I had moments were I felt like I was out of the loop of knowing college student social norms, although there is technically an overlap in our generations. I did not fully know what to expect as far as conversation and dialect. For example, with so many social movements in today’s society, I would not have been surprised if I witnessed some type of casual debate. Or, being in a college setting, I did not know if students would carry themselves with more reverence, keeping away for swear words and juvenile banter. Overall, I felt that I did discover something worth exploring more, and I definitely appreciated the art and practice of qualitative observation data collection. 

4.      Make a few clear connections from the course readings to your observation experience.

Hatch explained that in observation data collection, the researcher identifies their level of involvement especially as it relates to epistemology and methodology, and he also described field note processes of knowing what to attend and knowing when to stop, knowing what and how to contextualize writing raw field notes, and knowing how to bracket and create research protocols and journals. I appreciated Hatch’s description of level of involvement, and saw first-hand how understanding the researcher’s participation is important. During my observation, I was noticed and approached by one of my students. Depending on the objective for my research and how incognito I wanted to be, this recognition and interaction could have affected my observation and results. This experience made me recognize that where I choose to do my observation is vital to the research process. I also appreciated Hatch’s consideration on bracketing. Bracketing made my observation process less stressful, as I was able to separate sudden reactions, thoughts, and questions from what was factually being observed. I did not worry about recording every single thing I saw, and I embraced the moment rather than trying to get things perfect. My overall broad focus and research question for this observation included collecting basic data on how college students may socialize at one of the only lounges on campus. Having this frame in mind and also knowing my potential stance as a postpositivist, ethnographic researcher, I may have the flexibility to interact with patrons, students, staff, associates, to collect data on broad insight for the culture of students’ social interactions.  

[kastukes-blog]

EDA7410 Qual. Blog 6

A reaction to this week's reading resonated with M&T’s chapter on designing your study and selecting a sample. Specifically, one of the components of the problem statement was identification of the gap in the knowledge base, or what we don't know that my research will address, and relatedly, the literature review. I definitely have a fear of not knowing when enough is enough to finish a literature review! I have been interested in my topic of university accountability and institutional effectiveness for a few years now, and every year I learn something new. M&T asserted that a literature review is considered complete when the researcher has reached the point of saturation, and when the researcher realizes he or she knows the literature. I go back and forth with the confidence that I know the literature. Also my topic evolves as I learn more, and I'm always connecting pieces of literature and experience to my knowledge base. Making multiple connections is actually another problem of mine, because I find myself stretching concepts to make everything fit. This may be because everything is interesting to me? But, a good dissertation is a completed dissertation, and I cannot solve the world's problems with just one. I have to be confident in using my dissertation as a starting point for my life's research agenda. So with that said, I really appreciated Hatch's chapter on designing qualitative studies, as he asserted logic of doing research and adding to the body of knowledge or filling in gaps of literature. This reading made me realize that although a solid grounding in the substantial and theoretical literature related to the study places a frame of reference for the researcher, qualitative research is ultimately an exploration with emphasis on the researcher’s methodological and epistemological stance. So although there could have been similar studies to my topic, which actually should be the case (that similar, previous research should have been established and grounded), my research agenda will add to the literature where my own worldview and epistemology will add another dynamic that technically has not been explored.

[kastukes-blog]

EDA7410 Qual. Blog 5

From the three methodologies, action, critical, or art-based, I can see my topic of effective leadership for university strategic planning and accountability fitting both action research and critical research. A critical research methodology may be a stretch, however I appreciate the process of how researchers identify power dynamics, and they can technically be whistleblowers for systematic problems of practice. Critical research makes me think about the inequality in positions, pay, training, leadership, and accountability, specifically examining how some executive university leaders may not have the most collaborative and supportive practices to mid-level employees, and yet they are still highly ranked and highly functioning. Unfortunately, most of my career spent in higher education administration has heightened my sense of urgency to call-out ineffective, non-collaborative, suppressive leadership, where I want to examine accountability practices to determine what “powers at be” hold institutions (specifically the executive leaders) to “doing things right” ..and how even if leaders may still be “toxic”, their powers will sustain them. However, I know that there are way too many biases for this topic that stem from my naive, technically less experienced, high standards self. Do I know what it truly takes to be an executive university leader..? Furthermore, I no longer want to approach this topic from a disgruntled worker point of view. I want to be positive in my research agenda, and more about taking action (rather than complaining over wrongdoing). Thus, I think that action research suites my topic. Action research will allow me to focus on solving problems or advance current solutions, it will allow me to engage with participants and be reflective as co-investigators (i.e. my mid-level colleagues), and action research still provides a systematic way in collecting and analyzing data that I think could suite my preferences in how I organize my plan, implementation, observation, and reflection. Finally, I like how action research drills down to subtypes such as appreciative inquiry, and participatory action research. As an appreciative inquirer, I could focus more on what is positive in an organization and on initiating interventions by highlighting positive aspects of discovery, dream, design, and destiny. As a process that initiates change, I could use AI to research and coach higher ed. administrators on how they perceive effective leadership, and the discover a supportive model for their needs. Finally, with participatory action research, the goal would still focus on initiating change in the university setting, to engage executive leaders in collaborative accountability practices. PAR studies in their own communities to specifically challenge power relations but also transform people. Influencing leaders and mid-level employees to engage in institutional effectiveness would be groundbreaking for my research agenda.

 With all of this said, two research questions that may be appropriate to study my topic of effective leadership for university strategic planning and accountability through action research and also through critical research would be:

How do mid-level university administrators perceive     power dynamics between themselves and their immediate supervisor?

How do executive university leaders perceive their race,     sex/gender, age, and SES influence their power dynamic and interactions     with mid-level employees? How do executive university leaders perceive     practices that are meant to hold their actions accountable?

[kastukes-blog]

EDA7410 Qual. Blog 4

After taking a deeper dive into M & T’s common qualitative research designs, I am making a few more connections to how I make meaning of various methodological approaches, and now I can also link Hatch’s definitions and personal classroom dialogue.

Ethnography

Takes a long time

Focuses on very descriptive culture

Culture is defined by roles, rituals, and responsibilities

Emic = researcher, while Etic = the insider

There are several data sources!

Overall, an ethnography is a study from a very broad perspective, almost as if the researcher is writing-out a movie script/scene. In this type of study, the data collection may not be a formal interview, and there will not necessarily be quotes from insiders found in the reports. The researcher serves as an outsider, looking in, and presenting the insiders view/experience.

Grounded theory

Great design when exploring a process

What is the theory of getting to __x__?

A process is change over time

Grounded theory is a postpositivist method. It works from the assumption that rigorous methods can be used to discover approximation of social reality that are empirically represented in carefully collected data, where there is a constant comparison engaging the researcher. The researcher immerses their self with microscopic familiarity of data, to engage in a detailed analytic process that requires repeated confirmations of potential explanatory patterns discovered.

Phenomenology

Lived experiences

Sense making

Researchers seek to reveal the essence of human experience by asking, “What is the nature of this phenomenon?” As a constructivist approach, researchers often view participants as coconstructors of the descriptions and interpretations of their studies.

For some, a case study can be considered an overarching process, something you “do” when you then want to dive deeper and complete a phenomenological study. “Phenomenological case study”!

---

Some examples of the approaches!

Narrative: How do girls describe their….

Phenomenological: How do girls make sense of….

Ethnography: What are the roles in …on girls’…..

Grounded theory: What ailments are present when sexually abused girls become disengaged….

---

My final thought concludes with framing some of the methodological approaches as/on a continuum. (Bear with me, by no means am I saying that this is “a thing”…)

I am thinking that many methodological approaches can be conceptualized as an entire process/cycle, where a researcher begins with basic research to design a study on how to take steps to produce a report and/or how to study and explain bounded systems. (A case study is both a process and a product, and may be the epitome of research.) In a case study the researcher observes, interacts, and reports-on highly emotionally driven lived experiences that are sensed through phenomenological events from participants who provided narratives, stories, and biographies to explain their cultures, where these cultural ethnographies further provides rich description to the roles, rituals, and responsibilities in their culture. These experiences, narratives, and reports are then used to create and ground theory, where this emerged data will be used to inform future research.

[kastukes-blog]

EDA7410 Qual. Blog 3

In chapter two of Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation, Merriam & Tisdell (2016) presented six of the more commonly used approaches to doing qualitative research: basic qualitative research, phenomenology, ethnography, grounded theory, narrative analysis, and qualitative case study. Below are graphics that I created to conceptualize these common qualitative research designs.

Basic qualitative research

If nothing else, basic qualitative research is the baseline approach where meaning is interpreted and constructed to attribute worlds and experiences. As approaches to interpret meaning may shift, move up, move down.. there will always be a baseline to interpret understanding of how people make sense of their lives and their experiences.

Phenomenology

Phenomenology is a study of people's conscious experience of their ordinary experience that they live in/ through for most if not all of their day-to-day existence. The core meaning is that there is essence to shared experience! Phenomenologist look at basic structures of experience to produce a description that represents the essence of a shared experience, by first taking steps to check for biases, themes and various perspectives. The goal is to shape intense human experiences that form basic structure of experience and that capture essence!

Ethnography

Ethnography is a familiar approach as it involves researchers being culturally immersed for extended periods of time, observing, interviewing and describing residents' in given social settings. To me this is the epitome of being an explorer doing field research out in the wild!

Grounded theory

Grounded theorist are sailors looking for data rich in description that support the main focus of building theory. Along the route the researcher conducts interviews, observations, and explores a wide variety of documentary materials to complete theoretical sampling and constant data analysis. The goal is to identify a core category which is the main conceptual element through which patterns are connected. The key point here is building theory! - laying a solid grounded foundation in a study.

Narrative analysis

I appreciated narrative analysis, as the oldest and most natural form for sense making, where stories are told and passed down to others. I thought it was important to note that the power in narrative is not so much that it is about life, but that it interacts in life, where the keys are first-person accounts of experience told in a story form having a beginning, middle, and end. Also, rather than finding stories, the researcher collects text to analyze meaning it has for the author, to make stories. I am super curious to know more information about the reliability and trustworthiness of stories – and whether it is even the researchers role to determine quality in storytelling.

Qualitative case study

“Case study research is a qualitative approach in which the investigator explores a bounded system, a case, or multiple bounded systems, cases, over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information, observations, interviews, audiovisual material, and documents and reports, and reports a case description and case-based themes” (p. 40). What stood out to me about case studies is the idea of comparative case studies, where I am framing it as an approach where the researcher is a detective, looking at a particular program or bounded system.. looking for uniqueness, quality, success, etc. again for one particular program, department, group, etc.

[kastukes-blog]

EDA7410 Qual. Blog 1

JTA Worldview Exercise

Completing the JTA worldview exercise reminded me of the in-class activity that we completed last week, where we viewed a few tables and figures on the research paradigms and epistemologies, and shared which perspective/concepts we gravitated towards. When completing the JTA worldview exercise in exploring what I find most consistent with my own views of knowledge and reality, my reaction from last week’s activity was very telling. I am realizing more-and-more that I am truly in a bind, because I view the paradigms, perspectives/concepts, as both stopping points on a spectrum, and also as overlapping processes on a continuum. I think that at any time, the statements in the worldview table 1.3 can hold true or untrue, and sometimes both. I think my ability to be hyper-objective and nonbinary is because I tend to think too critically and I can easily understand various viewpoints. Although there is a difference in understanding versus agreeing with, and I know that I can be definitive in defending my values, beliefs, and what I have come to know and experience, it’s almost as if I my conditioning to be acceptable to all has ironically paralyzed me (in hopes that it also does not make me an indecisive person). So, when reviewing the worldview table 1.3 I attempted to go through each statement without overthinking things like language, time, sociocultural context, etc., but almost instantly after starting the exercise I found myself coding the statements with “I agree but”, “I agree, but only if”, “I sometimes would agree”, “if – and – then”, and so on. I think that my deep contemplation puts me in a bizarre mindset especially because I can be a very straight-forward, “proof is in the pudding”, black or white thinker. I highly appreciate concrete, quantitative efforts. However, with all of this said, perhaps as I continue to learn about the epistemologies of learning research this semester, maybe I will begin to gravitate towards one paradigm. In the meantime, I wonder if there is an unwritten worldview, isolated on an island, where I have apparently inhabited.

Making Meaning

Written accounts of the intersections of social context and biographies can demonstrate the nature of qualitative research, which involves uncovering the meaning of how people interpret experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their experiences. Furthermore, qualitative research can be characterized by: the focus of meaning and understanding; the researcher as the primary instrument of data collection and analysis; the process as inductive; and the product being richly descriptive. Considering this, and in warming up to qualitative practice, one event that I am compelled to describe and make meaning of involves a time in middle school when for the first time I was challenged to map-out career aspirations.

While transitioning through adolescence, I was oblivious to a lot of systematic and sociocultural practices that shaped and defined my learning and career aspirations. There were times when I thought critically about what was going on with my surroundings, but these reflections did not always constructively drive my intentions. While in middle school, I had a classroom assignment that asked me to answer “what do you want to be when you grow up”? All of my classmates were identifying with career choices such as doctor, lawyer or policemen. In hearing my classmates’ responses, I wanted to be “different”. I did not want to identify with professions that I perceived with wealth and fame. However, I also considered the power of having economic wealth and opportunities that wealth brings. I also thought about my family structure and what professions were underrepresented in my culture. I decided that I wanted to become a dentist.

Little did I know, I was already “different”, being that I was the only Haitian-American student at a predominately white school. At that moment, me wanting to think differently only perpetuated assumptions, prejudices and social division. Rather than looking at this assignment as an opportunity to realize my purpose and choices in life and the power in diversity, I choose it as a means to break social norms (or at least I thought I was). This ironic notion has deeper layers and meaning. As I currently reflect, I realize that I already was breaking norms by way of my parents migrating from Haiti to the U.S. and assimilating into a predominately white, secure neighborhood. Further layers of irony are demonstrated with the fact that I still chose a profession that symbolizes wealth and prosperity. In any event, I chose dentistry and was applauded by my teacher, and also by members of my family.  

When finishing middle school, on the day to register for classes at the local (predominately white, middle-class) high school, my mom unexpectedly picked me up from school and brought me to register at Stranahan High School. Stranahan is in a predominantly low-SES neighborhood with majority black/African-American students. In Fort Lauderdale, FL, school structures such as are usually “balanced-out” in race and curriculum by having magnet/IB programs. My mother’s decision to enroll me in a medical magnet program, regardless of the neighborhood, positioned me with the opportunity to accelerate with my aspirations to be a dentist. However, being positioned in this new surrounding alerted me to race, class and privilege even more. I remember seeing taller black girls walking in heals, and feeling extremely intimated. I debated whether I was “black enough” to be there, and realized that my fears validated how low-SES black kids still had more power than I did. Furthermore, by being in the magnet program I should have been able to associate myself with the high-performing students to identify with a clique. But, with some fears of getting bullied by “the locals,” I ironically, found myself wandering the halls in isolation, fearful to connect with the “geeks” or “locs”.

Soon after being placed in my new surroundings, I realized that my fair skin complexion and “pretty face” placed me at both an advantage and disadvantage. I was adored by the boys but ridiculed by a lot of girls. Although throughout high school I was challenged with theses layers of irony and discourse, it did not take long to fully take pride in my race, culture and class. When comparing my journey to my older sibling (who attended the predominately white, middle-class high school in our hometown) I saw myself as being powerful and privileged to see the “other” side of race and class. I used the experiences of school fights and conflict to position me as a powerful black woman. I also was able to identify even more as a Haitian-American student because a lot of my school peers were too. All of these elements in my sociocultural systems influenced how I shifted my lens, my personality and my identity according to my surroundings.

Incorporating my worldview

Although I am still having trouble truly connecting to one worldview, if I had to choose, I would say that my making meaning and reflection align with  poststructural. I guess bottom line, with my research agenda, with me wanting to try to do it all, and by having so much passion (and quite frankly bias) in my topic, this all drives my desire to disrupt certain practices and stigmas in higher ed. administration with accountability for effective leadership. Although, I do know as I begin to frame an actual research question, slicing narrow and cutting deep, my world view will absolutely shift along a continuum of values, perspectives, paradigms, and experiences. 

Week two readings - Organizational visual/picture/map

During this week, I was hyper focused on narrowing down alllllll of the terms, vocabs, and identifying possible words that are interchangeable and related. Thus, I decided to create a wordcloud! - because I think it best depicts what I focused the readings on. Words, words, and more words! How relevant to art, science and practice of qualitative research!

A few questions after week 2 readings:

? What qualitative terms are “interchangeable”? I.e. - paradigm, perspective, conceptualization, approach, theoretical framework, framework, assumption, worldview, epistemology, methodology?

? In JTA’s chp.1, situating the research, the authors assert meaning to a literature review with theoretical framework. - At what point does “theoretical perspective” become an assumed/accepted theoretical framework?

? What are the distinctions between conceptual framework and worldview?

Pardon my corny doodle - representing my learning of a few terms: worldview, ontology, epistemology, methods, and methodology (and products). Each worldview (positivist; postpositivist; constructivist; critical; and postconstructivist) provides a lens for researchers to see, perceive, interpret and make meaning of the world around them. Also, each worldview has their own layers of the nature and reality of knowledge (ontology); and what can be known and how close can one get to knowledge and truth (epistemology). Furthermore, after putting on their lens, researchers design the best-fit approach (methods) to study and research knowledge and truth, providing rationales and reasons (methodology) along the way that facilitate dialogue and further supports meaning making in the research process. As a side note, researchers must keep in mind the design (method) of their research must fit and be aligned with other qualitative factors in the research process.

—

I am in the process of creating a word bank with definitions that will help me better conceptualize the numerous qualitative research terms recently thrown my way!

[kastukes-blog]

EDA7410 Qual. Blog 2

In week 3 reading, Koro-Ljungberg, M., Yendol-Hoppey, D., Smith, J. J., & Hayes, S. B. (2009) article on (e)pistemological awareness, instantiation of methods, and uniformed methodological ambiguity in qualitative research project, argued that “efforts should be made to make the research process, epistemologies, values, methodological decision points, and argumentative logic open, accessible, and visible for audiences” (pg. 687). The authors provided several benefits and a compelling rationale to assert that transparency of researchers’ worldviews, etc. can facilitate the process of self-reflection and can assist researchers in selecting methods that instantiate and support their knowledge building, and also facilitates the selection of a theoretical perspective that is suited to the purposes of their research. Although I did not fully understand all of the introductory context with Thayer-Bacon (2003), Crotty (1998), and Table 1 series of decision junctures, this outline demonstrated the very argument that the authors made in that providing foundation and rationale is pivotal to any research process, report, and sharing of knowledge. Now, I have some background knowledge that could assist me in performing a similar systematic review in qualitative studies, to determine how well researchers illustrate (e)pistemological awareness. However, I do know that I would need to derive to a stronger knowledgebase on the concepts in transcendental epistemology, theoretical perspective, and internalist position/interpretivist, if I wanted to complete a similar systematic review. Despite this initial reflection to the reading, there were a few points made in explaining alternative perspective on spatial (e)pistemological awareness that really intrigued me in thinking about my own awareness of my worldview.

I really appreciated how Koro-Ljungberg, et al. acknowledged that some researchers might not want to emphasize instantiation in the ways described by the authors. This made me think of how right now it is difficult for me to determine the best-fit worldview for my research interest. I think that my stubborn inability to make a selection somewhat places me in a poststructural mindset, where my thoughts are very destructive to normal practices. However, because I am a woman of order, I appreciated the authors’ notion that if researchers are going to be less transparent, or in my case noncommittal to a worldview, then researchers still have to state that. There are expectations when it comes to academic research and writing, so with that, researchers should at least be explicit if their position is that they have no position. I think that this expectation places me in a positivist mindset, where my natural desire is to follow structure and organization. 

Koro-Ljungberg, et al. reading really helped me to see how alignment in research epistemology, questions, methods, and methodology is extremely important. Being transparent in an approach can facilitate that reflection in determining alignment and double checking connections in the research process. Although we don’t know what we don’t know, it is evident that “acknowledging the limits of positions taken, the limits of our knowing, and ultimately the extent of our not knowing can be as important and valuable as the articulation of an (e)pistemological position” (pg. 697). Being concerned with alignment keeps clearing up the unknown as a priority. Also, I appreciated the authors’ closing thoughts on the pros and cons of researchers being explicit in their epistemologies and methodologies. But ironically, I can identify with both pros and cons. For example, transparent statements on researchers’ epistemologies that shaped their decision making provides scaffolding for readers to “become smarter” (pg. 697), which I do agree adds to the body of knowledge in shared processes for qualitative research and worldviews. However the intentionality in using descriptive, available, and precise language does not by itself guarantee rigorous and thoughtful scholarship, which I also agree can become a simplistic way to document researchers’ complex research processes.

Finally, this reflection made me realize that in all, instructors expectations matter most – meaning, just as there can be many journal articles that seem inattentive in demanding (e)pistemological and instantiation of methods, and just as the role of an editor preferences in articles that meet expectations for publication may take precedent – expectations can be subjective. In the same vein, readings, assignments, and presentations that students and scholars submit are all subjected to the organization and structure of the teaching instructors. So, this final random reflection has me now wondering what the overall goal should be… What are the limitations in requiring uniformity in qualitative research, worldviews, articles and reports, and what should be the final expectations for researchers to state any alternative decision junctures and approaches?

Side note question after the reading: What is the distinction in the terms – theoretical perspectives; theoretical framework; and conceptual framework?

---

The reading on chapter 2 in Cresswell & Poth (2017) was easy to add to my organizational visual/picture/map, because it too covered important terms for qualitative research, that I have been unpacking from the previous readings!

Here are some ideas that stood out to me from this reading: - "Theories are more apparent in our qualitative studies than are philosophical assumptions, and researchers, often trained in the use of theories, typically make them explicit in research studies" (pg. 15). This is interesting to me because I feel that up until this Qual. class, all of my assignments have covered theoretical framework in the form of a "traditional" literature review section. Now I'm certain I have to revisit my previous writing as I am still figuring out what all of these terms mean, and more importantly because now I am being guided in addressing my epistemological awareness. - Simplifying definitions:   • Philosophy = abstract ideas   • Philosophical assumptions = stances taken   • Paradigm = set of beliefs   • Theoretical orientation = explanations in the literature   • People Assumptions = ontology; epistemology; axiology; methodology (and also worldviews)   • Interpretive Frameworks = paradigms; theory; worldview - "Whether multiple assumptions can be taken..it may be related to research experiences.. openness to exploring using differing assumptions.. acceptability of ideas taken in the larger scientific community.." (pg. 19). This is intriguing to me because it gives me hope in my journey to identifying a worldview that aligns with my research! - "When researchers conduct qualitative research, they are embracing the idea of multiple realities" (pg. 20). Can researchers undergo qualitative studies to "prove" one reality or one specific claim exists? - Table 2.1 (pg. 20) After reading through the implications for practice examples column, I conceptualized methodological practice (describes the context, continually) as: a process that seems to encompass all three practices from the other assumptions (ontology - reports perspective; epistemology - being an insider; axiology - discussing values); and also methodological practice seems to be the culminating, but also ongoing/interwoven process in making meaning of the research process and putting it into practice. Embedded in methodological are perspectives, insight, and values. - "In a qualitative study, the inquirers admit and actively report their values and biases as well" (pg. 21). I feel like being bias is the ultimate no-no in research. I understand the gist of separating bias from research questions and design, but I am curious to learn more about how bias naturally fits into the research process without objection! Explanation of evolving illustrations of my gleanings from the readings: The nature of our reality (ontology) is all around us. It is the shape of our universe, science and what is real (or unreal), with or without faith. Revolving in our galaxy are planets shaped and molded by their own terrains (ontology, epistemology, methodology); at the core of each planet are the deeply embedded values (axiology). From each planet we look onward and inward towards a shared body of knowledge, having various worldviews where we turn the dial until we reach a clear focus. Our worldview telescopes are polished by epistemology. Finally, each planet tells a story in how it takes its own orbit, with orbits intentionally being paved by matching steps (methods). ...or something like that!

[kastukes-blog]

#improvingleadershippractice (19-20)

Bolman and Deal (2017) conclude their textbook Reframing Organizations with improving leadership practice. Chapters 19 and 20 conceptualized reframing ethics and spirit, and bringing change and leadership in action. Ethics must reside in soul, a sense of bedrock character that anchors core beliefs and values. Soul is important and it sustains spiritual conviction and ethical behavior. (p. 387) “We are social beings, attuned to cues in expectations from our workplace and our colleagues about what to do and not to do. A company that loses track of any redeeming moral purpose doesn’t provide credible ethical guardrails for its employees. The result is often a spiritual and financial disaster. For any organization, group, or family, soul can be viewed as a resolute sense of character, a deep confidence about who we are, what we care about, and what we deeply believe in.” (p. 388) The concepts of soul, values, people, and culture all remind me of a combination of the best in the human resource frame and symbolic frame. Also, examples like the “Mission and Medallion Ceremony” (p. 387) remind me how leaders can use their resources to create a symbolic, structured organization that value their employees and boost morale and productivity. However, the Southwest example (p. 389) did insert some skepticism of the truth behind spirit in an organization. Personally, a year ago when I was flying from Atlanta, Georgia’s regional airport, I witnessed a strike of Southwest employees. So although the airline has been turning a profit for 44 consecutive years, leaders cannot be clueless when considering the realities of “spirit” in their organizations. The Southwest example may also demonstrate how people define ethics and values differently. What may be acceptable to one person and their culture, may not be acceptable to another. Fighting a bully in school to stand up for your other classmates can be viewed as a heroic leadership gesture, but others could argue that peaceful protest and fighting with words is morally acceptable. This also goes to show how simply stating that an organization has values and ethics, or even identifying what they are, should also be accompanied with practical scenarios and actions that employees are expected to follow to uphold those values. In time, actions become embedded in the culture of the organization and if appropriate actions are not identified, then the norm may become “oblivious” in doing “unethical” things. For example, in a financial aid office at a college, the norm to place an alumni in collections because s/he now owes thousands of dollars for a systematic error in allocating and disbursing too much financial aid while they were enrolled, may be “the norm” because it’s in the “terms and conditions” that students sign in order to receive aid; but the normal reaction from the alumni to this mishap may be anger and dissatisfaction with the office and staff, and possibly question the business ethics. Furthermore, at what point does a finaid staff member quite this job because they believe the accounts receivable process is unethical, verses adapting their morals in believing it’s just what has to be done… “Some never lose that spark, but many do. They become frustrated with sterile or toxic working conditions and discouraged by how hard it is to make a difference, or even to know if they have made one” (p. 395).

Presenting ethics and soul using a four-frame approach was beneficial for me to see practical examples of soul and spirit in organizations.

Structural: the organization is like a factory where leaders contribute authorship to demonstrate an organizational ethic of excellence 

Human resource: the organization is like an extended family where leaders contribute love to demonstrate an organizational ethic of caring

Political: the organization is like a jungle where leaders contribute power to demonstrate an organizational ethic of justice

Symbolic: the organization is like a temple where leaders contribute significance to demonstrate an organizational ethic of faith and belief

On a final note and to share a personal example that demonstrates how people may think they share the same values and ethics, but at the end of the day, they do things differently, is how I tried to implement music into my office space. What was meant to bring some joy and fun and create a uplifting environment, can also be seen as a noisy distraction and unprofessional. Bringing it all together, with my desire to see change (improvement) in my workplace and leadership in action, I appreciate Bolman and Deal’s concepts of reframing as an art and science. (p. 418)

Every artist brings a distinctive vision and produces unique works. The reframing process builds on a lifetime of skill, knowledge, intuition, and wisdom. Reframing guides leaders in assessing what they already know and it helps them feel less confused and overwhelmed by the doubt and disorder around them. A cluttered jumble of impressions and experiences gradually evolve into a manageable image. Also, reflections help leaders to see that they are far from helpless and that they have a rich array of actions to choose from. Leaders rediscover old truths and practice spiritual discipline. Leaders begin to understand the road ahead is still long and difficult and that there is no guarantee of success, but they feel more confident and more energized than when they started. I want to use the reframing process to start dreaming things that never were and to say “why not?”

[kastukes-blog]

#improvingleadershippractice

In their textbook, Reframing Organizations, Bolman and Deal (2017) detailed improving leadership practice in chapters 15 through 20. I enjoyed reading the scenario in reframing and action: opportunities and perils. It was refreshing to see the frames again applied to real word context. “Consciously or not, we all read situations to figure out the scene we’re in and the role we should feel so that we can respond in character. But it's important to ask ourselves whether the drama is the one we want and to recognize that we can choose which character to play and how to interpret or alter the script. The essence of reframing is examining the situation from multiple vantage points” (p. 323). I did wonder, how the scenario would have been different if dealing with the same gender, or if the role of the previous manager had been female and the oncoming manager was a male; and I too wondered how race/ethnicity may have impacted the scenario. What if it had been two black/African American women? What if it had been an older Middle Eastern woman and a young white/Caucasian male? Also, reading the scenario and having time to reflect is different than actually being in the scenario. Although the scenario was a “reach and grasp”, it was spot on in depicting toxic workplace environments, something that I am all too familiar with. Now I can reflect in determining where I may have been over structural and didn't care enough for human resources, or where I may have been too symbolic in this passion and strong longing for effective leadership, without truly considering political factors behind the workplace. Moving forward, I hope that I do not get caught up in trying to assess which frame to apply to every scenario while I'm in the heat of the moment, almost becoming robotic like, but instead I hope that I let the concepts and values of Bolman and Deal’s frames seep into my natural character as a leader.

As a first-year doctoral student, I really appreciated reframing leadership with a historical context. The quantitative analytic of developed leadership theory, and the qualitative holistic of case studies for practitioners and scholars to utilize within leadership development, both absolutely provide foundation and guidance to the evolution of leadership known today. To be truthful, I used to battle with the concepts of leadership, power, and management, and how my role as a young, assertive, self-driven, black woman all came into context. Given my upbringing and opportunity (or lack thereof) it was hard for me to see leadership as an activity and also challenging to think that leadership wasn't unilateral, concentrated at the top. Even today, I struggle with assuming many people still understand leadership in these constructs. But, if it was not for the case studies and the research that continues to prove what effective leadership truly looks like, then scholars and practitioners would not have the opportunity to reframe and understand leadership as a multilateral, distributed art and science. This point is also the driving thought that makes me super passionate about practitioners specifically in higher education having graduate or terminal degrees. Not to say that Baccalaureate work is not sufficient enough to fully understand structure, human resource, politics, and symbolic frame, but Bolman and Deal have shown me even more that organizational leadership is deeply intricate and people should consider to continuously invest in knowing their needs, how they fit into their structure, what resources are available, and what shared vision to follow. But I digress...

(pp. 335-338)

Leadership is an activity, not and a position

Leadership is different from management … both managers and leaders can do the right things by doing things right

Leadership is multilateral, not and unilateral

Leadership is distributed rather than and concentrated at the top

Leadership is contextual and situated not both in the leader but and in the exchange between leader and constituents

Although I hold these ideas to be true, in the end, from our government/Presidents to our State University Systems/BOGs, there is always a higher level of position and unilateral concentration where decisions are made that may not consider what it actually takes to manage people, create visions, and mobilize followers on the bottom. Rather, our structures and politics keep us firmly grounded no matter how “symbolically-human resourced” we try to be. Charisma can only carry leaders so far.

“No single formula is possible for the great range of situations leaders encounter. ... Leadership is thus a subtle process of mutual influence fusing thought, feeling, and action. It produces cooperative effort in the service of purposes embraced and enhanced by both leader and led” (p. 338).

(p.346, Exhibit 17.4 Reframing Leadership) .. personal quote from Karine: “I am addicted to creating a mirage by manipulating detail!” #multiframing or, “I am humane for creating  symbols by politicking my structure”

To end, I did appreciate how Bolman and Deal finally asserted culture, gender, and leadership. However something to consider for me personally are my roots from the Caribbean and how that plays into my family assimilating into the U.S. Also growing up I considered myself a tomboy, so I am guilty of internalizing and perpetuating conflicting expectations, stereotyping, and discrimination against women. Finally, in reframing change in organizations, I somewhat felt pessimistic as Bolman and Deal brush over the concept of strategic planning as a fallen technique (p. 360), and also assert how “leaders introduce new techniques and score short-term victory: political pressures and cultural resistance start to mount; leaders leave to try again; organizations licks its wounds and moves both backward and onward. In short, an optimistic beginning, tumultuous middle, and controversial conclusion.” (p. 364) However, “everyone loves a comeback story. Let's work together to write the best one ever” gives me hope, especially as it relates to UNF's position with the SUS Metrics. In order to change, “leaders must offer an orchestrated, integrated design for responding to needs for learning, realignment, negotiation and grieving” (p. 383) Leaders must sense urgency, guide a team, uplift vision and strategy, communicate vision and strategy through words, deeds, and symbols, remove obstacles and empower people to move forward, produce and celebrate wins, keep going when going gets tough, and shape and nurture new culture to support new ways.

[kastukes-blog]

#blog5 Symbolic Frame

In their textbook, Reframing Organizations, Bolman and Deal (2017) detailed the symbolic frame in chapters 12 through 14. Beginning the reading on organizational symbols and culture, the authors asserted symbolic assumptions and then described organizational symbols. “A symbol is something that stands for or suggest something else, it conveys socially constructed meanings beyond its intrinsic or obvious functional use. Distilled to the essence, people thinking meaning in life. Because life is mysterious, symbols arise to sustain hope, believe, and faith. They express themselves in analogies. Symbols are metaphoric expressions of psychic energy. Their content is far from obvious; it is expressed in unique and individual ways while embodying universal and collective imagery. These intangibles then shape our thoughts, emotions, and actions. Symbols cut deeply into the human psyche and tap the collective unconscious.” (pg. 240)

At first glance, I had to reframe my definition of myths to apply this concept to the symbolic frame. Bolman and Deal offer that a myth is a collective dream that communicates unconscious wishes and conflicts, mediates contradictions, and offers a narrative anchoring the present in the past.(pg. 243). I think that in order to first understand myths, vision, and values, one must be reflective in truly understanding their individualistic self, and perceptions on their experiences, their culture, their values, and the way they frame life. These intrinsic/internal factors then shape actions that heros/heroines take, and stories that people tell. At first glance, I also had to reframe my definition of heroic leadership, as I have recently learned that the heroic side of leadership can lead to misguided and inefficient organizations. However, Bolman and Deal did assert that “not all icons are at the top of the organization” (pg. 246). Furthermore, a thought that came to mind in relation to storytelling was that just like the game of telephone, people have to be cautious in how they tell stories, to remove any biases (although perceptions still gets in the way), and that people have to be cautious in how they receive and hear the stories they are told. Before transitioning to the remainder of the chapter, I was really baffled by the example of the company's annual celebration banquet where the employee got fired for not introducing the chairman. I think this example was great is showing how single events can truly set organizational culture. Although the employee's forgetfulness may have been innocent, his disconnection of first thinking and reflecting as an individual to be mindful of what was going on, was detrimental to the situation. I think this point goes to my original thought that preluding organizations’ symbols, should first be considerations of peoples’ critical thinking, adaptive, and practical skills and capabilities, and how their values, experiences, and goals are embedded in self before organization. However, overall I think the introduction to symbolic frame was well organized in framing mission, vision, values, executive leaders, and stories, all to depict the overall culture of the organization.

Another concept that stood out to me was organizations as cultures, where culture was both a product and a process. I really identified with the question: do leaders shape culture, or are they shaped by it? (pg. 258) Often times in my career I found myself asking that exact question, as I was onboarding to new schools/jobs. I think that it is important to note that “old ways become vulnerable in times of crisis” (pg. 258), but it is also old ways that can create/keep a toxic organization. Leaders must be willing to assimilate to organizational culture, while also improving product and process.

In transitioning to culture in action, I appreciated Bolman and Deal’s tenets of the symbolic frame, the core essence of groups and teams which included:

How someone becomes a group member is important

Diversity supports a team’s competitive advantage

Examples, not command, holds a team together

A specialized language fosters cohesion and commitment

Stories carry history and values and reinforce group identity

Humor and play reduce tension and encourage creativity

Ritual and ceremony lift spirits and reinforce values

Informal cultural players contribute disproportionately to their formal roles

Soul is the secret of success

Briefly referencing assumptions/concepts of structural, HR, and political frames, the authors continued on to assert that “symbolic perspectives question the traditional view that building a team mainly entails putting the right people in the right structure. ...Managers wonder how to build team spirit when turnover is high, resources are tight, and people worry about losing their jobs.” (pg. 277) Although the symbolic frame can be a stand-alone concept, I think that it is the overarching visionary frame, and is also encompassed in all previous frames. Organization as a theater, demonstrated the essence of structural, people, and politics. Team dynamics, the people are at the core of organizations while striving to reach outcomes, becomes the purpose of organizations.

[kastukes-blog]

Ceremonies serve four major roles: they socialize, stabilize, reassure, and convey messages to external constituencies.

Bolman and Deal, 2017, Reframing Organizations, pg. 255

[kastukes-blog]

Rituals anchor us to a center while freeing us to move on and confront the everlasting unpredictability of life. The paradox of ritual patterns and sacred habits is that they simultaneously serve as a solid footing and springboard, providing a stable dynamic in our lives

Bolman and Deal, 2017, Reframing Organizations, pg.251

[kastukes-blog]

Walmart's enormous size and power have made its political maneuvers widely visible, almost everyone has feelings about Walmart, one way or another ...but in the fall of 2012, the company had its first experience with strikes by workers in multiple cities. Ambivalent shoppers told reporters that they sympathized with the workers but still shopped at Walmart because they could not afford to pass up the low prices.

Bolman and Deal, 2017, p.218

[kastukes-blog]

Walmart is both an arena for internal conflict and a political agent or player operating on a field crammed with other organizations pursuing their own interest. As arenas organizations house an ongoing interplay of players and agendas. As agents, organizations are powerful tools for achieving the purposes of whoever calls the shots.

Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 218