Reworked the ‘change’ chapter today and am wondering for a topic as big as mine, when is it enough literature? I mean, I’ve got to the point where I’m finding literature quoting literature and there’s nothing really new, however, this is a big topic and I’m not convinced I have enough. So I think my step might be an EndNote and Scrivener audit to work out what I have from Australia on the topic versus other countries, then do a cross check on what I think, and then I might call it quits – for the moment, maybe.
The issue I have is I did a scholar search using a different approach and am finding some really cool stuff. It’s the application of post-structural thought into accounting and/or education. That’s cool. And then I’m finding topics in those that I would like to follow but then I’m in the proverbial rabbit hole. It’s time to get this chapter done so I can have my basis on which to move forward for data collection and analysis (which I’ve had to redo for the third time on my first collection as I keep rethinking about how to ‘let the story tell itself’. Of course, if the story is telling itself I shouldn’t have to ‘do’ anything, however I need the stories to tell me something vaguely thematic so apparently I have to think…) because the literature for me is an active player in my collection and analysis. This has been an interesting experience with the data collection while working up the literature. It’s been great to see how one idea feeds another, but at some point I have stop feeding the ideas and just get something done.
Had a great discussion with Michael this morning. It’s nice to have people around me to test my ideas and thinking, and not just on my thesis! Although we did talk about post-structural thinking this morning and agreed there was probably a bit of ‘get your hand off it’ in their process. However, the more time I spend with the post-structural concepts and ideas, the more I see how I need it in the thesis to explain my critique of the discourses. It’s nice to understand the limitations of my framework while gaining insights into their applicability. I do enjoy learning.
Additionally Amazon got more money from me today…..damn you Bruce.
There was agreement today with David on the title of this post and I can’t for the life of me remember what it was. And unusually I haven’t written it down….what I did write down was amazing stuff.
David and I had a supervisor meeting where we talked theory and I didn’t pout, sulk, get angry, teary or generally behave like a two year old. This is was we call progress. Conversation today was constructive, adult, informative, and I could keep up! Additionally, David suggested some direction and ideas and I was able to state that I’d actually adopted them already to a certain degree demonstrating our brains are finally vaguely on the same page.
The best thing about this same page concept, is that we have both moved. I don’t feel like my supervisor has told me I have to come to his idea of my thesis, and I haven’t dragged him to mine (wasn’t sure I had one to be honest…..). What we’ve done is had my two year old tantrums over theory and found a new page we can both share where we can both see the light at the end of the tunnel. Of course, David may state I have actually come to his page, and he knew I’d get here all along, but this isn’t his blog it’s mine so we’re going with my version of events. (How very post-structural, actually I think it’s post-modern).
Today also saw the return of narrative analysis into my thesis. I’ve been struggling with methodology and the LCE (logic of critical equivalence) but the missing piece of the puzzle came today when David stepped me through the ‘spine’ of my theoretical framework. All this time I’ve thought there was all these different theories I was using when in fact it’s just one – discourse – and everything else is the tools I need to do the research. The framework is the spine on which my research stems, but discourse is the theory, LCE, Laclau and Mouffe, narrative analysis are the way I use discourse theory in my research as the methodology. At least that’s how I understand it after today. Tomorrow might be different. That’s the joy of learning and growing – change is constant.
This is the most boring title I’ve written yet (I think!) but I need it as it’s the summary of the Colloquium I went to last week.
The reason for the summary to remind me in one place the key points for me. I find with the thesis trying to remember all that has gone before is tricky. I was actually showing this blog to my dad and he asked why I was doing it and I said so I could remember. I then showed him some of the posts under various tags and found myself going “oh yeah – that was a good idea, I should get back to that.”.
I really do have a very bad memory, so I need to use this as a tool to remedy that. All I can say is I’m so thankful for Scrivener because without it I would be lost in my notes for my research. Between that and EndNote I can actually go back and trace resources. But, notes from sessions such as the Colloquium need a home too, so I think this blog is the place for that.
Also, it means if you’re at all interested you can see what I found interesting! Of course, you’re completely free to ignore – after all this is for me, not you! *grin*
Notes: 8th Colloquium on Qualitative Research Methods in Business and Accounting 27