Research from the perspective of the subject

I got married on Saturday. It was a small ceremony with 9 guests at our house. This coming Saturday we are hosting a reception with around 65 – 75 people at the house. We have decided to do all the work ourselves to host the parties, and have had a considerable amount of renovations to complete in order to have two safe and enjoyable parties. In between working full time, assignments 4 and 5 for our current course were due at the same time!

Naturally, time management and effective planning have been relevant topics floating around in my brain for the past few weeks (not to mention periodically questioning my sanity). Time management is a soft skill that most organizations provide training for. I’m sure all of us have taken some kind of workshop that teaches us better time management strategies and skills. However, none of that learning seemed to apply to what I was going through this week. For example, organizing my day to be more productive (like answering all my emails at one time) where just not realistic solutions.

I began to wonder if any of these training workshops are informed by insightful qualitative research that describes and deeply understands the challenges that we all face in the new working and social environment. I would think if I had a researcher following and observing me over the past couple of weeks, valuable data would have been captured, which could then be analyzed to better inform learning design in Time Management curriculum.

As I reflect on this topic from the perspective of the subject instead of the researcher, it strongly supports the need for deep understanding of our culture, which only qualitative cultures of inquiry can endeavour to understand.

Wish me luck this Saturday!

Open Access and the Data Deluge

I think the movement towards open access of digital content is becoming well established. Communication and information sharing in the digital age looks very different now. Information is no longer a static and contained product, to be commoditized and controlled. Public opinion now has a platform for communicating and the public has a loud voice. Marketing organizations employ Community Managers to help listen to and moderate the conversations that are ongoing through the socially dynamic digital world. It is no longer a one-sided conversation. Consumers expect certain access to all kinds of products, whether it is media, print, music or other forms of information. For example, in learning, MOOCs are becoming more mainstream as open access learning content.

I think that the “social perspective of scholarship” (referenced in Spiro’s review of Borgman’s book Scholarship in the Digital Age), is a key idea that is based on the social infrastructure of the digital age, which resonates strongly with me. The new digital world has seen fundamental changes in how we conduct business. Consumers’ needs have changed, and so too have the models for making money. The digital infrastructure supports and facilitates a communication or a social construction of communities and knowledge. Information sharing is prolific, dynamic and unstructured.

It makes sense that scholarship in the digital age has also changed – and traditional approaches to intellectual property, access to research and copyright laws are now outdated and no longer relevant. New issues have arisen like authority, authenticity and accuracy of information, and how one consumes and parses information in this new world.

I think this picture says it all:

So how do we absorb all of this information and be engaged in meaningful dialogue with our peers in regards to research, data, trends and new insights in scholarship? What kind of strategies should we consider for consuming scholarly information – is it a technology question or a scholarship question? Perhaps it is a process that is based on systematic and disciplined methods for evaluating material?

I don’t have the answers – only more questions. As I tried to form coping strategies I found I was inundated with a new deluge of ‘solutions’ – do I set up automated news feeds and filters, adjust who I follow on Twitter and narrow my focus for reading online journals? Do I adopt the best practices of my mentors and peers and try to emulate their processes?

Unfortunately it’s not that simple and since the digital infrastructure is changing so quickly, when I do come up with a strategy, it could possibly become outdated before I have a chance to master it. I guess the answer is simple – one must adopt a flexible and adaptable frame of mind when tacking the deluge of data.

References:

Spiro, L. (2009). Review of the book:  Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, infrastructure, and the Internet, by C. Borgman (2009).  Literary and Linguistic Computing, 24 (2): 243-245. doi:10.1093/llc/fqn041

More on accessibility issues and online learning…

I was interested to discover that one blog post I submitted last week generated more comments from my peers than all of the others put together. It seems that the question of how to design online curriculum for those with accessibility issues resonated with so many people! The relevance and impact of addressing accessibility needs and issues in online learning is a predominant theme.

I have been reflecting on this for a while and as I try to begin to situate my research within my own professional context, other accessibility issues are becoming more apparent.

I had a situation emerge this week in one of my projects where an organization’s branding department is taking a leading role in determining design guidelines for not only marketing collateral but for all training and learning initiatives. As a result, the effectiveness of the learning curriculum will be potentially impacted as branding’s design aesthetics will override learning design.

As a result, design for accessibility will also not be a priority. The branding guidelines favour a grey text font, instead of designing with high contrasting values (like solid black font on white), which facilitates readability of text. As the population ages, colour blindness is becoming a key consideration when designing learning curriculum and this consideration may not always be considered by branding and other corporate guidelines.

As the end of the course nears, and as we start to draft and define our own potential research questions, I have been thinking about how research could support accessibility issues, so that organizations can be better informed when making overarching decisions about visual design.

I think a research question that would explore how to improve accessibility for those with colour blindness in corporate learning curriculum would have a strong impact for my future in attempting to drive changes in instructional design for corporate learners. I think this type of question might lend well to an ethnographic culture of inquiry where I could study in detail the experiences of a few colour blind learners as they maneuver through existing online courses. Then, through action research endeavour to solve the problem of the lack of colour blind accessibly learning by working directly with those affected to improve the problem.

Virtual Ethnography

Through my reading and research this week, I discovered “virtual ethnography”. Also known as cyber-ethnography, virtual ethnography adapts ethnographic methods to study cultures and communities through computer-mediated social interaction. The difference with virtual ethnography is that the research is conducted online. This facet of ethnography intrigued me – could this approach to ethnographic research solve the questions I posed in a previous posting about why marketing organizations seem to prefer quantitative research over qualitative research? Does virtual ethnography, which involves conducting virtual interviewing, solve the problems associated with the high cost and length of time it takes to conduct field research?

However, would the researcher still be able to achieve the same level of deep understanding that only the deep immersion in a culture or context through field research would provide (i.e. face-to-face interviews)? Would some of the subtle cues like expressions and gestures be missed in an online or virtual interview?

So many questions!

I have spent the past few days reading and exploring this idea and it certainly warrants further investigation. One very interesting theme began to emerge and that is the idea that this approach to research is absolutely necessary in order to properly understand digital society in our digital age. In order to gain a deep understanding of a phenomenon that exists in a digital context, the researcher has to be situated in that same digital context!

I have listed a few initial resources below as I start to build a reference on this subject. More to come on this topic next week….

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber-ethnography

Hine, C (2000). Virtual Ethnography. London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.4135/9780857020277.n1

Crichton, S. (2003). “Virtual Ethnography: Interactive Interviewing Online as Method”, Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 29(2). Retrieved from: http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/40/37

A potential research question?

Recently my uncle, who works in a nursing home, was required to take some eLearning courses on new processes and health and safety requirements (he works as a food preparer/server). For a vast majority of the population, this task would not be a problem (aside from finding the time perhaps).

However for my uncle, taking these courses presented some problems. He has cognitive and learning challenges and is not able to read or even understand many concepts that we all take for granted (not to mention he does not own a computer and is not computer literate). So how does delivering eLearning facilitate learning provide opportunity and access, when clearly it only presented obstacles for my uncle?

In Ontario there are laws to address accessibility issues. All courses delivered online must provide options for those who have sight and hearing impairments (i.e. providing close captioning for audio scripts and documents that contain course content that can be read by JAWS or other screen reading software). These features are mandatory for all learning courses my company develops in North America. (Admittedly, I don’t know if the AODA has other requirements to address my uncle’s specific challenges.)

So this made me wonder how online learning curriculum could be adapted for those with these special learning needs? How would I approach investigating this problem? What cultures of inquiry could be used to research this question? What methods could be used to best support this inquiry?

Here are my initial thoughts which I hope to develop further in a few subsequent posts…

A hermeneutic inquiry would be important to be able to really understand the challenges that someone with disabilities might have, especially with my uncle who has very unique cognitive abilities and challenges. Observing a subject as they attempt to move through a course would be valuable for obtaining a detailed description of the nuances of the specific barriers that they would experience.

Maybe an action research approach would be appropriate, where the researcher and the subject could work through a model course in an effort to solve problems and improve the course together?

Perhaps a comparative-historical culture of inquiry would be appropriate? Or would a qualitative survey provide an additional level of insight or validate findings from other approaches? How could phenomenology support this research?

This blog post very much represents how a personal experience can be analyzed and crafted into a valuable research endeavour! At this stage, this blog represents just an initial sketch in my head but over the next few weeks, I will definitely be thinking more about this problem and how best to draft a research plan, so that maybe one day I will have the opportunity to address an issue which is very personal and important to me!

References:

http://www.aoda.ca/

The Delphi Method as a Research Tool

As a professional project manager I have been familiar with the Delphi method as a tool used mainly in IT for identifying and analyzing project risk. Generally, a group of team members (or experts in their respective functional areas) will regularly review a project’s risk register in the attempt to determine the likelihood of certain events occurring, or forecasting the future events of a project in the effort to better manage project risk. They review a set of identified risks and generate a wide range of opinions on the cause and effect of the risks. The answers are collected, sorted, analyzed and refined. Then, through an iterative process, the questions are reviewed again. The final output is a set of validated answers and opinions which can be used form a consensus to inform risk management strategies.

Through our investigation of Scholarly Communities this unit, we reviewed and analyzed a group of journals in the attempt to better understand the communities in which scholarly research reside. During this review I encountered several articles which highlighted the Delphi method (or a variation of the Delphi method) as a research method. Generally, the research is conducted anonymously by a facilitator (researcher) with a group or panel of experts. Surveys or questionnaires are sent out to address a research question. The responses are collected, sorted, analyzed and refined, and sent out again for additional input. The final result is a focused set of data that reflects the subjective opinions of a group of experts regarding a research question. The benefit of this method is evident by how the final data could represent a validated consensus in response to the particular research question.

The Delphi method lends well to qualitative cultures of inquiry which rely on subjective investigation of a research question, in the effort to achieve a deep understanding. The anonymous nature of the questionnaires might also benefit a research method where the respondents’ input needs to adhere to privacy and confidentiality requirements. Also, this approach could help limit any bias that research subjects may have as any influence within a particular community would be removed as a resolve of the anonymous nature of the data collection. Finally, the iterative nature of this approach for refining and focusing expert opinion can help to provide deeper understanding of the research question through a thorough and iterative examination of the problem.

I was surprised to learn how a process for collecting input from a group of experts could apply to so many different processes and applications across numerous ares. It is a challenge for the researcher to determine which method best fits their research problem and the theoretical framework and culture of inquiry that underpins their research.

References:

Cantrill, J.A., Sibbald,B., Buetow, S (1996). “The Delphi and Nominal Group Techniques in health services research”, International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, (4), 67-74.

Quantitative research vs. qualitative research

I have been reflecting lately, as we near the mid-point in the Introduction to Research course, why qualitative cultures of inquiry seem to be very highly insightful and effective, yet marketing companies seem to rely more heavily on quantitative cultures of inquiry to inform and support strategic initiatives. As a marketing professional, I have executed numerous surveys and questionnaires, but only one qualitative research project (an ethnographic study).

Research firms conduct robust online surveys, crunch massive quantities of data and spend hours and hours analyzing data and produce hundreds of pages of powerpoint slides and charts. These slides are presented to C-level executives to inform and justify strategic projects and the spending of corporate and client funds.

This has been perplexing me, as everything that I had learned so far about the different cultures of inquiry lead one to realize the value that qualitative methods have for uncovering a deep understanding of a research subject or problem.

Quantitative research provides us with answers to “what”, while qualitative research gives us insights into the “why”. When considered in the context of market research, according to Madsbjerg, quantitative data may help us to predict what a customer’s behaviour will be, but it will not provide insight into why that behaviour occurred (2014). If that is the case, wouldn’t the deep understanding of the “why” regarding a particular problem be more valuable then understanding the “what”?

Is quantitative research possibly more attractive because it can be quick and cost effective, producing outputs which can be generalized across many sectors? Why is qualitative data not considered to be substantial and valid? Is it because it is more expensive and timely to produce? As I dive deeper into the different cultures of inquiry and begin to situate the research within my own professional context, I will be considering this issue in the attempt to further understand it. Perhaps, this should become my own problem or issue to address using several cultures of inquiry?

References:

Madsbjerg, C & Rasmussen, M.B. (2014) An anthropologist walks into a bar. The Harvard Business Review, March. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2014/03/an-anthropologist-walks-into-a-bar

Social Media as a research subject?

During this unit of the Introduction to Research course, as we begin to consider how to situate our research within a context, I have been thinking about the relationship between social media and both qualitative and quantitative research. The impacts of social media on all aspects of modern life are still being realized and social media provides an opportunity for researches to directly access the thoughts, feelings and ideas of research subjects. The vast quantities of meta-data that social media interactions create, provide a massive source of quantitative data that can collected, sorted and analyzed.

When we consider social media, we think of Twitter, Facebook, etc. as the most prolific forms of communication and how they capture the mass expression of attitudes and opinions in the digital age. It stands to reason then that several cultures of inquiry could potentially utilize ‘listening’ and data-mining of these platforms as research methods.

However, does social media offer both a wealth of both qualitative and quantitative data?

I think we all have some experience with automated tools that are employed to crawl through social media sites to collect and glean relevant data through key word searches and complex algorithms, which is then analyzed by powerful computing software. This approach collects massive amounts of data which can be quickly and inexpensively analyzed, which can be immediate and responsive to the dynamic online universe.

However there are obvious limitations with this culture of inquiry when relying on social media marketing. Quantitative research methods using social media monitoring do not provide the same kind of insight that more qualitative cultures of inquiry offer when utilizing social media as a research subject. Have you ever wondered what it was that you posted in your Facebook status that now caused ads for criminal pardons to show up on your news feed? The algorithms that analyze our activities and conversations are powerful but not accurate. Automated tools search for key words and phrases independently of context. Only 30% of the analysis of key terms extracted from the internet for market research were accurate (Branthwaite A. & Patterson S., 2011).

In contrast more qualitative cultures of inquiry attempt to more deeply understand the spontaneous information from the internet. Qualitative methods more deeply analyze and understand the nuances, the ambiguities and the spontaneity of the data. Social media can be a very useful source of information on social opinions and attitudes and a thorough investigation of this research subject using a qualitative culture of inquiry can best understand the underlying meanings in the communications, motivations and relationships on social networking sites.

References

Branthwaite, A. & Patterson, S. (2011). The power of qualitative research in the era of social media.

Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 14(4) 430 – 440. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13522751111163245

Technology and creativity – reflections on the mind mapping exercise

A mind map is a graphical way to show ideas, concepts and facts. The creation of a mind map is a visual process designed to enhance thinking and analysis skills to elevate one’s understanding of a subject.  A mind map uses colours, shapes, symbols and images to organize thoughts, ideas and relationships and can be used to enhance brainstorming, problem-solving or retention of information.

I was excited about this assignment as adding creativity to our thought processes is appealing to me as a thinker and learner.  I created my mind map document utilizing a highly-recommended tool and applied all of the best practices recommended for creating a mind map. However, after completing my assignment I was a bit disappointed with my efforts. I’m not sure that any insights I acquired on cultures of inquiry manifested clearly in the mind map.

So what went wrong?

I felt that the software tool I used limited the freedom of my thought processes and creativity. I spent a lot of time trying to manipulate the tool to do what I wanted. I struggled with spatial organization, formatting and connecting lines correctly, and I wasn’t able to export the document to the intended format. I submitted with final document with feelings of frustration with the software and with my own creativity. These feelings lead me to consider a bigger question: what is the role of technology in the creative process? Does it enhance or hinder the creative process?

There is a generally accepted process for creative development. It is an iterative process that involves various steps like preparation, incubation, insight, evaluation and elaboration – all which are cognitive processes that occur independent of technology. However, technology can support this iterative process by facilitating non-linear thinking. One can edit documents and images an infinite amount of times before reaching completion. Creative collaboration can occur prolifically when mediated through technology, allowing many minds come together who may or may not be co-located.

The right tools, used in the right ways can not only support but enhance the creative process and creative thinking. Upon reflection, I believe that technology can be used to support the creative process and does not impede creative thought. Perhaps we need to accept that there is a always a learning curve with any tool, and mastery of such a tool should always be approached as requiring a certain level of competency before proper use – just as it takes practice to learn how to play guitar before it can be used as a tool for composing songs.

References:

https://litemind.com/what-is-mind-mapping/

Taylor, J. (2014, July 31). The five stages of the creative process. [Blog post].  Retrieved from http://www.jamestaylor.me/creative-process-five-stages/

Inauguaral blog for Christine Mercer

I’m going to approach my blog with baby steps, like acclimatizing oneself slowly to a cold swimming pool. Perhaps the first few posts may be a bit awkward, but I hope to be able to share some thoughts and observations (with perhaps a little bit of pragmatic humour), while I develop my voice and style on one hand, and aspire to provide meaningful and insightful academic contributions to the MALAT cohort.

The digital revolution has changed so many aspects of life, including how we learn. Learning can no longer be considered separate from technology and online communities.  Online interactions and dialogue, social media and open access channels influence and shape how I think about learning, both academically and professionally. All learning is deeply rooted in the new digital age and therefore curriculum design must take the role of social, online communities into consideration.

So, if this is how I feel (and I do, very strongly), why don’t I contribute to my own academic, professional and social online communities (through personal blogs, tweets, yammer posts in my professional community of practice or even updates to my status on Facebook)?

I don’t consider myself to be an extremely private or introverted person, nor do I feel that I don’t have meaningful contributions to make to my own social, professional sphere or the academic blogosphere.  I am comfortable with technology and the various social platforms and have delved into many over the years. Perhaps I contribute and communicate excessively in my professional career I feel compelled to ‘go off grid’ in my down time?

However, upon some reflection, and after reading Estes’ article on Blogging and academic identity, I now realize that perhaps the key reason for my ‘quietness’ is that I lack the skill she refers to as in ‘thinking in public’, or the fear of not presenting oneself correctly in the public realm.  Cecire, in her blog on Academic Blogging suggests that thinking in public is a difficult habit to develop as it involves ‘thinking on the fly’ (2011).

Thinking on the fly or thinking in public is a skill that needs to be practiced in order to achieve expertise.  An adjustment in perceptions may also be required. The idea of extending my thoughts into the academic blogosphere should not be approached with trepidation, but instead with anticipation with sharing my ideas with a like-minded group of people in a friendly and safe space characterized by support and a generosity of spirit.

Refernces:

Estes, H. (2012). Blogging and academic identity. Literature Compass, 9(12), 974-982. DOI: 10.1111/lic3.12017:

Cecire, N. (2011, April 20). How public like a frog: on academic blogging. [Blog post].  Retrieved from http://arcade.stanford.edu/blogs/how-public-frog-academic-blogging.