Refers to the ability to evaluate and design research projects as appropriate, including understanding research tools.
The capacity to use of appropriate digital tools to conduct and manage research is also of relevance.
15 Feb 2015: Last Thursday (12 February 2015) I attended a session on qualitative data. It was conducted by Chris Chevalier from the ANU. Full notes are available in Evernote. The key message for me in relation to this learning outcome for this unit was the technique of coding. Chris did a really great job explaining how coding works for qualitative data and then how the accompanying memos can be instrumental in the thesis process. It was a great session with hands on practice. It was interesting the problem of displaying your qualitative data. Do you use a table, lists, pictures, stories or a mixture of these plus some of the other approaches Chris outlined. I hadn’t really thought about how to manage the output. I’m still very focussed on managing the input. What the session did was provide me with some good coding structures and in turn that’s actually helped me work a bit more out about my topic. As this unit is about me finding courses to attend I suppose I should get out there and find some more!
15 Feb 2015: In response to a blog post a person gave me this. It’s an interesting position about the precariat by Guy Standing. It’s outside scope for me but does highlight the shift in education and skills development being hindered in today’s world. “They lack and occupational identity and do not see building worth through their work.” This is an interesting perspective. He also has the view of commodification playing a large role in the impact of the change. I’ve now got the book so off to read!
10 March 2015: David Carter on ontology, epistemology and methodology. This session belongs against this outcome and number four too as there is serious cross over. It was an interesting session reminding me of the role of subject and object and their interactions. It was actually helpful in clarifying some of my thinking in my topic. He did two models of methodology. The first was positivism where the subject and object are completely separate as the world can be objectively known. Social constructionism was the second model as all subjects come together to give meaning to objects and it’s the agreed meaning. Objects have meaning because subjects interact. I did get to the end and think I didn’t really fit in either of these camps. It was okay, when I asked, David agreed I wasn’t in either camp I was somewhere different. So while I still don’t understand theory, at least I’m closer because I know what I’m not!
5 April 2015: Found this and find it very useful for putting all the research odds and sods together.
14 April 2015: Interesting session run by Barbara on qualitative research. We discussed approaches about using technology for qualitative analysis or not. Fundamentally the important aspect is to ensure your research is plausible, reliable, repeatable and has utility for the ongoing body of knowledge. I posted about this session on my blog and received feedback that I should look into auto ethnography. At the time I was not really aware of this meant and did not look into it further.
5 May 2015: Auto ethnography came up again as feedback on my presentation in relation to this unit from another academic. I asked for a copy of her PhD thesis in order to start exploring auto ethnography. As I know the academic I find reading their research a good entry point for new concepts as I have a port of call if I get confused.