Signup date: 25 Oct 2009 at 6:09am
Last login: 05 May 2013 at 5:28am
Post count: 141
Well done Dr Pineapple! I've been following your thread for months now, and have been regularly checking the forum pretty much to see if you'd heard anything! I'm on the verge of submitting, your story has been gripping, so pleased its a happy ending...
I'm in my last two months of a PhD and have taken on a new job as a research officer (akin to an RA). I've seen numerous RA/RO jobs actually requiring a Phd (mine didn't though).
I personally didn't have a problem taking the job, as the experience and security was better than no job at all! So I think it's a great way to hone and develop your research skills post PhD. While perhaps not idea, it certainly won't be a waste of time (or weird!)
Not completely sure but I think the idea of 'bracketing' leans towards a post-positivist epistemology, in that you can 'turn off the tap of ideas' when analysing data. A more constructivist position would be open and reflective about ones influence on the study/data collection. I'm using constructivist grounded theory, and when I mentioned the idea of bracketing, my supervisor almost fell off her chair!
I'd also recommend you check a book called 'insider research' by Jarvis. As an insider (ie a researcher/practitioner) there are pros and cons compared to being an outsider (where there are also pros and cons). I have a section in my thesis termed 'insider research' and discuss these issues openly. I also intend to discuss the impact I may have had on the study in my final chapter...plus a reflexivity section... Not sure if this helps, but good luck! :-)
That's great, thanks KB. I have about 6 major themes and one core, I.e 7- but there is no way I'll be able to cover them all in sufficient detail. The problem is is that if I miss one of them, means the theory will not flow as it should...
Also, regarding the order of the findings- at the moment I have and overview listing the major themes 1-6, then each theme has its own slide with quotes and I'll talk about it. Then the final slide of the findings is the theoretical model- where all themes are related to another to form a kind of 'map/diagram'....then 2 slides for conclusions/implications...
Does that sound ok? Is that what you did?
Thanks so much for taking the time to help (up)
======= Date Modified 12 Sep 2012 13:30:15 =======
I have had a abstract accepted for a conference- I am presenting on Saturday :-(
My PhD is qualitative, taking a constructivist grounded theory approach, data is interviews, and observations..
A few worries:
This is a staunchly 'quantitative' conference, and my area is almost dominated by quanti/postivist research. I'm worried they just wont 'get' my research, and be horrified at the absence of a p-value...any way to counter this.
Also, with an audience that will be so unfamiliar with qualitative research/GT- how much background shall I go into on the approach?
Second. apart from presenting at 'work in progress' meetings at my uni, with other PhD students, this is my first ever time presenting at a 'grown up' conference, with an audience expecting to 'get' something new- some 'proper research'! Rather than the whole work in progress thing which is more about students talking through their progress etc...
I'm due to submit in January, and my sups says its great that I have this conference, and will be a good way to test the transferability of my theory- which I agree, but I'm not sure if the audience will see it that way- they'll not be interested in me 'practicing' or 'testing' my theory on them, they just want research! Not some blabbering PhD student...:$
Finally, I have 15minutes and 5 minutes for questions, and have 20 slides (including 1 reference and 1 acknowledgement)- that sound too much, but I cant seem to trim it down without loosing the thread of it. What about quotations from my participants, shall I add them to the slides (I have at the moment)???:-(
Appreciate any help (gift)
Out where? There is not single objective reality 8-)
I'm using contructivist grounded theory set within the the Interpretivist paradigm. I'm in health care and am looking at decision-making. In the final half of my final year (3rd year), hope to submit in Jan...hopefully :-(
It looks like my theoretical perspective will be parts of symbolic interactionism in order to help understand how practiotners define their clinical situation and determine their action....:-)
I'm also using GT for my PhD, and have taken a constructivist approach. A couple of weeks ago at my uni, we had a GT interest group and we managed to arrange for Barney Glaser to attend via Skype for a Q+A...really cool! I asked him a few questions (sheepishly!) regarding the use of technology (I.e NVIVO) and also about epistemological assumptions and 'classic' GT.
Anyway, having reflected on that what he and others from the Classic GT institute I'm convinced I'm not doing GT, as it was originally described. Classic GT appears quite different to either S+C or Charmazian GT. I'm probably doing (as you said), qualitative conceptual description...or something like that. However, I do tick many of the GT 'boxes' i.e data collection and analysis together, memo writing, theoretical sampling, achieving saturation/suffcicency, coding, and grounding my 'theory' in the data. I'm more than happy to defend not using Classic GT, as it's positivist/post positivist assumptions don't align with my personal assumptions about knowledge, reality etc.
I think Classic GT is a 'utopian' ideal, and that thinking you can just 'see patterns' and allow the theory to 'emerge' without any active involvement by the researcher/observer is problematic, and I would find it hard to defend when analysing and interpreting interview data.....
What's in a name anyway!?!
Hi all, my access starts just one year after this paper- would be sooo grateful if someone could obtain it for me this paper- would be sooo grateful if someone could obtain it for me , )
The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Carl Rogers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol 60(6), Dec 1992, 827-832.
======= Date Modified 02 May 2012 08:53:49 =======
Hi Ady and redridinghood- I'm also using Charmazian GT and try to develop a core category, which is not easy. Saying that, Charmaz is quite relaxed about the whole core category thing- she seems content with establishing the 'basic social processes' pg20. I think when taking a constructionist/interpretivist position you acknowledge that there are multiple truths and realities, rather than one 'true' category- this is too absolute and perhaps fits with the Glaserian (objectivist) GT.
A core social process is useful when trying to organise and sort your theory. My supervisor said 'if there was one word that you could use to describe what are participants are say/doing etc, what would it be- and that's your core category'.... I still haven't constructed it yet!
I'll probably still persist with trying to find one, but I feel I could argue in viva if I had 2 or three core social processes...
Masters DegreesSearch For Masters Degrees
An active and supportive community.
Support and advice from your peers.
Your postgraduate questions answered.
Use your experience to help others.
Enter your email address below to get started with your forum account
Enter your username below to login to your account
An email has been sent to your email account along with instructions on how to reset your password. If you do not recieve your email, or have any futher problems accessing your account, then please contact our customer support.
or continue as guest