Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Building your argument

I have been asked more than once what I mean by developing a synthetic argument. Of course, the phrase is not of my making. To me (only my take of course), it means synthesising your reading (literature review), perhaps your own primary data, and your rationale into a coherent argument. Bear in mind that my view is simialr to that of Barney Glaser, that your own bias, properly and fully described, is part of your data.

This argument should run through your essay, dissertation or thesis like the spine of a fish.

from my thesis: Reflexivity is closely bound up with, though separate from, reflective practice. The question of reflexivity on the part of the researcher is bound up with the historical development of qualitative action research. The issue of insider research has caused many researchers (including me) to have concerns that the very act of being part of the context being explored will change that context and affect the respondents to the detriment of enabling a theory to emerge. Hellawell (2006: 1) writes about reflexivity, referring to Shacklock and Smyth (1998), who give us the notion of “the conscious revelation of the role of the beliefs and values held by researchers in the selection of research methodology for the generation of knowledge”. As Hellawell points out this indicates a “deliberate self-scrutiny in relation to the research process”.


In other words, to be reflexive, the writer/researcher needs to reflect on her/his own potential impact on the phenomena being investigated. In fact, we should use this reflexivity to monitor the research process, and then, as Finlay (2002: 210) writes, the process is made clear and obvious and “personal experience is transformed into public, accountable knowledge”.

It is important, as Finlay points out, to maintain transparency by clear documentation of all interactions (in my case, interviews), and how these led to the next interaction (for me, how the analysis of each interview, along with my literature search, affected the schedule for the next set of interviews).

There remains a concern that the researcher has put her/his own inference on the analysis of the context. In fact, the constant process of re-analysis could even be regarded as muddying the waters rather than clearing them. Perhaps these concerns could be said actually to be the defining nature of late twentieth and early twenty-first century sociological writing. As Finlay writes, we have become very concerned with being self-analytical.

Finlay proposes certain ‘maps’ to negotiate what she terms the ‘swamp’ of reflexive research. The following gives a very brief account of each of these maps.

• Introspection – thinking about how I feel as the researcher and documenting this for the benefit of the reader, so that s/he may determine a fit with other contexts.

• Intersubjectivity – considering how the respondents might feel and discussing this as a means of further analysis of the way that the research has developed.

• Mutual collaboration – actively discussing with the respondents the relationships that have formed as part of the research

• Social critique – here, we might be seeking to describe a particular social phenomenon (for example, how the leadership style of the Head teacher and her/his professional relationships affect the process of change management within a school) –if using this map, it will be important to consider any power imbalance between the researcher and the respondents.

• Discursive deconstruction – here, Finlay warns of the need to be careful not to over analyse. In deconstructing, we may be in danger of not putting back together again. Like Pole’s flower, do the individual parts of the flower come back together to give us the idea of the beauty of a flower?

I worried about manipulating the conversation to get the result that I was looking for but easy channels of communication between researcher and respondent should enable both of them to reflect on the process. Indeed, the interviews which I have found most useful in terms of emerging themes and thoughts which link to other aspects of my research (such as the literature review) have also been ones where the respondents have said to me that the experience has enabled them to reflect on their own practice and theoretical position.

Literature review

This is just a few notes made after I attended a workshop at the Open University July 2012; I'd be glad of comments or other thoughts.


Six key areas:
  • ·         Outline your boundaries (e.g. just UK, just one type of school, just post 2000) but remember what one of the participants in the workshop said (Michael I think): keep your boundaries porous because sometimes something from 1948 might just be relevant!
  • ·         Find the gaps that you want to fill
  • ·         Write in a way which synthesises the literature (with proper attribution) rather than a list of who said what
  • ·         Set up e-mail alerts
  • ·         Follow up references from articles that interested you
  • ·         Follow up citations; for example, do an internet search for an author then see who has cited them

Consider many sources, with your personal framework being central















Remember there is more than one type of literature review and the one you do for a thesis will be different from one you do as a standalone piece of writing. As a standalone, published piece of work, the review represents a product. For a thesis, it represents a journey: signposting the reader through what you have found and what you intend to do with that, how it links with your own work.

  • ·         Decide if it will have a beginning, middle and ending (say what you’re going to say, say it, say what you’ve said)
  • ·         Always state the purpose of your review
  • ·         Give the review a personal voice as well as critical analysis rather than just description
  • ·         Recognise different discourses in an analytic way
  • ·         Your passion for the topic should be evident

Finally, some thoughts I wrote a while ago that came back into my head during the workshop:-

As I could basically be said to be in the Grounded Theory 'camp' I do regard the whole process of research as potentially yielding data. Thus, one's own bias (properly described and acknowledged) becomes data ( Glaser, B. G. (2002, September). ‘Constructivist Grounded Theory?’  Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 3, 3 http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-02/3-02glaser-e.htm   for a much better way of explaining than I can). And I think any researcher (GT or otherwise) will wish to link their literature review to their own empirical data. But how can this be done?



There are lots of different types of software and apps around now that can certainly aid the process ( as @lizith amongst others points out on #phdchat ) but does that help with developing a framework for actually using and linking your highlighted clips and references with other data? I am not sure that the following is really getting me to where I want to be. Comments welcome!