This week we begin a two-week journey exploring influential methodologies in the genre of teacher research. This week we are investigating Ethnography and the Case Study. After reading through the two NCRLL volumes, reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of these two approaches. How are case studies and/or ethnographies consistent with our previous study of the goals, means, and challenges of teacher research? Are there any ways that these methodologies are inconsistent with how and why teachers engage in research? Last, do these methodologies pose any particular practical, theoretical, or ethical challenges for the teacher researcher?
Janet
I posted this last week, but posted it late and am not sure if anybody had a chance to look at it. Let me know what you think. Have a great week!
ReplyDeleteI have never really thought too much about conducting my own research until the last year or so. It has always been something that I knew I would be a part of in the future, but didn't really know how I would get there or what I would research. Even now, as the process of doing a dissertation is creeping up on me, seeing myself as a researcher is still a hazy picture. I took a course this summer with Donna Enersen, which really changed my ideas and outlook on research. It was my first research course in a long time, but it really inspired me to think more seriously about the research that I am going to conduct. One of the things that she recommended was to start a research group; to get a group of people together that do not necessarily have the same interests, but that could be there to help you out as you undergo the research project. My impression was that this group might help to narrow research questions, clarify interview questions, assist with coding or triangulation. She said that she started a group when she was in graduate school and they still are in touch and still help each other out. I think that this would be really interesting to dabble with a little bit.
Would anybody be interested?
When I think about the content from the readings this week with the things that we have been discussing in class thus far, a couple of things immediately stick out to me.
ReplyDelete1.) Within the readings for this week, the research tends to come from an intrinsic wondering about something and a genuine concern to explain or understand it better. In some of the other readings and ways that we have talked about teacher research, this is not always the case. Both articles from last week demonstrated situations where the research was not genuinely coming from the researcher. I argued this point last week when saying that I think it makes a huge difference when you think about where the research question/prompt is coming from. Closely related to this, I also think one needs to consider the stakes at hand in doing the research.
2.) When we are explicitly discussing teacher research, the teacher (most often) is the researching in his/her own classroom. In many of the examples that we saw from the reader, the situations were dissimilar in this way. I think that there is an extra layer of difficulty when the researcher is also the teacher. Although I have not formally conducted research in my classroom yet, my sense is that it would be extremely difficult to make the familiar unfamiliar because you as the teacher are such a part of the classroom community and environment.
3.) The structure of the research presented within the readings for this week versus the structure from some of the discussions and readings that we have had previously are different in terms of the amount of structure necessary. Within the readings that we read for the week, there was a specific manner in which research was to be conducted; steps were outlined and are expected to be followed as much as possible. My impression of teacher research from our discussions thus far is that the structure of teacher research seems very weak. There is no right or wrong way to conduct teacher research. The term teacher research seems to encompass such a wide range of definitions, yet (interestingly enough), at the same time isolates our research from "real" research.
In general I believe the idea of ethnography offers a lot to teacher research, the idea of asking “what is happening here?” (p. 31) because there were oftentimes when I would notice some kind of phenomenon and wondered that exact same thing. Like the example of the researcher who wondered why the skaters showed up around the same time without setting a time, I too wondered about what appeared to be inconsistencies with how students performed in different contexts, in different classrooms or with different assignments. I also think approaching a phenomenon without “a clearly defined research question or delimitating hypothesis” (p. 50) can be beneficial with teacher research because we often do not know the right questions to ask before we get started. Similarly the idea of reaching across disciplines is appealing to me from a teacher research perspective because it may encourage teachers to consider their students and classrooms in ways that they had never thought of before.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I don’t know that a true ethnography, as defined in the text, can be completed in one’s own classroom. As Shay mentioned, it would be difficult for a teacher to make “the familiar strange” (p. 32) in one’s own classroom. Heath and Street (2008) even caution about teachers that they “will find it easier to grow familiar with a ‘strange’ site than to maintain a value-neutral stance within the ‘familiar’ classroom” (p. 58). Along the same lines, teachers may struggle with their position as a part of the school “culture” when attempting to accurately understand and depict what is going on because, as Heath and Street point out, ethnographers look for “contradictions between what is believed and expressed and what is actually done and is often inexpressible” (p. 16). Can and should teachers do this while also being a part of the schools and classrooms? Is this desirable or even ethical? And what do we do with the belief that “the ultimate ‘business’ of the ethnographer ‘makes public the private and leaves the locals to take the consequences’" (p. 29)?
What struck me when reading through the case study text was the tension we have often talked about between local and general knowledge and our roles as researchers. By definition a case study is simply that – a case – from which a researcher can draw specific conclusions about, but how useful is a case study to the field of education if it is not intended to be generalizable? As Dyson and Genishi (2005) point out, “Generalizability has been central to these professional controversies” (p. 117). Personally, I liked the authors’ assertion that “In the end, readers ‘make their own sense of [data] fragments even though the note-taking ethnographer created, selected, and arranged them in the text” (Emerson, as cited in Dyson & Genishi), and think those who do qualitative research in general understand the relationship between a specific case and larger historical, cultural, political, and social dynamics. So I guess the problem is more getting those outside of this field to appreciate and understand this type of research for what it can do rather than either disregarding it or trying to make it do something it cannot and should not.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading On the Case: Approaches to Language and Literacy Research, I realize that I have been a case study researcher for some time. Not to simplify the approach or add ignorance to my tone, I have only conducted one “actual” case study; however, now I understand why I was drawn to this type of research. I have been fascinated with language since I was a child, and as a teacher, the fascination almost became an obsession. I am so interested in the students’ use of language, and their motivation or drive to use certain terms around me or become squeamish around other terms. I felt that many times over the affect was a reaction to their cultural background. And if I had been a researcher, observing the teacher (me) and her (my) students, this interpretation could have been had; I could have done a study of the community and found the motivations behind the students’ behaviors. I guess, in short, I am saying that I relate to the work of a case study researcher. I relate with this:
ReplyDelete“And yet the line between the ‘real’ and the ‘imagined’ is not so firmly set. Loose teeth, like sailing ships, deafness, literacy and language proficiency, do not have a fixed meaning. Rather, adults and children interpret their meanings in particular situations through interactions with others. And just as those adults and children are interpreting their experiences, so too may researchers who are studying them. Through collecting facts, case study researchers aim to enter into other people’s ‘imaginative universes’. That is, they aim to construct interpretations of other people’s interpretations—of others’ ‘real worlds’”. (Dyson & Genishi, 2005, p. 18)
I think the hardest thing for me to really wrap my head around, here in graduate school, is that so much of research is about it having a “fixed meaning”, and in most of my teaching experience (the reason for this move, the want to research students) I never believed anything really had a fixed meaning. So, when I conducted my case study there were no fixed meanings; we (the students and I) worked through the novels I had chosen to study, and through communication and dissection, there were several “meanings”. I just happened to focus on their interpretation of moral and its representation in the young adult novels chosen. In the end, I found it beneficial as a research and an educator to interpret their language and assess its value. I also appreciated the ability to observe the students communicating with each other, while looking for real world meaning in connection to the book in question.
I did have existential moments during my case study (as described in the book). I was not really sure who I was supposed to be. I tried the teacher approach during the first book club meeting, and was met with major disregard from the students. They were not there to be taught by me; they were there to learn from each other and to “flex” their already stored knowledge. It was incredibly impressive, from a teacher’s perspective. So the next couple of meetings, I sat out of the discussions and just took notes, but that did not work, because the students would come to point in the story where they would need to ask my opinion. By the fifth or sixth meeting, I got the hang of it and found my purpose. I am sure that in any case, an identity crisis will exist and all it will take is a bit of time to settle into the correct identity for each particular case.
Just a bit more...
ReplyDeleteThe funny thing about my connection with case study research is the pure irony behind my belief in case research and my philosophy on teaching. I promise not to go into it, but as a teacher I was not taken seriously by my peers because of my “kooky antics” (which were not antics at all, but my real philosophy)…and it seems that I am attracted to a research field that may be perceived in the same way. After all, “what, then, is the educational relevance of researchers spending vast amounts of time and always stretched institutional funds on the intense study of singular individuals, local activities, and specified places?” (Dyson & Genishi, 2005, p. 1) Yeah, what is the relevance????
The most noticeable feature of this week's readings, for me, was the reappearance of a theme that has manifest itself in a variety of ways – the blurring of boundaries. I looked at Janet's original questions for this week and began reading with them in mind, so I was already in a compare/contrast mindset. However, the more I read, the more I felt unsure of how to respond to the prompts this week; honestly, I'm still not entirely sure because I'm still having a hard time determining where the boundary between case study and ethnography lies. To me, this is all part of the same difficulties that Shay, Beth, and Taylor have all mentioned, and that we have discussed in regards to teacher-researcher identy.
ReplyDeleteOne idea that occurred to me is that the real difference between the two is not in the methodology but in the mind set one brings to the research. My impression from the case study text is that there is a lot less troubling of the notion of “otherness” and problems of insider vs outsider status. Dyson and Genishi devoted about a page to “complicating our roles and identities” (p. 56-57). I compare this to Heath and Street's extensive discussions in the first and sixth chapters regarding the historical and theoretical underpinnings of ethnography. In their section on reflexivity, Heath and Street say, “ethnographers. . . see their research within historical and structural constraints that result from asymmetrical power distributions” (p. 123). They also wrote extensively about the colonial roots of ethnography and the concerns regarding whether or not informants would respond authentically to an outsider for just such a reason. In the prologue of her ethnographic study Blacked Out: Dilemmas of Race, Identity, and success, Signithia Fordham tells of the problems she faced even as an “insider” in a culture because her position as professor led her to behave in ways counter to the expectations of the members of her community, which led in turn to her students to “other” her and turn off. I mention all these things to point out that there just seems to be so much more thought that goes into the telling of “what's happening here?” in an ethnography, and so much care that goes into situating the answers theoretically and historically with an eye toward defending one's conclusions from being misused and toward thoroughly analyzing one's own position as the eye that engages in “the violence of watching” (Fordham, 1996, p. 6). Case study seemed to be far more situated in the present - “instead of developing a moving past” (Heath and Street, p. 124)
I'm with Shay in continuing to trouble the idea of “teacher research” as a separate category because of the way I felt in reading these two texts. Heath and Street mention the long standing practice of those who engage in ethnography to become experts in both their subject matter and in the techniques of anthropology and ethnography (p. 120-122). Their description of those who “do ethnography” made it seem like a pursuit not for the faint of heart, and not for those who are also teaching 120-150 students at the same time. For that matter, they made it sound like those who do ethnography in education aren't even doing it right. They say, “individuals typically enroll in graduate schools of education and almost never complete the same sequence of coursework as that undertaken by doctoral students in Anthropology or Linguistics Departments” (p. 122) which I read as “you're doing it wrong because you aren't properly prepared.” Maybe I'm overly sensitive. My impression of the case study is that it's much more teacher-friendly in terms of the expectations and what a busy teacher could reasonably accomplish, especially one who is not pursuing a graduate degree at the time. As these thoughts started to surface, however, I realized that I'm dumbing teachers down with these thoughts and falling into that trap of expecting teacher research to be different and not as rigorous as other research.
* This is my response for the case study book. I'll post on the second book a bit later.*
ReplyDeleteOne thing that struck me in the case study text was an early statement by Erickson - “It is the messy complexity of human experience that leads researchers to case studies in the qualitative and interpretive condition (Erickson, 1986)” (Dyson & Genishi, p.3). Reading this statement reminded me of a research course I took last spring. On numerous occasions, my professor talked about how the messiness of qualitative research is the reason why it is so rewarding and challenging at the same time, and I think Dyson and Genishi would agree.
While I love the messiness, it also scares me. As a novice researcher (if I can call myself one), I am intimidated by the messiness and my role in relation to it. I am intimidated because such research, as Geertz states, allows us to “enter into other people’s ‘imaginative universes’ (Geertz, 1973, p. 13). That is, [we] aim to construct interpretations of other people’s interpretations – of others’ ‘real worlds’ (D & G, p. 18). To me, this is a big, important, and challenging responsibility.
One of the challenges we all face as researchers – however we define our roles as such – is evaluating, interpreting, and understanding other people’s lives, but sometimes we need to keep these in check. As D & G write, “there is a need to articulate and bracket one’s evaluative urges…In the end, the qualitative case study researchers want to interpret those behaviors by understanding their varied meanings in the experiential world they are hoping to enter” (D & G, p.32). Coming to this understanding can be rather difficult, for when we consider the messiness, we must consider all of the factors (as D& G discuss) that make up not only who we are studying (think of culture and context), but the factors and experiences that make up who we are as researches and how we evaluate, interpret, and create meaning in and through our research.
To keep us (researchers) in check (so to speak), one thing D&G advocate for is “documenting the research journey” (p.39). Again, this reminds me of the class I took last spring. Though perhaps a bit different than documenting the journey, one thing my professor hammered home was the importance of documentation – a researcher’s journal – and rightfully so. Many times our own thoughts, experiences, initial reactions etc. can impact what and how we see the case study unfold and how we interpret the data (p.32). From my own experience, documenting the journey and my journey as the researcher has proved beneficial.
In the context of our “research journey” connected/disconnected with the studies themselves, we need to consider “who are we” and “reflect on which lenses we look through” in our research (p.58). Figuring out who we are (and who we are going to be) is key. As D&G discuss, everything from what we wear to where we sit in the room has an impact on our role in the classroom. Do we help students? Simply sit back and observe? Pass out papers? Befriend students? Where is / what is the line?
Like I mentioned in the beginning, it’s messy. As qualitative, case study researchers, we deal with and represent the narratives of real people’s multifaceted and messy lives. So, to end my discussion on this text, what are your thoughts on the messiness of this kind of research?
Like with my discussion of the case study book, for the ethnography text, I want to start with a quote. Here it is:
ReplyDelete“those we study, in their actions, beliefs, and words, will never offer up easily discernable patterns. The complexities of human life come through in striking ways when we try to figure out just how individuals and groups learn and how those who teach and model think instruction and socialization work” (Heath & Street, p. 107).
This, like my previous post, links to the messiness of people’s lives. What I like about this quote is the focus on understanding, on “trying to figure out just how individuals and groups learn” (p. 107). As an ethnographer, determining or discerning patters and interpreting (if this is the right word) symbols are of great importance. There are so many other things, as Okely argues, than just the verbalization of ideas and thoughts, which are “sources of meaning…gestures, positioning, and silencing in their contexts, [are] all clues for composite understanding (p.45)” (Heath & Street, p.24).
Okely's statement (and much of this text) reminded me of Peter McClaren’s ethnographic work Schooling as Ritual Performance. In his work, McClaren studies how students perform schooling (as the title implies). Through interpreting and analyzing signs and symbols, he learns how the students negotiate schooling as well as how the school itself creates a space for “ritual performance.” This is all to say that McClaren’s work is one I think encapsulates much of what this text discusses, and would definitely recommend it to those of you interested in ethnography!
Moving on. Another statement about ethnography that I found interesting was this – “Ethnographic research has come to mean ‘making the familiar strange’” (p.32). I really liked this quote, not for any profound reason necessarily, but simply because I think it’s something simple and true that we may not necessarily think about all too often. In “making the familiar strange,” we can problematize and learn from what we know (or what we think we know), and come to a fuller understanding of how we function in certain settings, communities, and cultural contexts.
The last quote I want to briefly discussion concerns the researcher’s engagement with subjects/ data. H & S write, “Every ethnographer must always be on guard against letting one’s own beliefs about what should be over come the accuracy of detailing what is” (p.37). While I of course agree with this statement, isn’t “what is” still in itself subjective (at least to a degree)? Anything other than writing down or detailing things such as “John walked to his desk” requires some subjective detailing. Consider, “how” did John walk? What expression was on his face? These are all things that we must somehow interpret. How do we find that balance (if I can call it that) between seeing what we want to see / making judgments about what should be and simply documenting what is?
Because (as researchers) we come to our work with our own experiences – experiences that are often very personal and drive our research interests to begin with – I find am not sure I can truly answer this statement, but it is one we must continue to consider.
Several classmates have mentioned the quote in the ethnography book about making the familiar unfamiliar. I think that this is a powerful idea for teacher researchers. In previous classes we have discussed the emancipatory power of teacher research and t.r. groups. Part of the power of this research lies in the fact that it forces teachers to examine themselves and their educational contexts in different (and often deeper) ways. To make the shift from identifying themselves as teachers to teacher-researchers they have to being, in effect, seeing the familiar as unfamiliar (this includes, of course, how they see themselves). So, even though it may be unrealistic for teachers to do a true or full ethnographic study in their own classrooms, the tools of ethnography (and case studies) can prove very useful.
ReplyDeleteFROM SUDHA:
ReplyDeleteMy research question is:
can anyone learn?
I have often been asked this question
in regard to my daughter, Maya, and
her peers. Maria Montessori and some of
the early education researchers believed
that anyone could learn.
Certainly Vygotsky did with his
social cognition theory and the
zone of proximal development which was
mentioned in the research of the guest
speakers a couple of weeks ago.
Currently they are being drugged,
used as commodities for the corporate
philosophy. The euphemism is medicated.
How can one learn when one's mind is numb?
My research is imperative for Maya and her peers
are being drugged through no fault of their own,
because it is status quo.
One needs to challenge what is accepted.
When there is no hierarchy, when individuals of
all socioeconomic classes can work together,
side by side, to keep the community thriving,
then and only then will the human race know
true freedom and realize a real democracy.
There can not be a perfect methodology.
Many good points were made on the blog about
the ethnography and the case study, but I have to
overlook the flaws of any methodology because
my research is real, in the here and now.
The welfare of Maya and her peers is at stake
and time is of the essence.
I look forward to learning the ins and outs of
both the ethnography study and that of the
case study, learning all I can to save the lives
of Maya and her peers, and watch them blossom.
As Maria Montessori believed,
observation is the key to teacher research and
well-rounded students.
Thank you
Sudha
I want to expand a little on what I wrote above...
ReplyDeleteIn the ethnography book on p. 120 - 122 there is a section called 'Ethnography in Education'that makes a distinction between "ethnographic studies of education," and "ethnographic studies in education". They write that eth. studies OF education are typically done by those outside of education (anthropologists, linguists, etc.) with the purpose of developing and contributing to theory. The alternative, eth. studies IN education, are done by those in the education field (at both the college and secondary level) with the goal to reform some aspect of the education system.
For teacher-researchers, I think this distinction is important. It may be an ethical conflict for a teacher-researcher in a secondary school to focus on 'ethnographic studies of education' since the main purpose of their job is to provide a quality education for their students.
I don't see the same conflict for teacher-researchers who conduct 'ethnographic studies in education'. It is a good idea for teachers to employ techniques from ethnography in order to improve things like instruction and school contexts.
So in this sense, I don't think that the case study or ethnography are problematic for teacher-researchers. I think the key question for teacher-researchers to ask is "how will this research benefit or contribute to my understanding of my local educational context?"