1 / 24

Dan Kaczynski, PhD dkaczyns@uwf

Exploring the Roles of Faculty Supervision: Improving Qualitative Doctoral Dissertation Methodology. Dan Kaczynski, PhD dkaczyns@uwf.edu. Research Problem. Shifting supervisory roles. More qualitative dissertations. Increasing emphasis on quality. Understand assessment practices

aulani
Download Presentation

Dan Kaczynski, PhD dkaczyns@uwf

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Exploring the Rolesof Faculty Supervision: Improving Qualitative Doctoral Dissertation Methodology Dan Kaczynski, PhDdkaczyns@uwf.edu

  2. Research Problem Shiftingsupervisoryroles Morequalitativedissertations Increasing emphasison quality Understand assessment practices Strengthen qualitative research skills Develop future researchers

  3. Open Discussion • Do you use technology in your research?

  4. Open Discussion • How should we explore the tensions within and between: • Assessing Quality • Adoption of QDAS

  5. Qualitative Software Kaczynski (2004) http://www.aare.edu.au/04pap/kac041065.pdf NVivo, MAXqda, Atlas ti, QDA Miner, Qualrus, Transana

  6. What is Good Qualitative Research?

  7. Identify indicators of quality in a thesis: Identify common errors in a thesis: What does good work look like?

  8. What is Quality? The researchers logic of justification “Flaws in the logic of justification can potentially occur anywhere in the inquiry process. The nature of such flaws and where they occur can jeopardize the soundness of a study in one or more ways.” (Piantanida & Garman 1999, p. 147)

  9. Types of Quality Criteria • Philosophical Criteria (Lincoln, 1995; Lincoln & Guba, 1985) • Procedural Criteria (Creswell, 1998)

  10. Philosophical Criteria(Lincoln & Guba, 1985) • Credibility • Is the work authentic? • Transferability • Will the work fit outside this situation? • Dependability • Is the researcher consistent? • Confirmability • Are interpretations defensible?

  11. Procedural Criteria • Quality of methods (open-ended interviews) • Quality of data (verbatim long transcripts) • Quality of data analysis (comprehensive data treatment) (Silverman, 2004 [Sacks, 1984])

  12. Standardized Procedural Criteria(controversial checklists or guidelines) • Does the title reflect the study focus? • Is the problem socially important? • Is the literature review comprehensive? • Has study conformed to ethics standards? • Are issues of sampling discussed? • Did findings answer the questions? • Was study written convincingly? • Are issues of trustworthiness addressed?

  13. Quantitative and Qualitative Criteriafor Assessing Research Quality and Rigor • Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002) p. 30

  14. Transparent Assessment • Explore rich diversity of meanings • Sensitized appreciation of worth • Deeper assessment of analysis • Multiple paths to look inside • Transparency strengthens credibility

  15. Data Collection

  16. Findings: Knowledge,Ability, and Confidence

  17. Findings: TechnologyTools Used in Assessment • 52% (None) • 30% (Not applicable) • 17% NVivo • 4% InfoRapid

  18. Findings: ResourcesConsulted for Expertise 83% Others 70% Publications 30% Conferenceworkshops 22% Campusworkshops 13% Continuingeducation

  19. Findings: Conceptualizationsof Quality (cont.) AI: Alternative interpretations CE: Consideration of ethical issues AG: Ability to generalize findings HC: Hierarchical code structure MC: Member-checking MS: Memos AT: Methodological audit trail PD: Peer debriefing PF: Prolonged field engagement AS: Qualitative data analysis software RO: Researcher objectivity SS: Sampling strategies SD: Self-disclosure SC: Social context TO: Theoretical orientation TN: Triangulation VY: Validity

  20. Stage 2 Findings: Critical Needs • Building knowledge and skills • Moving beyond superficial assessment • Significance of researcher transparency • Teaching students to self-assess • Building a community of practice • Strengthening qualitative research skills • Sharing assessment strategies • Engaging in professional development

  21. Stage 3 Findings:Role of Technology

  22. Study Findings • Highly favorable attitudes toward qualitative research • Diverse conceptualizations of quality • Need for alternative assessment frameworks • Need and desire to strengthen knowledge and skills • Need for professional development

  23. Future Challenges • Progressing research methods Mixed → Blended → Integrated • Emerging research innovations • mainstream adoption of QDAS • Positioning quality research standards

  24. Future Research Questions • What does it mean to disclose or conceal the role of technology? • Does nondisclosure of analysis software imply the presumption that the use of technology is ubiquitous and commonly accepted? • Does nondisclosure of QDAS suggest a student’s fear of the supervisor’s acceptance or sanctioning? • In what ways and under what conditions does a technological tool become a barrier to the learning process for the teacher and the learner?

More Related