After closely reading chapter 8, yet again in search of relief surrounding my insecurities of this research project, I found this chapter very informative. It is astounding, though not surprising, that the art of research and data analysis has been so incredible mapped out.

 

This chapter leads me again to ask myself what the ultimate point of this non-thesis-thesis paper is within the larger context of this graduate experience. Are all grad school programs designed to teach students to conduct academic research as the ultimate outcome? As a non-thesis program, why take an entire year to focus on a thesis paper? What am I learning from this experience? Is the learning goal to learn about art education, to reflect on our practice, or to learn how to do academic research?

 

During the reading I had one question, that may be answered later. On page 187, in the description of “Interpreting the Data,” Creswell outlines two ways data can be interpreted. In his first example, interpretation can be based on “hunches, insights, and intuition,” which doesn’t sound too credible. His seconde example interpretation can be done through the lens of social science, which he says postmodern researchers find “tentative, inconclusive, and questioning.” That was the end of the paragraph. Creswell fails to offer a credible way to interpret data in this section.

 

The 5 approaches to data analysis all have such similar takes on most steps that it is hard to choose one, or know whether I should even limit myself to one, and honestly may not really know until I complete the first two common practices of data organization and reading and memoing. As I look at the table, I can at least eliminate the narrative method because although I do have a relatively narrative story to tell, I’m not sure there is a beginning middle and an end. I’m almost positive there are no epiphanies (at least as of now) and I don’t trust myself to write in an engaging narrative fashion. As I write this, however, I realize this may be my best option.

 

Looking at grounded theory I like the method of “open coding,” which includes finding holes in the research during the process of data analysis and collecting more data to fill, which I predict I will have to do.

 

In the category of phenomenological analysis and representation I appreciate that there is an emphasis on personal experience, and an emphasis on a detailed descriptions of the essence of the research in context. There is still a narrative element to this approach that I think would work very well for my purpose.

 

Ethnography was where I intended to start this research, and I still find it accessible. I feel very confident that I could use autobiographical experiences, and descriptions of the culture and environment in my research, and appreciate the general approach to coding and classifying that Creswell offers. I intend to include some of the drawings I have collected in my research, which table 8.2 offers as an ethnographic data visualization option.

 

Finally, I have decided to use only one project as my detailed focus for this research, so in this way I am conducting a case study, though I do not want to ignore the larger culture and experience of these students at the non traditional school.

 

I found the readings helpful, and I especially appreciate the idea of the spiral, and the breakdown of all of the steps of data analysis. However, I don’t see the point of just picking one approach at this point in my data analysis, nor do I really understand the subtle differences between methods in the steps as Creswell describes it.