In my Problem Statement ASL paper, I discussed some of my thoughts on methodology, so I am including it here. In addition to that, I wanted to highlight a few of my thoughts.
First of all, I want to start from being clear about how little I feel like I understand research methods. As I mentioned in my introduction in this course, I identify much more as a “resourcer” than a researcher. I am inclined more to action and results and really appreciate people who have the patience to do research, but haven’t necessarily seen myself in that position. However, I do love applying the research that other people have done in practical ways; I am trying to do that with myself and having a Growth Mindset (Dweck, 2008) to say that I am not a researcher… yet.
Action Research
That said, in thinking about a methodology, Action Research, as described by Stringer (2014) really feels in line with my own approach to this work. In many respects, action research seems more in line with community organizing which focuses on supporting people in finding solutions to their own problems. Stringer writes “This research stance acknowledges the limitations of the knowledge and understanding of the ‘expert’ researcher and takes account fo the experience and understanding of those centrally involved in the issue explored – the stakeholders.” (p. 36)
Since Action Research is qualitative in nature, I continued looking for other methodological frameworks that could provide a path for doing research that draws on collaboration with the stakeholders in my research problem – which is looking at how issues of power and privilege can be effectively addressed through RID’s Certificate Maintenance Program.
Grounded Theory
I have read a fair number of research papers – through my involvement with CIT and interest in creating resources. I had seen people share that they used grounded theory – which I must admit I thought really meant you could figure it out as you go along and that I assumed it was less rigorous than other frameworks for research. While I am still very much learning about Grounded Theory, I do now see that there is a high degree of rigor in the process. I plan to do more reading of Charmaz (2006) to have a more complete understanding of the approach, but the more I read, the more I feel like it is a good fit.
Constructivist Grounded Theory
In particular, I am interested in the constructivist theory. When I shared this article with Jolanta, her first comment was, “This is badass.” (Galloway, 2018), an opinion with which I concur. For me, there are several things that I find attractive in the approach.
Setting Research in Social Context
Charmaz suggests that CGT builds on general grounded theory by “asking probing questions about the data and scrutinizing the researcher and the research process. Unlike other versions of grounded theory, the constructivist version also locates the research process and product in historical, social, and situational conditions.” (Charmaz, 2017 p. )
Challenging Individualistic Bias
Charmaz also argues that much of North American research maintains an individualistic bias and can overlook parts of cultures that might be more collectivist in nature. In looking at power and privilege in the context of the interpreting field, having an approach that is more able to critique individualistic approaches seems to offer potential for a more critical inquiry. I’m not exactly sure yet how this happens, but I am looking forward to working it out.
Methodological Self-Consciousness
Another thing that Charmaz (2017) suggests is integral to CGT is for the researcher to develop methodological self-consciousness. This includes looking at the researcher’s own social positioning and privilege. “Grounded theorists who forgo subjecting their privileges and positions to rigorous scrutiny are unlikely to take their research into critical inquiry.” (p.39)
Semi-Structured Interviews
Grounded Theory also starts with collecting data from stakeholders and I see it using ethnographic approaches. At this point, I am thinking of starting with semi-structured interviews and hoping to also include focus groups. (Hale & Napier, 2013) Reading some other projects, like Cheryl Gallon’s project from C1 on microagressions that interpreters commit against Deaf people of color, I was struck by how challenging it can be to do a number of interviews and focus groups. She ended up adapting to working with 2 case studies – using two lengthy interviews. So I want to be realistic in the amount of work that I can take on with my method – and what fits within the parameters of a master’s action research project.
Discourse Analysis
Charmaz suggests that interviews can lead to identifying organizational documents which might need to be analyzed. Doing an action research project that focuses on RID, I am thinking that I might end up looking at documents regarding power and privilege. Since I am using ASL as my language for inquiry, it might also be useful for me to do some discourse analysis on some of the webinars that are currently available for looking at power and privilege.
Language Use
Perhaps most important to my methodology, I will be seeking to have ASL be the primary language throughout the process – both in conducting interviews, doing analysis, and the output of my research. This is part of challenging my own privilege as a native English speaker as well as exploring the barriers that exist for the use of ASL within academic settings.
With Grounded Theory, there is a step within the process of memo-writing to help with the analysis. So, I am thinking about how to do this as “memo-signing.” I am planning to use GoReact as a tool for doing more video-based analysis.
One Final Thought
As part of looking at researchers to follow, I contacted Dave Coyne to get his dissertation. (I hadn’t figured out yet how to use ProQuest.) He sent me the dissertation along with this advice. “ Always remember, a good dissertation is a finished one.” (Coyne, 2018) That to me seems to me good wisdom as we set out on this journey.
References
Charmaz, K. (2017.) “The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry,” in Qualitative Inquiry Vol. 23(1) 34–45 DOI: 10.1177/1077800416657105
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage publications.
Gallon, C. (2018). Exploring the Racial Microaggressions American Sign Language–English Interpreters Commit. [Master’s Thesis] Waiting for Sofia reference.
Galloway, J. (2018). Personal communication.
Hale, S., & Napier, J. (2013). Research methods in interpreting: A practical resource. London/New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Stringer, E. T. (2014). Action research, 4th Edition. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.