The Time Is Out of Joint

I officially became a fully paid-up doctoral student again on the 1st February, but it has taken until today to become fully re-enrolled with access to all the modules and course information that I need.

It hasn't helped that the university updated their VLE to the end of last year, and their email system at the start of this year, meaning that I struggled to access either. I'd actually been deleted from the entire doctoral programme on one platform.

And then there was a virus that shut everything down.
The time is out of joint.

My first official supervision session for sixth months will take place tomorrow afternoon via Zoom.

In preparation I have to send my revised data chapters, and the other writing that I have been doing in the intervening period. Unfortunately, all my old anxieties about academic writing have returned. I feel unable to send 'chapters', and have requested that we return to calling them 'vignettes' and 'writing in progress' instead, which feels less threatening.

And I don't feel much further forward than the 15,000 words that were written by last October. In fact, it feels messier than it ever has - in spite of delivering three different conference presentations relating to my research during my period of intermission. They should have enabled me to clarify my thinking - and felt at the time as though they were doing so. That feeling is yet to translate itself into my writing.

On the upside, isolation and quarantine give the gift of time. It has taken a while for me to settle to the new rhythms of my family being at home, and having to deliver online lessons, but study time has expanded.

I have also discovered (now that I have access to the handbooks again!) that I may be able to apply for pre-submission status, involving a reduction in fees next term.

The Results Are In...

Sort of.

Summer, three years in to this messy thing. All my data, bar three classroom observations, is in (or should that be 'are in' if data is a plural noun? Sounds wrong!) and transcribed. So now I approach...data analysis.

I have researched web-based qualitative data analysis software and 'Dedoose' seems to be the most similar to NVivo, so I am planning to trial it for the next few weeks. Assuming that the software is successful, my next 'jobs' are:

1. Sign up and get to know the Dedoose application
2. Upload all data collected and transcribed so far.
3. Conduct the final three observations in September and add those.
4. Complete the first level of analysis
5. Begin condensing and reducing each code ready for writing up.

I have recently returned from a rare supervision with my second, much more brutal(!) supervisor.
"So, what have you found out so far?" was the opening gambit to our meeting. Gulp.
It's a good question. Not much, it seems.

• the transformative significance of the action seems to be related to the longitudinal nature of the research; participating teachers have been involved over two years
• teachers report increased confidence in pedagogy surrounding reading teaching
• teachers explicitly foreground the collaborative nature of the reading process in the classroom
• teachers function as advocates for the primacy of narrative
• teachers seem to have found more creative ways of conducting reading and inviting volunteers from the class to contribute to the reading process
• teachers spend more time in lessons on reading - reported and triangulated through observation
• teachers themselves are reading aloud more
• teachers are finding creative ways to represent the learning/reading
• teachers put engagement first and seem very articulate about how and why
• teachers are consciously creating a 'safe space' for reading to happen

Straightforward, and not setting the world alight. In addition there were some unexpected and less encouraging 'hunches':

• teachers are occasionally misinterpreting theoretical and pedagogical perspectives (but still applying these 'confidently' in the classroom)
• teachers don't seem to be doing what they 'say' they are doing

There's one blindingly obvious problem with these crude and unsubstantiated observations though: they all relate to the teachers. I seem to be preoccupied with the nexus between teachers' reading, knowledge and understanding, and the actual 'doing' in the classroom; and also the 'snowball' design of the research: how it seems to be folding-in at each stage; e.g. as teachers use the transcripts of the student interviews to further inform their thinking and practice. Where are the students in all this? They formed approximately a third of the original research design, but I'm not in a position to say anything very much about them at all.

I need to have a much closer think about the students...

What else would I do differently, having come this far? My experience of the observation process has certainly shifted; I might conduct the student interviews differently for richer discussion; my interview technique, particularly in relation to the student focus groups and the observation through transcription that I might inadvertently be shutting down potentially fruitful avenues of dialogue, so I'd watch out for that more than I have been.

Meanwhile, you will find me buried somewhere in a software tutorial.

Bigger Hurdles: Proposal and mini viva

The new school term began on Monday and the dust has not yet settled, but 10.00am this morning was the time scheduled for my mini viva. It has been a busy couple of months. I gave my formal presentation of my proposal on the penultimate day of the summer term, then met a draft proposal deadline for my supervisor the day after we broke up. Much reading about methodology over the summer before two bound copies of the finished proposal were submitted last week (with a good twenty minutes to spare before the deadline, I might add).

I arrived in plenty of time to go over my notes and my proposal carefully. At 9.30am I reassured myself that in a couple of hours, whatever happened, it would all be over. I wasn't especially nervous; this was in the spirit of giving a taste of what the format of the actual viva would be like and provided a further opportunity to engage in healthy debate about aspects of the proposed research. As the 'invitation' explained: Always with the desire to have a good constructive discussion, the aim of the viva will be to clarify aspects of the proposal to help make sure it provides you with a basis for a workable bit of PhD research - with lines of enquiry likely to be similar to those that were raised during your recent proposal presentations, and generally taking up the different aspects of what makes a good workable proposal.

The first few questions began, 'Can you elaborate on...' and were fine and fair. I warmed to my themes. But, after that my terminology was questioned extensively, my research questions were pulled apart and my methodology was under fire. I faltered, I internally questioned my whole approach. Never has a sip of water tasted so good as at the end of the mini viva. It felt tough, very tough indeed.

I was sent away for twenty minutes whilst  it was discussed and, given the vigorous questioning, I feared the worst.  But - ultimately the comments were complimentary and I came away with a referral of five required responses, and a short turnaround time before submitting amendments to the proposal. They said:

The proposed research addresses an important area and you demonstrated a deep and reflexive knowledge of its complexities both in the written proposal and in the wide-ranging discussion that took place during the mini viva. The following requirements should help to consolidate these ideas with a view to embedding them more explicitly in the approach to data collection: 
1. Once the core terms/constructs addressed in the study have been finalized the title should be reviewed to ensure that it is consistent with these. You should also make sure there is no unintended hint of deficit.
2. The research questions should be revised to ensure best fit with the core constructs/terms and the methodological approach. Each one should be accompanied by a line or two of explanation so that the rationale underpinning the question is made explicit.
3. Develop and insert a diagrammatic representation of the research process so that it is clearer how the different elements and methods relate to the specific areas for exploration and intervention. Provide a page or two discussion on the methods chosen and why, linking this the literature and to two or three specific examples of focus group questions, areas for observation etc. 
4. Insert a single paragraph in Chapter One that highlights the school/research context in which the proposed research sits as discussed in the mini-viva.
5. Revise the timeline to ensure this fits with the timeline for obtaining ethics approval.

I think it felt good because it was hard. I feel as though I have survived a gladiatorial contest. I am exceedingly glad that it is done.

Now for ethical approval...

What A Difference A Day Makes

Whilst I was negotiating with school about the possibility of undertaking doctoral study, we agreed that I would be able to take the equivalent of five 'study days' through the year at mutually convenient times. The summer term seems to have been the first opportunity for a 'mutually convenient' time now that exam classes have departed and the general mele has died down.

I had the first of those study days today. And what a difference a day makes. I worked a solid eight hours, and realised (after a slow start) just how much can be achieved in that time. It was a slow start because I chose to do the hardest thing first. This was wading through an article I have been putting off  as it seemed long and difficult. It was long and difficult, but worthwhile. 

I began using the 'RefMe' app; it seemed convenient, but not infallible. Any thoughts greatly appreciated. I feel much more organised and on top of the reading, note making, and indeed the writing, having added several hundred words to my methodology section.

My physical study (the room) is clear and my actual study (the research) seems clearer.

And in the nick of time, as I am finalising deadlines for formal presentation, proposal submission and mini viva, which look as though they will be mid July, late August and early September, respectively - with three conference presentations in June. 

The heat is on.

Note to self: don't take on a large role in a play for the remaining duration of your study... 

Reached First Milestone

I had to write something.

And submit it.

It felt hopelessly inadequate.

I have read, read, read since last July, so it represented six months of my life.  I have had so many thoughts, ideas, responses; eureka moments and moments where I feel like I am groping around in the dark, about to reach something.

And I was supposed to condense that in to less than 3000 words of a literature review for my proposal.  Before research questions have been fully formed, even. It was clumsy, inarticulate prose bolted together with a few quotations.

It has made me value the power of 'free writing' even more; in comparison to what felt like stilted, pseudo-academic nonsense - that I always seem to spout when I use a computer and have the cloud of a deadline hanging over me. And it makes a good argument for the handwritten reflective journal - which can always be turned into academic writing once the thought has been expressed and the point made.

But, reader, I submitted it.

And breathe.

And wait.

The way ahead is long, and will no doubt get a little hillier - mountainous, even; certainly much rougher terrain.  But there it is. Mile 1.  (Or 3000 words of the 80,000? The first mile of the marathon.)