Readings and Project Update:
I feel like the Saldana readings were perfectly timed for me, as I am currently digging into my own coding and data analysis. I am feeling like I embody the preface of the book … “I code, therefore I am.”
On page 2, Saldana says, “Coding is just one way of analyzing qualitative data, not the way” and “I prefer that you yourself, rather than some presumptive theorist or hardcore methodologist, determine whether coding is appropriate for your particular research project.” This was really interesting to me…I suppose because I thought it was THE way. But, when I reflect on what I am currently doing in my project, I see how I am making decisions about what to code and what to let stand in support of the codes. For example, I am coding all of the descriptive notes, but think that coding the artifacts doesn’t really get to my overall question of what is happening in the site. The artifacts at this point are seeming to serve as “proof” that the events that I describe in the descriptive notes actually took place. There are pictures of charts, samples of class notes, samples of lesson plans. Perhaps I haven’t figured out the right way to code them, but right now they don’t seem as informative as the notes.
On page 3, Saldana distinguishes between First Cycle coding and Second Cycle coding processes. He says, “The portion of data to be coded during First Cycle coding processes can range in magnitude from a single word to a full paragraph to an entire page of text to a stream of moving images. In Second Cycle coding processes, the portions coded can be the exact same units, longer passages of text, analytic memos about the data, and even a reconfiguration of the codes themselves developed so far.” Before yesterday, I would describe my work as First Cycle coding. I had gone through all the descriptive notes to date and coded generally, based on what stood out to me as connected to the main research question “What is happening here?”. I free coded and connected quotes to the codes. I also reread the data and thought about the overarching concepts related to my codes. I decided….reflection, communication, implementation, administration, evaluation, observation, instruction, and collaboration…seemed to be the broader concepts. I went back through the smaller, more discrete codes and linked them to the larger concepts. I felt good about this…and it seemed to be I was moving from First Cycle to Second Cycle.
When the professor and I had time at our research site, I gave her list of the codes (I really like the output options on ATLAS) and the overarching concepts. She linked the first page of preliminary codes to the concept codes and then we stopped to talk. We went through each code and discussed our thinking about how we linked it and why. Sometimes, our disagreements caused us to go back to the quote associated with the code for more information. The professor generated a new concept…Affirmation. At one point in our conversation, the professor suggested that we change the concepts from –tion words to –ing words because it seemed to better address the “happening” aspect of our research question. We refined our concepts and settled on: observing, reflecting, collaborating, sharing, communicating, instructing, affirming, owning, modeling, and questioning. We also discussed defined each one of these –ings (in an analytic memo in ATLAS), before diving back into the data. When we went through the data this time, we read through each quote in addition to the code I had originally assigned. We used the new concept overarching codes, and we talked as we went through. We had greater agreement on the overarching codes and I think that was due to a number of factors. 1) We had clearly defined the overarching codes, 2) We kept going back to the research question, 3) We talked the entire time and shared our thinking about what we were doing, 4) We kept referring to the quotes attached to the codes. My task later today will be to go back into Atlas and put in the new concept codes.
From this interaction, I learned the importance of working with another researcher. I thought I was being clear with how I was coding, but the professor’s insights, comments, and questions helped me to refine my thinking and as we talked, we built new connections. Next Thursday, when I have workshop time, I am going to engage my group mates in coding with me. I want to offer them copies of the descriptive notes and have them code looking for categories. What we do will be dependent upon where I am in the process, but I think this would be incredibly helpful. Do I need to develop some kind of confidentiality form to have them engage with the data? (Saldana also talks about collaborative coding in Chapter 1).
I would think that the professor and I are engaging in “Descriptive coding”, which Saldana discusses on page 4. It is interesting to be engaged in this work and focused on the doing without a “label” and then to read something like this text and recognize the label for what you are doing…does that make sense? For me, it is more meaningful than going the other way…learning the label and then engaging in the act. It is more like “discovery” to go from inside the data to the label.
On page 5, Saldana talks about how codes will be coming up repeatedly and that this is “natural” and “deliberate”. I think the overarching concepts I originally developed came from the repetition of what I was seeing naturally in the interactions. Now, I feel like I am approaching the data with those lenses….in a more deliberate manner. I am thinking…. “this is communication/communicating” or “this is affirmation/affirming” as I am seeing it happen. Those terms showed up in my field notes for observations yesterday because I think there is more of a lens, more of a “deliberate” stance toward “what is happening here”.
On page 16, Saldana brings up an issue I am currently wrestling with… “the amount of the data corpus-the total body of data – that should be coded”. I am struck by the VOLUME of what we have generated in this project…through emails and photos and notes and artifacts. And, we have the potential for interviews too. How does a researcher know when they have “enough”…when does it really answer/address the questions sufficiently? I feel good about what we have done so far…but I don’t know that it is enough to really explain what is going on at this site. Just a feeling, and I guess I am looking for more distinct markers.
Saldana spends a great deal of time talking about electronic coding. Wow…I can really see the benefit of it now that I am actually using it. Thank you for insisting that we use ATLAS. Without the mandate, I don’t know that I would have embraced it. There is just so much more data in this project than the project I did for Intro to Qual. I am still not sure about how to use all the features, but am becoming more comfortable with each experience I have with ATLAS. I am really looking forward to Digital Tools this summer…I think I am familiar enough now that I will have less anxiety about it…which will allow me to learn more.
Last blog post, I talked about wanting to move toward a research journal. In the past, I have kept journals for my teaching of students … writer’s notebooks, and I have journaled just because… “morning pages” when taking Julia Cameron’s Artist Way class, and when reading Ira Progoff’s At a Journal Workshop. I am a pencil and paper gal for the most part, but am learning to use the analytic memo feature more. I love the various managers and how you can select the output modes. It isn’t as inconvenient as I thought to jot down a memo. I am finding that I am jotting in my calendar (paper) on a post it what I want to put in an analytic memo. The time between my initial scribbling and getting to the computer lets me mull over what I want to say.
On 49, Saldana lists all the things you might reflect on through a study using analytic memos. Handy list, and I find that I am reflecting on some of the aspects he lists…possible networks, future directions, research questions.
I really enjoyed these chapters but don’t think I would have gotten nearly as much from them had I not already been engaging in some coding and engaging in more after I read. It is not a book to be read independent a project. For me, the reading was perfectly timed.
Usually, I write a separate section for my Project Update, but I feel I have integrated that within the reading for this week. I also turned in my second project report, and that should offer you more details about the specifics of my methodological readings etc. The only other thing I wanted to let you know about was the potential for interviews in the future. As it stands right now, we do not have permission to interview the teachers. But, the professor is wondering about the possibility of interviewing the teachers in May, when the pressure of school and testing is done. Her plan is to cover the students so that I can conduct the interviews. This will not be imposing on the teachers in anyway, in terms of their time, and the interviews will be voluntary. Of course, she will talk with the principal again before we do this. I know these interviews will be beyond the scope of this class, but I am hoping I may be able to incorporate them into the Digital Tools class. Also, do you think doing a literature review on Professional Development using Atlas ti would be an appropriate project for that class?
