Got up early this morning, dropped hubby at work and went to my favourite coffee shop. Task one: review course materials for masters course I will be teaching this April on Human Factors in Educational Technology. I jotted down all kinds of ideas for online presentations, resources and discussions. I’m really hoping to make it interactive and useful for the students.
Now, onto re-reading my proposal so far. I’m a little over in word-count, so I’ll have to pair it down somewhat.
Then, back home to prepare a minestrone soup in the slow cooker for supper tonight.
Although it is cold today, it is bright and sunny. A very nice day to work at the coffee shop.
Writing the first draft of the proposal has felt like a very slow process. Each section, paragraph, and some sentences have felt like quicksand. But through raw perseverance, I waded through. Finally, today, I reached the timeline section. I found a nice little Excel template online that allowed me to quickly create a nice timeline to map out my thesis. And, poof! I’m so close to getting the draft done and submitted. I felt like celebrating. Unfortunately, the temperature has sunk into the -20s, with an expected low of approximately – 30 according to Environment Canada. So, here I am sitting in my office watching a television show about raccoons (The Nature of Things). Just when I’m feeling spry, good old-man Winter has me captive.
Anyhoo, I thought I’d upload my timelines:
I’m kinda wondering if I should plan some holiday and break time. But, perhaps I should schedule it for a warmer time of year–or better–perhaps I should get a plane ticket for a warmer clime. Oh . . . Big Bang Theory is on. Gotta run.
It feels as if I have been doing a lot of nothing lately. But, in retrospect ideas have been percolating in my head. If only the ideas would bubble faster than the drip of my old coffee pot.
I have spent several days now considering, reconsidering, writing and rewriting three basic questions upon which my PhD thesis will form. I have come to a point where I am relatively happy with the questions—not doubting for an instant that I will continue tweaking them.
So, onto a justification for using a qualitative approach, specifically a phenomenographic approach. I just wrote two sentences in the last 1/2 hour. I am relatively happy with these sentences. Alas, I had to laugh when I heard myself mutter, “Gosh. That was hard.”
I feel like I’ve been doing a lot of thinking and not enough writing. That said, I have my introduction, theoretical framework, purpose & context, and research questions (which need more thought) pretty much written. But, every time I look at it, I do a ton of editing. It is a very iterative process.
I’ve just done a skeletal outline of the research plan. Tomorrow, I plan to sketch out the methodology and justify it. Then, onto the procedures, population, instruments, data collection, and analysis sections. Once I get through all that, I will have a much better basis upon which to think out the timeline.
And, of course, I’m wondering how my classmates are doing. Everyone is so invisible right now. Helloooooooo out there!
Today I participated in my first #phdchat in Twitter. To be honest, it felt a bit chaotic. But, I had the sense that there were more participants than normal. It’s a strange way to communicate. At 140 characters an utterance, one must consider how to best use those characters.
Nevertheless, the #phdchat group provides leads to some very good resources.
A friend, Jeffrey, Tweeted about Mendeley. So, I watched the video while getting ready to start working through my proposal today.
Phenomenal. I’ve been trying to keep my library synchronized across computers. I’ve been using Windows Desktop Search to locate them on my hard drive while writing. But, I fear it slows my system. I have been carefully organizing all my PDFs and notes into topic folders. But, the problem is that they belong in multiple folders. To solve that problem, I have been using tags in RefWorks. (And, of course, I have been keeping paper copies filed by author’s last name in a filing cabinet in my office.) As a result, I have been constantly cross-searching different systems. This has been working, but I think Mendeley might make things even more efficient.
Although Mendeley indicates that you can Import and Export with other referencing software, it does not mention Refworks. Good news: I was able to export a .txt file from Refworks and upload it into my Mendeley interface. Then, I was able to synchronize it online.
The synchronization feature is brilliant because it means that I can install the Mendeley interface on my travel computer or any other computer and synchronize the references with those computers. No more carting around USB drives and carefully dating the most recent list.
My only problem now, is to upload the articles. I have been careful to upload the URLs for journal articles, but I want easy access to my library from anywhere in the world. I can match the PDFs with the citations on my less productive hours. Mendeley is not intended as a publishing tool, but a resource-networking tool. I will investigate this further as I wish to respect copyright legislation.
Note that Mendeley also allows you to search through others’ reference lists, connect with other researchers, etc. Hence, it also serves as a social networking tool.
Yes, I still like paper. I like books. I like writing notes by hand. And, I like drawing diagrams of ideas to see how they articulate. But, I need to keep backups and mobile copies. One solution that I have found is LiveScribe.
I’m sure there are (or will be) different brands and vendors, but this nifty gadget is very user-friendly. Without much more than a 10 minute tutorial, I could use this device. The recordings are phenomenal, but I recommend using the earphones (integrated audio and mic) when in convention halls. Otherwise, it will pick up the movements of the pen on the paper. You can download the audio and your hand-written notes. You can convert the output in to different formats. You can even add a tool that will OCR your handwriting. And, when you playback lectures, you will see your handwriting revealed in time with the audio.
I’m starting to use this device when I make notes from books or simply jotting down my thoughts and doodles.
A friend shared his ANT paper with me. The penny dropped. I did not previously envision how one would “trace networks”. In his paper, he traced a variety of actors (human and non-human) that were required to enable a current process to act.
The real-life example of an ANT analysis was very helpful to understand what LaTour meant by the following statements:
“There is no society, no social realm, and no social ties [LaTour was reacting against the preset social concepts in sociology], but there exists translations between mediators that may gnerate traceable associations” (p. 108) [ANT seems to be commensurate with relational approaches.]
“. . . a good account will perform the social in the precise sense that some of the participants in the action–through the controversial agency of the author–will be assembled in such as way that they can be collected together” (p. 138).
details are the key in ANT research (my notes).
“a network is the trance left behind by some moving agent” (p. 132).
An important ingredient is LaTour’s conception of “intermediaries” and “mediators”. As you read the definitions below, think of a complex network of interactions between actors in a given situation and consider which of the actors is an intermediary and which is a mediator:
INTERMEDIARY
transports meaning without transformation
inputs = outputs
one entity, thought might have many parts (complex)
MEDIATOR
may count for one, many, nothing, infinity . . .
input != (not equal) output (no predictors)
transforms, translates, distorts, modifies meaning of elements (inputs)
may lead in multiple directions
LaTour writes there is “constant uncertainty over the intimate nature of entities–are they behaving as intermediaries or as mediators?” (p. 39).
PRINCIPLE OF IRREDUCTION
“the philosophical meaning of ANT: a concatenation of mediators does not trace the same connections and does not require the same type of explanations as a retinue of intermediaries transporting a cause” (p. 107).
According to LaTour, good accounts trace networks as you have done in this paper. But, for him, the identification of mediators vs. intermediaries is very important: “As soon as actors are treated not as intermediaries but as mediators, they render the movement of the social visible to the reader” (p. 128).
Looking back at the analysis, some of the actors identified have become visible to us. Why? And, are there any actors that might be escaping our view because they are behaving as intermediaries? Hmmm . . . is it possible that a true affordance might be one such invisible actor? Or, are affordances mediators in that they transform, translate, etc. the meaning of actors/elements? I suspect that an intermediary can sometimes act as a mediator and vice-versa.
Reference
LaTour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
It occurred to me as I exercise my avoidance and procrastination muscles, that it might be beneficial to start a blog. I’ve spent several days now jotting down ideas of how to get started on my PhD proposal. Obviously, the best way is to simply get started.
So far, I have started writing the first two paragraphs explaining the philosophical orientation of my intended work. Then, I started creating folders for the most significant aspects of the proposal:
theoretical articles & references
papers about phenomenography
papers about learner-identity
papers about threshold concepts and reflectivity
I am now ready to type out the headings for the main sections of the proposal.
The main thing to keep in mind is the scope of the proposal: 3000 words.
