Final+Reflection

One of the images, or metaphors, used to describe emergent methodologies at the outset of this course was that of a braided river system. The reason this was chosen as a representation of what we are learning is much clearer to me now than it was at the start of the course, and I now have a much deeper appreciation for this metaphor. Particularly appealing to me is the implication of journey contained in the river image - and a journey it has been! Below, I will seek to summarise some of the key insights I have gained in the process of emerging. The full reflections (with artefacts) are gathered together on a wiki that I created for this purpose, rather than on the Learn Forums of our class website, as this gave more flexibility with presentation. Furthermore, it is a site I can continue adding to beyond this particular course as I continue to explore emergent methodologies. The wiki is found at: http://edem698emergent-research.wikispaces.com/
 * A Journey Down the River **

**Skeptical Beginnings** I began the course with a fair level of skepticism regarding emerging methodologies. As I stated in my reflection on my Research Platform (McDonald, 2010a), the area that I have chosen as a focus for my ongoing research is the privacy and risk behaviours of young adolescents using social networking websites like Facebook. The overwhelming majority of research in this area is quantitative or mixed-methods in nature. Those that do use qualitative data (such as interviews or focus groups) still approach the research from an outsider's perspective, often having a hypothesis that they wish to prove or disprove. I think a big part of this is the fact that research around internet safety is very heavily biased towards quantitative methodologies and data collection/analysis. I think this is because it is an area of concern for policy makers and school leaders, and so researchers seek to provide the 'hard data' that could influence change at the level of decision makers. I found very little research that sought to explore these issues from the inside out. Much research in this field uses large scale surveys (for example, Berson and Berson, 2005; Duddy, Harré, & Internet Safety Group, 2002; and Lenhart and Madden, 2007), which seek to create generaliseable knowledge and statistical data that could be use to compare different populations. Having been immersed in readings like these, I wondered how one could approach research in this area using such context-based methodologies as Arts-Based Research, Action or Practitioner Research, or seemingly culture-bound methodologies like Kaupapa Maori Research. Surely, I thought, the results of such research would only inform the situation in that specific context, with little relevance for contexts beyond.

**Positioning Emergent Methodologies** In many ways it was some of these concerns and thoughts that prompted me to initiate a discussion on the forums (McDonald, 2010b), asking how emerging methodologies can survive in a world where quantitative data is in such demand by policy-makers. The conversation that followed was a very fruitful one for me. The comment that really made an impact on me was made by Helen, " // The positivist/quantitative paradigm may be useful for telling us where differentials occur it's not so good at telling us why." // (Hayward, in McDonald, 2010b) This comment led me to begin to reconceptualise research as story/narrative, rather than as the collection and analysis of information. Janinka also made it clear that the kind of knowledge that arises from emerging methodologies still adds to the pool of knowledge, and may well have an impact on policy (Greenwood, in McDonald, 2010b).

Of the different emerging methodologies we examined, it was Action Research that I felt most familiar with, having had some experience of it in EDEM627, where I conducted some research on the effect blogging might have on students' motivation to write. I returned to that research and examined it in light of what we have been learning, and in light of some of the readings - particularly Gall, Gall and Borg (2005). My reflection (McDonald, 2010c) details how one of the greatest insights I had in re-examining this project was that although I was (as classroom teacher) an insider, seeking to use a technology to improve my practice, I had put very little emphasis on collaborating with my students in the research design. Yes, I had given them voice through their responses to a survey I had designed, but the design of the research, the goals, the staging and analysis were all firmly under my control. My reading about Participatory Action Research (Savin-Baden and Wimpenny, 2007) that I conducted for my Research Platform emphasised the importance of the participants. That is to say, the expert-researcher is not at the centre of the research process. Instead, ownership and control of the research process is in the hands of those whom it affects the most - the participants. As the name suggests, both participation and action are key elements of this approach. The community has identified a 'problem' or issue that needs addressing, and comes together to explore possible solutions, with the aim of doing something about it. The primary perspective throughout the research cycle(s) is that of the participants. I concluded that if I were to conduct a similar research project in future I would seek to increase the democratic validity discussed by Gall et al. (2005) by not having such a tight grip on the research design and interpretation. I also included in my Portfolio a reflection on Gall's et al. (2005) article about Action Research (McDonald, 2010e). In this reflection I comment on an 'Aha!' moment in seeing the incredible potential of Action Research as a tool for professional development. The great advantage of this is that teachers become the centre and source of their own development, instead of depending on 'experts' to 'develop' them. This devolution of power of characteristic of emerging methodologies.
 * Action Research **

Another part of the journey for me has been trying to position myself epistemologically. In my Portfolio wiki I have reflected on this process (McDonald, 2010a). I did not want to approach this as a matter of simply choosing an obvious or convenient epistemology to suit my research design, as this would not have integrity. I really sought to look a little deeper to discover what I really believe about the nature of reality and our ability to know about it. My readings took me on quite a journey, discovering a school of thought that seemed to fit perfectly, only to find aspects of it that did not sit with me. Ultimately I came across critical realism, and although I acknowledge that I have only really scratched the surface in my understanding of it, I have found that it most closely aligns with my beliefs and perspective. Perhaps most importantly I came to realise that I do not have to accept everything offered by a particular perspective, but that I live the reality of my own perspective, which inevitably will be eclectic in nature and provisional. I believe I showed in my Research Platform that it is quite possible to conduct insider research from a critical realist position - especially because the critical realist seeks to uncover the 'real' by dialogue.
 * Epistemological Discoveries **

Arts-Based Research was an entirely new concept for me, one which took me some time to understand (and this understanding is by no means complete!). In my Portfolio I have a reflection (McDonald, 2010d) comparing Arts-Based Research - ABR (as explained in Finlay, 2005) with Action Research, as explained in Gall et al. (2005). I first completed a concept map (using bubbl.us) summarising ABR, before using Webspiration to create a 'double bubble' diagram comparing and contrasting these methodologies. What struck me at first was the very political nature of FInlay's ABR. It is described in quite activist, neo-Marxist terms and made me wonder whether ABR could only be used in support of that particular political perspective. I asked this question in the Forums, and have put the resulting dialogue on my wiki page for ABR. In this dialogue Tania cited Elaine's comment at the hui that in fact all research is inherently political (Shand and Mayo, in McDonald, 2010d). Like Participatory Action Research, Finley's ABR strongly emphasises the role and power of the participants, and the importance of an emancipatory social outcome. One again, the concern is not so much the production of generalisable knowledge, but the creation of knowledge, knowledge that empowers the community concerned. ABR also helps us to remember that there are more ways of understanding ideas, people and contexts than by using numbers and words (which are the typical means of publishing research). My understanding of ABR has deepened, yet it is still not a methodology I would feel comfortable using, simply due to my own lack of artistic ability! This realisation was an "Aha!" moment for me, as this is probably how many people feel about print-based literacies.
 * Arts-based Research **

Practitioner Research (as described by Goodfellow and Hedges, 2007) is another emerging methodology that I enjoyed reading about and reflecting upon (McDonald, 2010f). I did have difficulty distinguishing this from Action Research, but I have discovered that the distinctions do not have to be precise. In a comment from Elaine on my post, she helpfully suggests that the process of talking about the distinctions is more useful than actually coming up with the distinctions themselves: "Your desire to "clarify the differences between PR and Action Research" is an approach that does not interest me when I put on my post-structural hat. It suggests that the intellectual exercise of doing this is an end in its own right." (Mayo, in McDonald, 2010f) Goodfellow and Hedges' main points of difference with Action Research seem to be that the Action Research cycle is too simplistic, the results are often not shared widely, and it lacks a critical edge. I discussed in my reflection how Practitioner Research provides a useful bridge between the practitioner and the academic research community, but also questioned how many teacher practitioners actually have carry out this kind of research, being constrained by time and resources. I suggested that perhaps it is most commonly undertaken by those enrolled in university courses like this one.
 * Practitioner Research **

In considering the role of the researcher in relation to both the participants and the academic or professional community, Mattsson and Kemmis' (2007) Praxis-related Research have been particularly helpful, especially in their conceptualising of the researcher serving these two masters. In my reflection (McDonald, 2010g) on Praxis-related research I noted Mattsson and Kemmis' insistence that of these two masters, the needs of the participant community must come first. They also provided a useful distinction between praxis and practice, where practice usually refers to professional competence, but praxis implies a commitment to action, often of an emancipatory nature.
 * Praxis-related Research **

In this respect I think that Praxis-related research relates much more closely to Kaupapa Maori Research than does Practitioner Research or some of the other emerging methodologies described above (although Participatory Action Research does share some characteristics). Kaupapa Maori Research, as described by Cram (2001), is a distinctly Maori, indigenous approach to conducting research, which places the community and their concerns right at the heart of the research process. In my reflection on this methodology (McDonald, 2010h), I described how there can be a temptation when one is working in an academic environment, and especially when the research I am reading is mostly quantitative, to take it as the norm, as if it is culture-neutral. This article succeeds in making clear that, of course, this is not the case, and comes with loaded assumptions about the nature of knowledge, the uses of knowledge and its collection, and the role of the researcher. In many ways Kaupapa Maori research turns these norms on their heads. I also reflected on the very people-centred nature of the research, such that it would not be able to conduct research of this kind without it being grounded in respect. Could this be said of all research methodologies? Could the awful betrayal in the name of research that was investigated in the Cartwright Inquiry (Snook, 2003) have occurred using a KMR methodology? I doubt this very much, as the participants and their needs are central in the research. Knowledge is not be flaunted or used to disrespect the mana of the participants, but rather to empower them. I further reflected on Cram's statement on p.41 that "Kaupapa Maori is methodology for Maori researchers". This raises interesting questions for me, as a Pakeha emerging researcher, as to what KMR research might mean for my own practice. As a non-Maori, therefore, is this approach one that I should not consider using? I have thought quite a lot about this question and have decided that in a bi-cultural (and multi-cultural) country like New Zealand, it is highly likely that any research I undertake will include Maori. Therefore, the issues raised in KMR should inform my research design so that it is conducted in a culturally safe manner. In particular, I think KMR could/should serve as a reference point for ethical research design.
 * Kaupapa Maori Research **

**Developing a Research Platform** The depth of thought and reading that went into writing my Research Platform has been one of the most useful learning experiences that this course has offered. The way I was able to re-think an approach to my topic (social networking) was by focusing on who this issue concerns the most. Most immediately it concerns young people and their parents, and teachers (myself, in this case) in so far as they are able to provide conditions under which students online self-efficacy can thrive. Looked at from this point of view it is quite clear that most parents are not going to find the results of large-scale surveys very useful, or indeed relevant. What these parents want to know is how they can do a good responsible job as parents in an age where technology is racing ahead faster than attempts to harness it. The important aspect here is being able to discuss issues and voice concerns, and in partnership with each other and myself, try to uncover ways and means of encouraging responsible online behaviour in their children. This sharing of stories and knowledge offers something immediate, something relevant and something embedded in community in a way that pure number-crunching cannot (McDonald, 2010a).

In terms of the course itself, I did find myself feeling a bit remote from the course, as a distance student, especially during the two hui. Using Adobe Connect was great to bridge the distance, as was the posting of presentations and audio online. Receiving feedback from colleagues and the tutors on Learn also enabled me to feel a part of a geographically spread out group. I have also enjoyed the freedom we have had to present our summaries, reflections and thoughts in a variety of ways, embracing multi-modal literary forms to share insights. I have created a wiki containing summaries of readings and my reflections on these, along with comments made by others in response, reflecting the social nature of learning. I have used concept maps, Google Presentations, Voicethread and so forth to make my wiki accessible and engaging. What is more, I see this wiki not just as a course requirement, but as an ongoing resource that I can refer to and add to as my understanding increases. In fact, this is one of the reasons I decided to base my Portfolio in a wiki, rather than on Learn, because I realise I may not always have access to Learn, whereas I can truly own and take with me what is contained on the wiki. The freedom to do this has been appreciated.
 * Distance Learning and Multi-modal Expression **

So my next steps, in light of what I have learnt during this course are as follows: Firstly, I intend to involve research participants from the earliest stages of the project, seeking their input and having my ears and eyes open to their needs and concerns. As Cram (2001) says, it is important to titiro, and whakarongo, before korero. One can feel vulnerable as a researcher, having a participant-centred methodology, but the gains in terms of depth of understanding, relevance and real world emancipatory outcomes make this risk not only worthwhile, but essential. Secondly, I can see that any research that does not attempt to see the research question from the participants' perspective is impoverished as a result. Policy-makers may wish to bring about change through the use of quantitative data, but truly empowering change, from the bottom-up, is possible only when people are given the power to take control of their own circumstances. Emerging methodologies make this kind of change a real possibility. Thirdly, when conducting forms of research that are quantitative, I will be more aware of the fallibility of notions of being an outside observer - that in fact there are layers of social reality completely inaccessible to me if I attempt to remove myself from the context. Much more is to be gained by being a self-acknowledged participant in a shared context. We began with the metaphor of a braided river. I have enjoyed the journey on this river so far, and look forward to seeing where it might lead in the future. (Please find full reflections on the above methodologies on my emergent methodologies wiki, at http://edem698emergent-research.wikispaces.com/)
 * Next Steps **

**References**

Berson, I.R., & Berson, M. (2005). Challenging Online Behaviours of Youth: Findings From a Comparative Analysis of Young People in the United States and New Zealand. //Social Science Computer Review//, 23(1), 29-38, DOI: 10.1177/0894439304271532.

Cram, F. (2001). Rangahau Ma-ori: Tona Tika, tona pono - The validity and integrity of Ma-ori research1. In M. Tolich //Research ethics in Aotearoa New Zealand.// (pp. 35-52). Auckland: Pearson Education.

Duddy, M., Harré, N., & Internet Safety Group. (2002). //The Net Generation: Internet safety issues for young New Zealanders//. Retrieved from [|__http://hectorsworld.netsafe.org.nz/teachers/research/__] on 18 May 2010.

Finley, S. (2005). Arts-based inquiry: Performing revolutionary pedagogy, (pp. 681-594). In N. K. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, //The Sage handbook of qualitative research// (3rd ed.). Thousands Oaks: Sage Publications. Gall, J. P., Gall, M. D., & Borg, W. R. (2005). Chapter 15 'Action Research'. In J. P. Gall, M. D. Gall, & W. R. Borg (2005) //Applying educatonal research. A practical guide.// (5th ed.), 487-521. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Goodfellow, J., & Hedges, H. (2007). Practitioner research ‘Centre Stage’: Contexts, contributions and challenges. In L. Keesing- Styules & H. Hedges, //Theorising early childhood practice: Emerging dialogues//. Castle Hill, NSW: Pademelon Press.

Lenhart, Amanda and Madden, Mary. (2007). //Teens, Privacy & Online Social Networks.// Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.

Mattsson, M., & Kemmis, S. (2007). Praxis-related research: serving two masters? //Pedagogy, Culture and Society. 15(2),// 185-214. McDonald, C. (2010a). //My Research Platform and Reflection//. Accessed at __http://edem698emergent-research.wikispaces.com/My+Research+Platform__

McDonald, C. (2010b). //eHui question: With policymakers' emphasis on quantifiable research how does emergent research survive?// Accessed at  [|__//http://learn.canterbury.ac.nz/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=31038//__]

McDonald, C. (2010c). //My Own Action Research Project.// Accessed at __http://edem698emergent-research.wikispaces.com/My+Own+Action+Research+Project__

McDonald, C. (2010d). //Arts-Based Inquiry//. Accessed at __http://edem698emergent-research.wikispaces.com/Arts-Based+Inquiry__

McDonald, C. (2010e). //Applying Educational Research.// Accessed at __http://edem698emergent-research.wikispaces.com/Applying+Educational+Research__

McDonald, C. (2010f). //Practitioner Research//. Accessed at __http://edem698emergent-research.wikispaces.com/Practitioner+Research__

McDonald, C. (2010g). //Praxis-related Research//. Accessed at __http://edem698emergent-research.wikispaces.com/Praxis-related+Research__.

<span style="color: #1900ae; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Arial; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">McDonald, C. (2010h). //Rangahau Maori//. Accessed at __http://edem698emergent-research.wikispaces.com/Rangahau+Maori__

<span style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Arial; letter-spacing: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Savin-Baden, M. & Wimpenny, K. (2007). Exploring and Implementing Participatory Action Research. //Journal of Geography in Higher Education,// 31 (2), 331-343.

<span style="color: #241e24; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Arial; letter-spacing: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Snook, I. (2003). //The ethical teacher.// Palmerston North: Dunmore Press. (pp.155-168).