Interesting occurrences today. Building on the conversation with David this week about literature review format I’ve managed to develop a structure where the writing seems logical and meaningful. Today I wrote 1,187 words that I would be happy to show my supervisors. That has not happened before. I don’t expect all of them to make it to the final version in a few years’ time, but it is a relief to finally have something tangible in a way that makes sense to me and I think will make sense to others.
The next step is to complete the section I’m working on as it still has some gaps (not unexpected) but then it’s onto my Dad for a reality check and then onto the supervisors. You never know, maybe this weekend will see work product!
Of course the thought occurred to me I’m still playing with my questions leading to the distinct possibility this will change in the future, however, the meeting this week with David had some great steps forward. When I explained the direction I wanted to take the literature review and how it would lead to the questions I currently have, there was general agreement I was on the right path. Of course, I was missing the first step according to David, but I thought I’d represented it in the first box. But if he didn’t see it instantly I’ve not communicated properly, so now there is another box, in fact there are two new boxes as you can see: scapple – lit review
I should take this opportunity to thank Tony for putting me onto Scapple. It’s a great planning tool for me and is what I’ve used to create the image above for the lit review. I use it for everything. Between that, Scrivener and End Note, my life is a happy place.
As a result of our last PLC meeting it was agreed we would all write a paper on the research theory/paradigm/thing that we are going to be using in our thesis. This is a really good idea as all four of us seem unclear about this research paradigm/theory/method/thing that everyone talks about. To be honest though it could just be me and the others all get it but I’m still so confused it clouds all else. This is despite reading about research theory, having completed a research methods units and attending several sessions on research. I really don’t get it.
Anyway, I began research for my paper today and found this which has confused me more. It is a very clear, concise guide to theoretical frameworks but then we get to postmodern which is where I thought I was only to find that it rejects theory altogether. Well, this is a problem as I thought I was in discourse theory. So that means I’m not postmodern?
See here is the thing for me. Truth, for positivism is out there and can be measured. It is the same truth for everyone. No matter who drops the apple, it will fall and it will fall every time (right up until the point it doesn’t of course!). Constructivism is about truth being constructed by society. It is an apple because we agree it’s an apple and we have constructed this truth together. Critical theory is about truth being constructed by people more powerful than you and so by understanding that this truth may not be true for you there is empowerment in changing it. Postmodern is truth exists for us all but it is our own truth and no two people may share the same truth and that’s okay. Understanding comes from knowing that the truths are different. That’s my thesis there. Political intent for HE is one truth, business expectation is another and then commodification is the truth that is happening while no one pays enough attention. Well, this is interesting thinking, but it’s not getting this paper done for my PLC group…..
I have a study group. Like the people of Greendale Community College I have a group of people in the same unit and we have a support network. Unlike Geoff and friends, we actually focus on our work. The unit we share is 9311 and we are working out how to move forward on this. Here are the minutes of our first official get together.Notes from PLC meeting on 29 March 2015 (Yes there are minutes because I’m like that – and yes, I think that makes me Annie, sigh.)