Qualitative Researcher's Reflexive Log

The reading for this week's class details the different genres of qualitative research. My professor has already told us that all our studies will be phenomenological. From the word itself and from statements made by said professor, I assumed phenomenological research was the study of a phenomenon. In my group's case, the phenomenon we are studying is the perception of giftedness (which is very different from the phenomenon of giftedness itself). My textbook, though, defines phenomenological research as studies that "seek to understand the lived experiences of a small number of people." This definition focuses the attention on the people themselves as opposed to their perceptions. Using our study as an example, using this definition, we should be investigating the participants' lived experiences with giftedness--their own or someone else's. But, I think what we are really interested in studying is their perceptions of giftedness not their experiences with it. So, how can these two perspectives be reconciled?

Reading further in the textbook chapter I came to a longer explanation of phenomenological research. In this longer explanation, I can see how our study of various perceptions of giftedness could still fit with the textbook authors' definition of phenomenological research. The authors write, "Those engaged in phenomenological research focus in depth on the meaning of a particular aspect of experience, assuming that through dialogue and reflection, the quintessential meaning of the experience will be revealed." In our case, the participants' perceptions of giftedness will have been shaped by their experiences with giftedness--either their own or others--and through dialogue we hope to reveal the true meaning and consequences of this experience.

At this point, though, the previous question of how many participants to include comes into play once again. As the authors begin discussing the methodology of phenomenological research, they cite Seidman (1998) as recommending a "series of three long, iterative interviews" per participant. WOW! Previously I reflected on the very important question of how many different "roles" to include in our study plus how many different participants in each role to include. Now, if we are going to follow the recommendations of leading qualitative researchers we need to interview all of these participants three times--once for history, once for experience of interest, and once for reflective dialogue.

I am quickly beginning to see how a qualitative research study can rapidly become overwhelming! It is the middle of September, the semester ends in early December, and the full written report of this project is due on December 19th! *HOW* are four people going to be able to interview this number of people--three times--and analyze the data in time!?!? (Especially considering a recent hurricane has drastically slowed down the pace of many people's lives!)

Rossman, G.B. & Rallis, S.F. (2003). Learning in the field: an introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

So there seems to be two major questions/concerns about our study at the moment. One is "How much do we need to know and understand about deconstructionism in general in order to carry out a deconstructive study?" I think we know enough. We know the point is to try to break down the text--the answers of our participants--and to gain a deeper understanding, perhaps even multiple understandings, of what they are actually saying. It is much like reading between the lines. The goal is to break down the text and arrive back at the question with deeper, more complex, and more complete answers. While there is a fair amount of interpretation involved, deconstructivist researchers do not take part in the study as a participant. The researchers job is to generate, analyze, and present the data. Of course, that does not mean the researcher should not be friendly, compassionate, and caring with the participants. Just because the researcher is not participating does not mean he/she must be completely detached from the study--the scientist looking in on a lab through a one-way mirror kind of thing. But, the purpose of a deconstructivist study is to offer generalizations and not, necessarily, to get to know each of the participants deeply and well.

The second question/concern at the moment centers around our participants. To whom should we ask the question, "What is giftedness?" Currently, our thoughts are teachers who primarily teach gifted students at the elementary, middle, and high school level; teachers who primarily teach nongifted students at the elementary, middle, and high school level; administrators at each level and in the central office; school counselors; parents; students; gifted college freshmen. This list is a compilation of all the ideas expressed by my group members and me. To interview people in all these positions is a daunting task. And, I would think, you would need to interview more than one person in each position at each level to really get a representative sample of different perspectives and to be able to link these perspectives to specific roles in education.

So, *HOW* are four people going to be able to accomplish all of these interviews in 1/2 a semester?!?!

And, how do we triangulate our data!? (Okay, so I said there were two questions/concerns--there is actually three .) How do we increase our credibility by taking data on the same question from a variety of sources? We can't really observe someone's perception of giftedness--although we could observe our well his/her actions are aligned with the perceptions shared during an interview. We could also, as one of my group members suggested, give everyone a survey and them compare their survey answers with their interview answers looking for inconsistencies. How else, though, might we be able to triangulate our data? Any ideas?

// posted by Heather @ 1:36 PM

In one of my classes yesterday, Developmental Perspectives of the Gifted and Talented, we were talking about the notion of giftedness and how it is defined. Is giftedness defined by intelligence only? Or are there other factors, like productivity and creativity, that define giftedness as well. If so, how does one measure creativity and what amount of productivity qualifies one for the label "gifted?" Does giftedness equal genius? Certainly, all gifted individuals are not geniuses, but are all geniuses gifted? While none of these questions are precisely related to our research question of "What is giftedness?" they certainly help illustrate the complexity of such a question. All of the questions I have posed--and countless more--contribute to the definitions of giftedness formed by the individuals who will be participating in our study. It is these assumptions, I think, that we hope to uncover in our study. Not, necessarily, to refute them or change them, but to get a better understanding of what they are. Because these assumptions affect every aspect of education provided for gifted children. What we assume about what makes a child gifted or not has everything to do with what kind of educational services we provide him/her.

Ahhh.....the beginning of the qualitative research project. I know who my group members are and, for their own privacy, will be asking them to choose pseudonyms since this a public 'blog. They will feature prominently in this 'blog once their aliases are established. :-)

The question with which we will grapple is "What is 'giftedness'?" This question has been plaguing the field of gifted education for years. It is a very big, very vague question. Next to the question in parentheses was the statement "What do different people in different roles understand this phenomenon to be?" It is with this statement that we began our approach to this study. There are still many large questions that we need to address. One extremely important one is "What do we want to accomplish by completing this study?" Do we want to inform individuals about the different perceptions of giftedness and how these perceptions relate to the roles people play? Yes, to an extent. But, I think--and this is reflects only my own thoughts, I cannot speak for my group--that educators and those involved in education already know many perceptions exist. There are many perceptions about nearly everything in education. I think a more important question to answer is "Why are there different perceptions about the concept of giftedness and why do these perceptions differ with the roles people play?"

Our discussion progressed to one about the paradigm, or frame of reference, that would be best suited to our investigation. The early consensus seems to be that a deconstructivist paradigm would work well. We have a concept--giftedness--that we want to take apart and explore more deeply. We want to uncover the underlying reasons for the different perceptions surrounding this concept and this may be achieved by deconstructing the statements of the individuals holding these perceptions. Eventually . . .and I do mean eventually like the end of a long journey . . .we will arrive back at the question "What is giftedness?" with many rich, more complex, and varied answers. Answers that, hopefully, will help us all better understand the undercurrents of our perceptions of this concept.