Background: Considerations of the negotiated therapeutic relationship in speech and language therapy are somewhat scarce, with specific therapeutic factors generally framed from psycholinguistic, behavioural, or neurological perspectives.

Aims: To explore the therapeutic relationship in speech and language therapy, focusing on the personal meanings and experiences of adult clients with acquired communication and swallowing disorders.

Methods & Procedures: The study was qualitative, using methods from Grounded theory to analyse eleven interviews with adults who had acquired disorders of communication or swallowing, as they described their perceptions of speech and language therapy and therapists. Five males and six females with a mean age of 62 years, ranging from 25 to 87 years, with varied communication disorders, were interviewed.

Outcomes & Results: A preliminary theoretical framework explains how speech and language therapists supported alienated, demoralized or confused clients with therapeutic qualities, such as Being Understanding, Being Gracious, Being Erudite and Being Inspiring; and with therapeutic actions, such as Being Confident, Being Soothing, Being Practical and Being Empowering. These categories provided a basis for the researcher to construct a substantive theory of restorative poise which characterized the attitudinal and behavioural characteristics of an ideal speech and language therapist from the perspective of the client.

Conclusions & Implications: Participants were aware of the components of a therapeutic relationship and valued these as essential to their own personal understanding of positive outcomes in speech and language therapy. Therefore, specific types of attitudes and actions that constitute the speech and language therapist’s contributions to the therapeutic relationship seemed to provide catalytic conditions for successful working together in therapy; and consequently, may have a bearing on effective practice and treatment efficacy.

from the International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders

Windschitl, Mark. (1998). WWW and Classroom Research: What Path Should We Take? Educational Researcher, 27(1), pp. 28-33. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176924.

While Windschitl’s K-12 orientation is different from mine, I found his key point–that there’s a difference between “accessing information” and learning–to be completely appropriate for higher education. And despite the age of the article, Windschitl accurate predicts the evolution from Web 1.0 (a conduit to information, albeit with the navigational flexibility for users to construct their own understanding) to the community emphasis of Web 2.0.

Inquiry

In viewing the Web as a system for inquiry, he notes currency of information and visual appeal as strengths, but asks key questions about how the Web is useful to students:

• How do they find and validate information?
• What processes occur during and what products evolve from their searches?
• Do their attitudes change?

and to teachers:

• How do they incorporate the Web into the classroom?
• How much structure should be provided?
• How do they assess learning?

Communication

More importantly, Windschitl views the Web as a communication medium which can broaden perspectives and also allow students to produce messages for other students. While acknowledging the more informal nature of electronic communication, he asks if students can develop new ways of communicating and sharing meaning (academic or social) using the Web. While acknowledging the potential of  computer-based instruction to provide superior learning outcomes, he notes that the benefits may be due to superior instructional design rather than the affordances of the technologies themselves.

A Research Methodology

Windschitl suggests using grounded theory (the discovery and generation of theory from data gathered during research); he argues that a semiotic view, whereby meaning emerges from both the source and the destination, may be appropriate because the Web’s communicative environment is more directly controlled by other people. Windschitl concludes by asking questions that we are still asking a decade later:

• How are social constructs such as authority or cooperation affected in virtual groups?
• How do virtual social groups form and are they different from physical social groups?
• What are the patterns of interaction in virtual groups?
• Do communities of learners evolve in virtual space?

I was going to do a survey to generate a profile of teacher epistemologies, but seeing how the available instruments seem to be culture-bound, if not in some way flawed (cf. Schommer), maybe I need to do some exploratory study first to generate categories and test existing ones in the local context.  Grounded theory, they call it.

So which way do I go?  Quanti or quali?  My supervisor advises that I should do both.  Both?!  The study is due in March next year!  Oh well, let’s see how it goes.

I spent all day poring through the literature, and I have far from a comprehensive grasp of what’s out there. Why can’t scholarship be simpler?

Tomorrow I have to start crafting the proposal already.  “Work in progress.”  That’s the only way to think of it.  And not lose sanity.

Re-read the first chapter of Crotty. The basic typology is very clear and helpful as:

methods: techniques/ procedures to gather & analyse data

methodology: research design that is the basis for the methods used – links the methods to the desired outcomes of the research

theoretical perspectives: the philosophical stance & justification of theoretical assumptions

epistomology: the theory of knowledge that underpins the theoretical perspective

so single epistomology but increasing range of congruent theoretical perspectives, methodologies and methods and single methodologies and methods can be clustered together. In other words, the methods and methodology is justified in terms of the purpose of the study and the researchers assumptions about reality and human knowledge.

But the clarity of division between levels is not at this stage very clear to me, eg, grounded theory [GT] cited as methodology but I see it as an approach to data analysis gathered through [any] range of methods and so does not justify any particular method/s. Or is my confusion linked to the dispute of Glasser vs Stauss on GT??

This qualitative study investigated the experiences of mothers who have a child with communication difficulties resulting from cerebral palsy (CP). There is a dearth of information about parents’ experiences of having a child with CP and communication difficulties. Three participants, whose children had moderate or severe CP and communication difficulties, were recruited from a voluntary organization. Participants were interviewed using an in-depth, semi-structured interview guide. Interviews were audio-recorded, then transcribed and subsequently analysed using Grounded Theory methods. Five main themes emerged, combining to form the core category of mothers dedicating their attention to their children. The information gleaned from this study could have important implications for nurses involved in facilitating communication, including speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and registered nurses. By becoming more aware of the experiences of parents with a child with CP and communication disorders, nurses may be better able to plan and implement therapy and also support communication aims. The study concludes with a discussion of further research avenues, suggesting that a study investigating the experiences of parents of children with other types of physical disabilities affecting communication should be conducted to determine the similarities and differences of parents of children with other kinds of disability. A similar study with a larger sample could be conducted to validate the findings of the current study.

from the Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing

Let us go through an exercise of constructing a mental model. To ensure that we follow the wisdom of Gregory Bateson (see previous blog post by clicking here: Q16), we will proceed in this manner: start with data from personal experiences -> discern pattern from the data -> construct mental model including concepts. This scientific methodology is called “grounded theory” because you don’t start at “Cloud 9″ but you instead start from the “ground” of experience in the real world.

From your own experiences, what are the ingredients of effective group action? (the question comes from the definition of “knowledge”; click here to see blog post F5)

Get a paper and pencil and please add to my list below:

physical energy
access to needed information
support from outside
teamwork
financial resources
tools
empowering policies
innovativeness
mental model
trust on one another
technology
information
shared concepts
skills
common goal
mutual support
good procedure
equipment
cash and incentives
good system
willingness
conducive workplace
(Please add to the list from your experiences.)

Next, let us cluster them together. Do you agree with this grouping? Are the members in each group similar enough to warrant the grouping? Do the groups make sense to you?

Then, we place labels on the clusters or groups:

VOILA! We now have CCLFI’s expanded KM framework! The entries in green are motivational factors that cut across the tangible and the three intangible forms (see blog post D11):

Recall:

• In F5 we learned that “knowledge” is capacity for effective action (I had written on this in the Overview chapter of a KM book published by the Asian Productivity Organization; click HERE).

• We saw that “know-what” (=knowledge) is not enough; it must be combined with “willing-to” (=motivation); I reported this in a KM conference last year at Kuala Lumpur (click HERE).
• In F1 we saw that the expanded KM framework overlaps with the intellectual capital framework (Click here to download paper to be published by EADI/IKM).
• We learned that intellectual capital has three (mostly intangible) components: human, structural and stakeholder capital, but we also saw that “stakeholder capital” and “customer capital” are too narrow, and must be broadened to “relationship capital” that also includes relationships within the organization (reported in our Singapore paper and also in my Overview chapter of the APO book).

A mental model is double-edged: a good one enables you to see the world better, but a bad one is like a blindfold or blinder that allows you to see only a distorted slice of the world.

=>Back to main page of Apin Talisayon’s Weblog
=>Jump to Clickable Master Index

I am officially* in the final three months of my Masters research project. I have collected data (interviews with students and teachers), transcribed these, observed classes and written up detailed notes of what I saw, and kept an ongoing journal of thoughts, ideas, and small epiphanies. I am now in the data analysis phase, going through all of this written material, looking for themes that emerge, cross-referencing these between the three different students I am focusing on, and, eventually, getting stuck into some more targeted reading, as my themes emerge and the gaps in my understanding can be identified.

My research question:

How do Language School students perceive the music activities? What do they think they learn? What do they engage with most strongly? What sense do they make of the program and its existence at this school?

To answer this, I am doing a qualitative case study. Three case studies in fact, interviewing three different students, each from the same class (Upper Primary) but from contrasting cultural and educational backgrounds. Please be introduced:*

Susan from Sudan. Extremely disrupted, inconsistent schooling before coming to Australia. A bright, bubbly girl who loves music, has highly developed learning strategies for all the challenges she faces in school, and is a social leader among her peers.

Kevin from China. Very hard-working, clever boy, who had absolutely no English when he first arrived. He blossomed by his third term (the time when the research interviews took place), taking a leading role in the class music-theatre piece, and keen for new challenges.

Leki from Thailand. Very bright girl. For her, school is a great delight, for she is an only child in a quiet household, and school lets her connect with her peers and build a social world. She is quiet, and says very little. But she watches and observes. Her style of engagement is quite passive, but attentive. She is happiest out of the spotlight, but loves to laugh with her friends at every opportunity.

*Pseudonyms used for all participants in the research project.

Analysis so far…

I am doing the first detailed read-throughs of the transcripts at the moment, making notes in the margins as I go, and annotating those themes that seem to recur most frequently.

In my early observations, I am finding the following:

Susan’s understanding of the learning that takes place in music is quite sophisticated. It sounds like the way that I teach is similar to experiences she had of traditional Sudanese music and dance when she lived in Kenya, at classes in the community centre. Susan has always been strong in music, always an anchor or leader for the other children. She also comes across as a very confident young person. So I’m surprised to hear her talk about how frightened and nervous she felt in early music classes, worried that she might do the wrong thing.

Kevin also has a clear awareness of the skills he and other students are learning in music. He also observes some of my teaching strategies and activity sequences, and suggests reasons for these decisions and strategies. Kevin seems very motivated by the idea of mastery, of attention to detail and progressive improvement. He therefore develops his own strategies for technique in performance, and for remembering material. He has a conviction of a sense of abundance about school in Australia. There are lots of resources – plenty to around. Not just in music, but across the school. Everyone gets to learn and have a turn. He believes it is important for chidren at the school to learn ‘Australian music’ and that is why it is important that this music program is at the Language School.

Leki also emphasises the skills that are learned in music as a strong focus of the activity. For her, music is important as it gives the students a chance to relax and have fun. ‘Relaxing and having fun’ seem very important to Leki. She hasn’t said a lot about her previous school in Thailand, but her teacher here has the idea that it was very strict and stern.

All three students:

• emphasised the instruments. They liked the range of different instruments, and the fact that everyone gets to play. In fact, for all three of them, this was the first thing mentioned in the interviews. It seems to be a strong identifying characteristic of the classes for them.
• Discussed the different skills learned, including rhythmic skills and making music ‘that comes from our heads’. One of my questions has been, ‘do the students know that they are composing?’. From these initial responses it seems that they do, but then again, it depends if what they mean to say is what I am hearing or interpreting…

None of the students mentioned expression, or the possibility that music gives them to express themselves. One student did mention a piece we had composed that was about fear and isoloation (The White Room, Aranea project), which had a big emotional range… he referred to this piece when explaining how some music could be scary and make your teeth chatter, or give you a nervous feeling inside.

Issues about doing this research:

Interpreters bring in another layer in understanding what the children are telling me. Complicating factors can be:

• the awkwardness of finding words – in any language – with which to talk about music. Music students spend years honing this skill, and I am sure most of us who have done a lot of ensemble music rehearsal know how tricky it can be to put ideas into words about what you are wanting, or the musical quality you are referring to. Music is ephemeral. You can’t point to it. What words do you use to describe its character or qualities? What is the interviewer asking, or wanting to know, when they ask questions like this?
• For two of the students, their interpreters were school staff members and knew them well. This creates rapport, but it can also influence the way questions are answered, and the way answers are translated. The interpreter may polish an answer slightly, when I would prefer its raw form. Or, in discussion in their language, the interpreter may suggest answers, in order to clarify the question, but inadvertently leading the child towards a certain way of thinking.
• For the third student, her interpreter was a stranger. My sense was that she didn’t really like him being there and often spoke over him, even though she needed him to translate some of the questions. Then again, she found the whole interview process kind of excruciating, I think.

Asking questions that make sense…

• Some questions seemed to create a kind of cultural or experiential impasse for the students, as they asked about things the students had never even conceived of.
• Hypothetical questions didn’t work. The students didn’t seem to understand hypothetical questions (such as, ‘if you were the teacher, what would you do in music…?’). Was this because of culture? Language? A kind of blocking of that part of the imagination as part of dealing with culture shock and transition?

Asking open questions…

• Ideally in research you ask questions in such a way that you encourage the respondent to talk freely (as opposed to giving a yes or no answer), but that doesn’t lead them towards a specific answer.
• However, in ESL teaching, one tends to give students a lot of context when asking questions. You prepare them with vocabulary, you build a framework for their thinking. If you don’t do this, then there is a very good chance they will not understand what the question is asking and they will feel very uncomfortable about answering.
• This may relate back to their prior schooling experiences, where a wrong answer would get them into trouble, or a swift slap upon your person, or where the things that it was/wasn’t appropriate to say to a teacher was an absolute minefield of potential mis-steps.
• Therefore my interview questions could be onsidered by some to be problematic and I will need to take this into account as I analyse my responses.

Some of my initial assumptions…. and how they are changing…

I started off with the assumption that students’ perceptions would be formed according to their prior life experiences. That is, the act of perceiving requires us to take raw information into our brains, process it, if possible by comparing it to other information that seems similar or related, and make sense of it. Perception is fluid, and chaing all the time as we continue to navigate the world around us. Therefore, the students’ perceptions of the music activities would only ever be a snapshot of this time and place.

Given that they come from such contrasting cultural backgrounds and life experiences, I figured that their perceptions would also be contrasting.

However, a more recent observation has been that these three children interact in the music lessons in very different ways. Susan is a strong leader, although not the centre of attention. She is highly engaged, and active. Kevin is also highly engaged and active, and assumes leading roles, often developing activities further, for his own pleasure and to create further challenges for himself. Leki is engaged in the classes (ie. not acting as if she is distracted, or disconnected from what is taking place); however, she does not assume an active role. She does everything she is asked to do, but with a minimum of physical exertion, or overt participation.

As I make my early readings of the interview transcripts, it occurs to me that their level of participation in the class is in fact going to attect the way they perceive the activities. (Although, which comes first? The level of participation, which leads to the perceptions, or the perceptions of what is taking place, which leads to the level of participation?)

Another early assumption I made was that for some of the students, music was a social activity in many ways. While they may acknowledge they are learning things, they most enjoy it for its social aspects, the chance to take part in fun activities with their friends.

However, this isn’t what they were telling me in the interviews.

There could be reasons for that though:

1. I’m asking them about learning and they know that they are at school in order to learn. Therefore, they may well be trying to answer questions with this as a focus.
2. They are eager learners (Language School students are often filled with great optimism and determination, at this early stage of their transition) so all of the skills they learn have great significance for them.
3. They may believe school isn’t supposed to be fun, it’s supposed to be serious.

Emerging Questions

• Do different backgrounds lead to different perceptions? Or is class participation a more consistent indicator?
• How does the experience of culture shock and transition affect the way a student of this age perceives anything?
• How much are their perceptions of music in fact their perceptions of school?
• What are the development (and/or cultural) implications (limitations) of perceiving? For example, if an Australian child were asked the same question about their perceptions of their classroom music activities, how easily would they be able to answer? (I don’t have the opportunity to pursue this question for this study, however, I posted in July about a paper I heard at the ISME conference, about the perceptions of gifted children of this age group, about music. Their answers were extremely sophisticated, and touchingly honest).
• How do we talk about music in any language?
• When I consider the possible developmental and cultural implications/limitations, how does this change the way I interpret the students’ responses?
• When I consider the impact of culture shock on the way children of this age perceive anything at all (that’s if we know this…) how does this change the way I interpret the students’ responses? What more can I learn from the students’ responses?
• What are the most effective and appropriate research methods and tools for this child cohort? Have I been effective? What are the gaps and missed opportunities? Is this research question appropriate?

What’s next?

It has been useful to write up this summary! My next day to work on this project is Thursday, when I’ll be focusing on continuing to read through the transcripts and make margin notes. Once I’ve finished that read-through, I’ll chose one transcript and start a closer analysis, looking for Units of Meaning. (This is a procedure drawn from grounded theory… it is a useful approach when you want to remain open-minded about the research outcomes, and want ot avoid imposing hypotheses or subjective meaning onto the data – acknowledging, or course, that it is all to some degree subjective, and even the act of selecting Units of Meaning requires a choice/decision/preference/bias on the part of the researcher who is identifying said Units).

That should take me through to next Tuesday.

I’d love comments on any of the above, dear readers. Any researchers among you? I’d be incredibly grateful for any questions you could add to my list above. Things you think I have overlooked, or aspects I should give greater attention to.

* I say ‘officially’ because I am at that uncomfortable stage where I seem to be facing a mountain of data and feel overwhelmed when I think about how to start making sense of it. How will I ever have enough time? I am not spending lots of time worrying about this… all I can do is just keep working consistently. But it is hard to imagine, at this stage, that I will be ready to submit a 20,000 word thesis by the end of February!

Search marketing is a wonderful tool, and any marketer worth his or her salt loves the data and evaluative tools it delivers. The old adage, ‘If you can’t measure it you can’t use it,’ comes to mind.  But I’m getting increasingly uneasy about the the amount of weight given to this one dimension. Client review meetings devote an inordinate amount of time to going over the stats, slicing and dicing the data. Nothing wrong with that, but I would like to start re-dressing the balance a little. Putting the user more centre stage rather than the numbers.

It’s easy to count the user sessions, track the visitors and measure the conversions, but often, when we look to improve the performance, the focus is upon the numbers, the keywords, the content and the clicks. Performance may be greatly enhanced by going back to the user and the user’s experience.

It’s easy to see why the focus tends to be upon the numbers – quantitative data is easier to collect and easier to analyse. Qualitative data is harder to amass and analysis takes more skill and experience than just wielding a calculator. Social psychologists use a number of approaches to qualitative data including ethnographic studies. One of the most interesting is perhaps grounded theory which, simply put,  means approaching the data with a completely open mind and no preconceived questions to ask – the theory being emergent from the data itself.

Unfortunately, when all the quantitative analysis of web stats has been done, qualitative decisions are often made on the basis of hunches and anecdotal evidence, with no real input from the user.

Perhaps getting back to the user and spending more time on the experience might deliver even better results that can then be evidenced by the stats. I feel sure that some of the predictable and unimaginative sites we see today are the product of too much data focus. They look as though they were built by statisticians – not humans.

Min uppsats kommer bygga på data av både kvantitativ och kvalitativ natur. Det kvantitativa består av självskattningsinstrument, formulär, som fylls i av patienterna under behandlingens gång. Svaren på dessa summeras till poäng och statistiska analyser (i detta fall kommer främst att handla om korrelationsstatistik) utförs på dessa. Denna typ av metodik är mainstream inom psykologi och i Uppsala är vi väl tränade i detta. Avsikten med denna del av uppsatsen är att testa befintliga teorier på de data som ges av behandlingen. Dessvärre kommer jag bara ha data från 10 personer att jobba med, så tillräcklig power för att dra några statistiskt säkerställda slutsatser saknas. Dock kommer jag ha viss glädje av de fem mätpunkterna (till skillnad från de i behandlingsforskning vanliga före-och-efter, ibland mitten-mätning), och visuell inspektion av dessa kommer att hjälpa mig att utforska teorier om förändringens form.

Den andra “delen” (om jag nu ska se på min uppsats som bestående av “två delar”, det vet jag inte riktigt) är den kvalitativa analysen av intervjuer som jag ska göra med deltagarna i gruppen. Det här är något som vi inte alls fått mycket utbildning i. Typ två, tre föreläsningar, en hemtenta och ett seminarium. Att skriva uppsats helt och hållet baserat på kvalitativ metod avrådes ifrån från instutitionens håll. Att jag ändå väljer att använda kvalitativa metoder beror egentligen inte så mycket på personliga preferenser; egentligen skulle jag nog kanske helst snöa ner mig i någon avancerad statistisk metod som typ Structural Equation Modeling, men då min data (förmodligen) inte kommer att tillåta sådana utsvävningar, och jag har råkat få tillgång till patienter att intervjua – ja, då vill jag förstås använda mig av något etablerat sätt att analysera dessa.

Det här med att först välja frågeställning, sedan lämplig metod för att svara på denna frågeställning, det tror jag mest är något som finns i sagovärlden…

Så, hur ska jag nu hitta fram i djungeln av kvalitativa metoder?

Kvalitativa metoder är inte det första man kommer att tänka på när det gäller KBT och forskning. Ett fåtal artiklar finns, och det verkar som att det är i England det händer. James Bennett-Levy, som mest är känd för sitt arbete med beteendeexperiment (Bennett-Levy et al, 2004), har argumenterat för att kvalitativa metoder har en plats inom processforskning även i KBT-världen och att kvalitativa och kvantitativa metoder kan komplettera varandra (Bennett-Levy, 2003). Enligt honom är grounded theory (GT) den mest “välartikulerade” av de kvalitativa metoderna; jag antar att han med detta menar att det är den metod där det är mest välformulerat vad och hur man egentligen gör…

Enligt Willig (2001, s. 10) är GT och innehållsanalys de former av kvalitativ analys som passar bäst in i ett i övrigt empiricistiskt ramverk. I GT tänker man sig att teorier upptäcks genom så kallad “ständig jämförelse” av data, att verkligheten “finns där ute” för oss att upptäcka; mycket riktigt heter också Glaser och Strauss bok från 1967, det konstituerande verket i ämnet, The discovery of grounded theory. De flesta (?) andra kvalitativa metodologier bygger på en mer socialkonstruktionistisk epistemologi, att verkligheten konstrueras när vi forskar. Typ. Jag hör väl till de som aldrig riktigt har förstått mig på den socialkonstruktionistiska utgångspunkten (ja, visst är mycket av det vi upplever som verklighet “socialt konstruerat”, men det betyder inte att det inte finns en objektiv verklighet och att det inte går att försöka närma sig denna med vetenskapliga metoder). Och det vore ju konstigt om min uppsats skulle bestå av två delar: en kvantitativ, och en som bygger på metoder som förkastar användandet av kvantitativa metoder…

Så min utgångspunkt har ett tag varit att “det där med grounded theory verkar bra, och han den där James kan man nog lita på”. Men jag har börjat fundera. Jag har ju inte möjlighet att, som i den “fullständiga” versionen av GT, växla mellan dataanalys och datainsamling – det som kallas “theoretical sampling”; att man börjar analysera och bygga upp sin teori, och sedan känner att man skulle behöva komplettera med någon som kanske tycker annorlunda för att täcka alla fall, ja då hittar man någon ny att intervjua, tills man uppnått “mättnad”. Det kan inte jag, jag har ett antal patienter att intervjua under en vecka. I Willig (s. 38) beskrivs även en “abbreviated” variant av GT, där man bara har originaldata att jobba med.

Ett annat bryderi är att själva poängen med GT är att generera teorier, inte att förhålla sig till teorier som redan finns. Vissa GT-extremister förespråkar till och med att man inte läser in sig på befintlig litteratur i ämnet förrän efter man har gjort sin egen analys! Men jag är liksom redan kontaminerad; med min kvantitativa del är jag intresserad av att till exempel jämföra teorier för förändringsprocesser, som “rapid early response” vs. “sudden gains”  vs. “depression spike” (Hayes et al, 2007). Förhoppningen är att intervjuerna ska komplettera den kvantitativa datan; för all del gärna ge nya perspektiv och infallsvinklar, men förhålla sig till existerande teorier. Det tycker liksom jag är intressant.

Så det är kanske snarare då “innehållsanalys” – vad det nu exakt innebär – jag bör syssla med?

Jag får återkomma. I find more. Chenqui!

Referenser

Bennett-Levy, J. (2003). Mechanisms Of Change In Cognitive Therapy: The Case Of Automatic Thought Records And Behavioural Experiments. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 31(03), 261-277.

Bennett-Levy, J., Butler, G., Fennell, M., Hackmann, A., Mueller, M., Westbrook, D., et al. (2004). Oxford Guide to Behavioural Experiments in Cognitive Therapy (p. 488). OUP Oxford.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory : strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne, N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter.

Hayes, A. M., Laurenceau, J., Feldman, G., Strauss, J. L., & Cardaciotto, L. (2007). Change is not always linear: The study of nonlinear and discontinuous patterns of change in psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology Review, 27(6), 715-723. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2007.01.008.

Willig, C. (2001). Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology: Adventures in Theory and Method (p. 217). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Had a really interesting talk from Emma Murphy ( a PhD student and designer for Graven Images). She focused on research methods :

• Ethnography
• Grounded Theory
• Case Study
• Action Research

Emma’s attitude was really honest and inspiring. Her advice: look within myself and look at my own practice.

1. Terei colhido dados suficientes sobre as pessoas, os processos e o ambiente, ao ponto de compreender a totalidade do contexto do estudo?
2. Introduzi descrições detalhadas acerca dos pontos de vista e das acções da amostra?
3. Os dados revelam-me o que está por debaixo da superfície?
4. Os dados são suficientes para revelar algumas mudanças ao longo do tempo?
5. Colhi dados que me permitem desenvolver categorias analíticas?
6. Que tipo de comparações é que posso fazer entre os dados?
7. Como é que essas comparações geram e estruturam as minhas ideias?

De facto quem procura sempre encontra. E eu encontrei finalmente a melhor forma de integrar a Grounded. O livro teve que viajar de avião até mim, mas revelou-se bastante mais barato do que muitos os que por aqui andam. Às tantas veio de low cost

Ora aqui está ele, e aconselho-o a todos os camaradas desta batalha. Muito bom, muito explicativo e objectivo, como se quer.

De methode om gebruikersgegevens te verzamelen binnen het UCD proces behoort tot wat men noemt kwalitatief onderzoek. Kenmerken van kwalitatief onderzoek zijn:
- Beleving van de onderzochten; interpretatief.
- Onderzoek in de alledaagse omgeving; naturalistisch.
- Open onderzoeksprocedure.
- Onderzoeker als instrument.
- Werken met teksten (transcript) die uitgebreide en gedetailleerde beschrijvingen omvatten.
- Verklaringen van betrokkenen en vanuit theoretisch en/of maatschappelijke achtergronden.
Bron: ‘Analyseren in kwalitatief onderzoek’ van Hennie Boeije.

De wortels van het UCD proces liggen bij de Grounded Theory , een methode van kwalitatief onderzoek. Meer informatie over de Grounded Theory op Wikipedia, voor de liefhebber

Volgende keer: Hoeveel mensen moeten we interviewen?

Karin van den Driesche – Filterdesign

Eigentlich beschrifte ich Kopien nur, wenn es etwas zum Text anzumerken gibt. Manchmal hebe ich etwas ganz besonders hervor, wenn es mich freudig oder ungläubig zum Lachen bringt.

Nicht so heute.

Glaser und Strauss – 2 bekannte Forscher im ach so undefinierten Gebiet der Soziologie, verleiteten mich tatsächlich dazu, meine Gedanken zu verbild- und verschriftlichen. Schon bei der Lektüre ihres 1967 erschienen Werkes über die Entdeckung der Grounded Theory (datenbasierte Theorie – man erfasse Massen an Daten (zB Interviews), stecke sie in selbst erfundene Kategorien und tue nachher so, als hätte man die beste Theorie der Welt, um mal zu polemisieren) hätte ich schreien können vor Abscheu. Nun sitze ich hier mit einem Energydrink, der diesem Text um nichts in ekelhafter Süße nachsteht.
Auf meinem Blatt: eine Skizze von Prof. Snape mit dem wunderbaren Satz

„I may vomit“.

Yes, I’d really like to vomit!
Ich schreibe eine Arbeit über die Selbstbeweihräucherung zweier Männer, deren Intention ich ein wenig, deren Rechtfertigung ich aber überhaupt nicht verstehe! Gefühlte 40% des Buches entbehren jeder Grundlage. Eine „Logik der Forschung“, um es mit Sir K. R. Popper auszudrücken, entdecke ich ebenfalls nicht. „Die Theorie kontrolliert sich selbst“. Welch grandioser Satz. Ich weiß zwar nicht, wie die kleine Theorie das macht oder ob ich als Forscher auch nur irgendetwas dazu beitragen muss – geschweige denn, ob ich es bemerke, aber Hauptsache, es steht im Buch. Dass man diesen Aussagen nicht trauen und sich nicht darauf beziehen darf, merkte ich ja spätestens bei einer mündlichen Prüfung, als ich mich an etwas, das mein Prüfer in einer Vorlesung gesagt hatte, erinnerte und dies auf mein Thema anwandte. Schlag ins Wasser, ich danke schön.

Vermutlich können die Wenigsten, die das lesen (gibt es die überhaupt?!), nachvollziehen, warum ich mich schier kaputtlache, wenn die Herren Autoren zugeben, dass ein Teil ihrer Daten wahrscheinlich „nicht ganz genau“ ist. An dieser Stelle fügte ich ein orange leuchtendes „*lol*“ in den Text ein…
In den wenigen mir vorliegenden Blättern von „Betreuung von Sterbenden“ entdecke ich kaum eine Seite, auf der nicht dick und fett steht, dass die von ihnen entwickelte Methode (die damals noch keinen Namen trug) die einzig richtige sei.
Und alle Probleme löse.
Und wahrscheinlich auch die Welt retten würde. Naja, fast.

Der Stil der Schriften ist eine Mischung aus Anbiederung und von-oben-herabschauen (ihr wisst ja, der Weltfrieden). Ganze 7 Seiten habe ich mit vielen Unterbrechungen gelesen (noch immer in schauriger Erinnerung an „The Discovery of Grounded Theory“, welche ich mir letztes Jahr zu Gemüte führte) und schon muss ich Schmähungen dahinkritzeln und bloggen, um nicht zu explodieren.
Dabei las ich noch nicht einmal Glasers Rundumschlag gegen seinen ehemaligen Kollegen Strauss und dessen spätere Forschungspartnerin Juliet Corbin (1). Er bzw. später beide hätten die G.T. unter anderem verfälscht und sich zu eigen gemacht. Laut Strübing (2) „harter Tobak“ und in etwa so wissenschaftlich wie meine „Freude“ über die bloße Existenz dieses Konzeptes… Gewehrt hat sich Strauss übrigens trotz der teils auch sehr persönlichen Angriffe nie. Er starb 4 Jahre später, Glaser tobt sich derweil in Büchern und seinem selbst gegründeten Forum (3) aus.
Hurra!

Ich schweife ab… lange Rede kurzer Sinn: wenn ich Punktabzug für mangelnde Distanz zum Thema bekomme (und die Mitstreiterin, für die Numero 3 et moi fast alles gemacht haben, für ihren monotonen Kleckervortrag, welcher fast nur aus nicht gekennzeichneten Zitaten bestand, nicht), was bekommen dann diese beiden?
Karies?

1) „Emergence vs. Forcing“ von Glaser; 1992 – Einleitung
2) J. Strübing – “Grounded Theory”; 2004 – S.63
3) http://www.groundedtheory.com
(“The Grounded Theory Methodology of Barney G. Glaser, Ph.D., Hon Ph.D.” )

Nachtrag 7.2.08
Zum Glück gibt es doch noch Menschen, die die GT in normale Worte packen können.
DANKE!
…dass manche Texte auch ohne das kleinste bisschen Beifallsheischerei auskommen.Oben erwähnter Karl Popper ist ja zeitlebens auch äußerst von sich überzeugt gewesen – allerdings gewürzt mit Sarkasmus und Ironie, statt hemmungslosem Zuckerguss.
.

Welcome to episode #8 of the Comms Student Paper Podcast.

I discuss the three case studies I want to use for my meta-analysis. I’m still looking for one more. Runtime: 5:55.

References ($$):

Brinson, S.L., & Benoit, W.L. (1996). Dow Corning’s image repair strategies in the breast implant crisis. Communication Quarterly, 44(1), 29 – 41.

Chin, T., Naidu, S., Ringel, J, & Snipes, W. (1998, March). Denny’s: Communicating amidst a discrimination case. Business Communication Quarterly, 61(1), 180 – 197.

DeVries, D.S., & Fitzpatrick, K.R. (2006). Defining the characteristics of a lingering crisis: Lessons from the National Zoo. Public Relations Review, 32, 160 -167.

Download the file here (MP3, 5.42MB), or subscribe through Podcast Ready or iTunes.

Text or audio feedback is welcome. Please leave comments either in the blog or email me at youngbloodpr[at]gmail.com.

The theme music is Summer Sun by ne7.

Welcome to episode #6 of the Comms Student Paper Podcast.

I talk about the research paper schedule, the importance of having a schedule, and why you don’t want to end up like the old, burnt-out academic in the corner of the campus pub. Speaking of burn-outs, this podcast may be taking on a more intermittent schedule. BUT, as my favorite action hero says: I’ll be back. Runtime: 11:21

Links:

Grounded Theory (wikipedia)

Grounded theory: a thumbnail sketch

Download the file here (MP3, 10.4MB), or subscribe through Podcast Ready or iTunes.

Text or audio feedback is welcome. Please leave comments either in the blog or email me at youngbloodpr[at]gmail.com.

The theme music is Summer Sun by ne7.