Today, I am presenting a small workshop to the Lamar University National Pan-Hellenic Council.

Here is the presentation:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MbiLKvULumtSAlanrWVj1YN2AmsPwqbZW6qsEdaEV7U/edit?usp=sharing

Epistemology and Ontology Readings

p. 168 — questions

Ontology — what is the nature of reality?

Epistemology, as a technical term in philosophy, refers to how we know and the relationship between the knower and the known. It is distinguished from ontology (what exists, and the nature of reality) and axiology (values), as well as methodology.

axiology — what is the role of values?

https://laulima.hawaii.edu/access/content/group/57f376c0-02b7-4497-a92c-d4655c56485e/EDCS%20632/1-2_Creswell-ch-2.pdf

From https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.204486!/file/7ResearchDesign.pdf

Section 7.2: Epistemology is about how we know what we know, the nature of the relationship between the knower and the what can be known

Epistemology is concerned with providing a philosophical grounding for what kinds of knowledge are possible,…Ontology is the study of being or the nature of reality. NA ontological stance implies and epistemological stance and vice vera

Per Cresswell http://sandbox.informatics.iupui.edu/~kmacdorm/courses/ResearchDesign/Presentations/Creswell1Framework.pdf

What is epistemology What is epistemology? A theory of knowledge embedded in the theoretical perspective z What is a theoretical perspective? What lies behind the methodology in question z Wh t a i th d l ? is methodology? The strategy or plan of action that links methods to outcomes z What are methods? z The techniques and procedures we p p ro ose to use

Positivism, post positivism and the connection to validity

—in quant work, reliable and valid (if I weigh myself 5 times and get 5 different results, if 

—reliable: are the scores consistent? —validity: does it measure what we want it to measure? 

—the methods we have learned to determine how things are valid don’t hold up in qualitative research

In this paper: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1870&context=tqr

When judging (testing) qualitative work, Strauss and Corbin (1990) suggest that the “usual canons of ‘good science’…require redefinition in order to fit the realities of qualitative research” (p. 250).

What strategies do we use? 

Reliability and validity are conceptualized as trustworthiness, rigor and quality in qualitative paradigm. It is also through this association that the way to achieve validity and reliability of a research get affected from the qualitative researchers’ perspectives which are to eliminate bias and increase the researcher’s truthfulness of a proposition about some social phenomenon (Denzin, 1978) using triangulation. Then triangulation is defined to be “a validity procedure where researchers search for convergence among multiple and different sources of information to form themes or categories in a study” (Creswell & Miller, 2000, p. 126).

 

Deaf Epistemology paper:

Where does that title come from? I think here:

Discussion of cyborgs echoes/touches on Haraway’s manifesto (see this summary: https://web.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/critstudies/sunny.html –“The cyborg is both a product of social reality and of fictionalized encryption.”

Also, from https://biopoliticsracegender.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/donna-haraway-a-cyborg-manifesto/

Cyborgs are “…a hybrid of machine and organism, [creatures] of social reality as well as [creatures] of fiction…” (104). Or, if you prefer:  “…a hybrid of animal and machine, who populate worlds ambiguously natural and crafted…” (1991 version, p. 142). Haraway says that “the cyborg is our ontology, it gives us our politics.” (104) – part metaphor, part reality, the cyborg is the product of the imaginary and the material that structures our lives in the late 20th (and now the early 21st) century.

Note: the original authors didn’t incorporate Haraway into the paper, but there may be a way for you all to do it.

Can multiple Deaf epistemologies exist? As the draft states, “Who holds and transmits the Deaf cultural wealth and sets the mores for being Deaf.” What is the mythical norm that exists, and how is that reified in research and teaching?

 

 

Tips for Reading in Grad School

From Miriam Sweeney:

Read strategically. Do not read linearly. She wrote: “Reading strategically instead of linearly will make you a more efficient and effective academic reader.  Getting familiar with how different formats of writing are structured will give you the confidence and control to find the information you need in them more efficiently.”

If you’re reading a journal article:

…start by checking the name of the journal that published the article.  This will key you in to the scope and boundaries that the article is working within.  Next, carefully read the title and the abstract of the piece.  A good abstract should clearly explain the main argument of the article, the kind of evidence the author uses, and a succinct conclusion, or what the author found out.  Armed with this information, look over the introduction to see how the author is framing their work, paying attention to the citations they use.  This tells you who the author is trying to be in dialogue with. Next, flip to the discussion section.  Sometimes this is separate than the conclusion, sometimes not, depending on the disciplinary standards of the author and journal.  Read the discussion and conclusion carefully.  These sections will explain the author’s main arguments and the “why you should care” piece. Now you can go back through the article armed with the knowledge of where the author is leading you and browse over methods and results sections.  Pay attention particularly to images and data visualizations.  Note how these things relate to or support the discussion and conclusion sections you read.

If you’re reading a book:

As an academic reader your job is to mine the text you are reading for information.  Instead of cruising along the narrative, you need to dive in, find the information you need, and move along to the next stack of readings for class….

In academic books, the introduction is where the author states all of their main points, the framework they will use, and an outline of what information will be covered in each chapter.  Next, look over the last chapter.  This is the conclusion, which will restate the main arguments of the author and will often contextualize these arguments in a broader context, suggest next steps, or speculate solutions or alternatives.

Remember, you are not really expected to read every single word of the book; your mandate is to understand the author’s main ideas, arguments, and be able to articulate why this discussion matters.

Take (detailed, specific) notes as you read.

Develop a system of your own whether it is sticking a post-it note in the book and jotting something down, or opening up RefWorks or Zotero, or Word and throwing some notes down as you read.  Whatever you do, remember that future you will have NO IDEA what present you is thinking, no matter how brilliant a thought it is.  Be specific, include detailed citations and pages numbers for direct quotes so you don’t have to chase them later.

Here’s a pro tip from the author: “If you are reading as preparation for a class, make sure you are also jotting down 3-5 questions, observations, or provocations that you can use in class for participation.”

From Dr. Raul Pacheco (if you don’t follow him on Twitter or read his blog, you should. He is a wealth of information.):

 I do take notes off of my readings, and I use them as writing prompts.

The method I use to write my synthetic notes is very similar to a shorter memorandum (I’ve written about how to write extensive and detailed memoranda here, but for synthetic notes, I am looking at less than a page, almost like a rhetorical precis). There’s a number of good resources on how to write critiques of journal articles and book chapters, and how to summarize them, but here is my own method.

• I start by copying the citation (already formatted) from Mendeley on to an empty page (either electronic or in my Everything Notebook).
• I then proceed with a basic AIC content extraction (Abstract, Introduction, Conclusion). When I extract content using AIC, I don’t overlook the methods nor the data analysis, I simply summarize them, VERY, VERY BRIEFLY. I don’t type the headings “Abstract”, “Introduction”, nor “Conclusion”. I simply write a couple of paragraphs summarizing all the insights I gained from these. Since I’m very analog, I usually highlight those insights, or I scribble on the sides of the printed reading material.
• I run through the middle of the paper rapidly (this technique is also known as skimming), and if I find something that catches my attention but I don’t have the time to delve in depth, I attach a Post-It adhesive note that protrudes ever so lightly off of the side of the page. That way, I know that I need to go back to that paper.
• Since I learn better when I transcribe notes, I often copy verbatim my analog (in paper) synthetic notes off of my Everything Notebook into a digital file (usually in Micro$oft Word). I save the file with a brief summary of the article’s title, usually SN which is shorthand for synthetic notes.
• I save all my synthetic notes into a folder, which is usually different from the folder where I have detailed memorandums. You should note that if you expand your synthetic notes, you may be able to easily create a very detailed memo. I don’t usually overwrite the synthetic note file, but I make a copy and use that document to expand into a memorandum.

 

How do you keep track of your references and sources?

 

Benefits of Using Citation Management Tools:

One thing you need to consider at the start of your graduate studies is your bibliographic management system. There are many systems available and I am going to review free two online, academically oriented systems. Here is how one person sorted through the online choices to find a tool: https://at.blogs.wm.edu/comparing-research-managers-zotero-evernote-and-devonthink-pro-office/ 

Also, here are some videos with closed captioning about the benefits of citation management.

About Zotero:

About Mendeley:

About EndNote:

 

Zotero vs. Mendeley:

Videos:

Notes and Ideas:

What are ethics? 

What is the ethical code for your major professional organization? Is there one? 

Culturally Responsive Relational Reflexive Ethics

What would Culturally Responsive Relational Reflexive Ethics look like and be like in the Deaf community? 

p. 1400: “We propose

one’s aspirational ethical code is socially constructed (a) prior to beginning research based

on one’s epistemological framework; (b) during data collection, where ethics should be

reflected on, deconstructed, and reconstructed; and, finally, (c) when leaving the research

field and considering the process of data analysis, representation, and dissemination.”

What would you include in your aspirational code? 

(Activity: Create an aspirational ethics code.) 

QualEthics.pdf: 

How are ethics in qualitative research different from ethics in quantitative research? 

p. 93 — Ramos (1989) described three types of problems that may

affect qualitative studies: the researcher/participant

relationship, the researcher’s subjective interpretations of

data, and the design itself.

p. 94 — Kvale (1996)

considered an interview to be a moral endeavor, 

(What does that mean?) 

 p. 96 — rinciple of justice should

not further burden the already burdened vulnerable group of

participants.

What might this mean for Deaf/hard of hearing people? 

p. 96 — mplications for Researchers

Having these ethical principles in mind, those researchers

who are also clinicians should reflect on their roles as researchers

and in comparison to their previous roles as clinicians. At times,

however, researchers have to revert rapidly to their roles as

clinicians. The separation of these two roles is not easy.

Clinicians usually advise and treat clients for their complaints.

Clinicians, in this new role of researchers, should listen to

participants about what they want to say or to observe without

interfering. For someone who has been used to being in charge

or helping, this apparent passivity may cause discomfort and

some level of stress.

(Now think about yourself as educators and advocates and members of the community. How do you balance those roles and the ethical principles?)

Friendship ethics paper: 

 When is it appropriate for the researcher to lie to his or her participants?

What is the dilemma of intimacy? 

Where do you draw the line? 

p. 5:  ‘intimate insider’ primarily in relation to researchers whose pre-existing friendships (close, distant, casual or otherwise) evolve into informant relationships

—friend-informants—as opposed to the majority of existing work that deals with informant-friendships.”

p 5: intimate insider research

p.8: “intimacy–prior personal knowledge of your subject—generates a different kind of response—potentially a more detailed one.

p8: close friendship is based on mutual exchange and trust,

considerate and cooperative behaviour, w

hich often engenders a variety of qualities and responses

including honesty, empathy, respect, loyalty, affection, esteem, altruism and love.

4

Friendship (like

research) has rules of engagement and being an ethical friend may mean not betraying confidence

imparted. However, being an ethical friend may also at times compromise one’s research,

particularly what you allow yourself to

see

as a researcher and what you choose to communicate

with outsiders; that is, what you say and what you do not say.

Alice Goffman — about 20 minutes

https://www.ted.com/talks/alice_goffman_college_or_prison_two_destinies_one_blatant_injustice/transcript

link: http://newramblerreview.com/book-reviews/law/ethics-on-the-run

her dissertation is not available from the Princeton library. Alas, it is now too late to obtain any additional documentation, because Goffman shredded all of her field notes and disposed of her hard drive.  Her reason, as she explained to the Philadelphia Inquirer, was to remove “the threat of being subpoenaed” for the identities of her subjects, many of whom had discussed or committed crimes in her presence.  But that does not explain destroying every single page of her notes, which presumably would have included the names or badge numbers of the zealous maternity cops. 

an accomplice in the evident commission of a major felony.  The last ten pages of On the Run are devoted to the murder of one of her closest 6th Street friends, whom she calls Chuck.  In Goffman’s telling, Chuck was shot in the head in an ongoing “war” with the rival 4th Street Boys, dying several hours later in the hospital while she sat at his bedside. 

A few days after the funeral, “the hunt was on to find the man who had killed Chuck,” whom the 6th Street Boys believed they could identify.  Guns in hand, they drove around the city, looking for revenge.  This time, Goffman did not merely take notes – on several nights, she volunteered to do the driving.  Here is how she described it:

We started out around 3:00 a.m., with Mike in the passenger seat, his hand on his Glock as he directed me around the area.  We peered into dark houses and looked at license plates and car models as Mike spoke on the phone with others who had information about [the suspected killer’s] whereabouts.

One night, Mike thought he saw his target:

He tucked his gun in his jeans, got out of the car, and hid in the adjacent alleyway.  I waited in the car with the engine running, ready to speed off as soon as Mike ran back and got inside (p. 262).

Fortunately, Mike decided that he had the wrong man, and nobody was shot that night.  But what if Mike had gotten his man, or some other man, or if he had hit a bystander?  The driver would have been just as culpable for the killing as the trigger man.

Taking Goffman’s narrative at face value, one would have to conclude that her actions – driving around with an armed man, looking for somebody to kill – constituted conspiracy to commit murder under Pennsylvania law.  In the language of the applicable statute, she agreed to aid another person “in the planning or commission” of a crime – in this case, murder.  As with other “inchoate” crimes, the offense of conspiracy is completed simply by the agreement itself and the subsequent commission of a single “overt act” in furtherance of the crime, such as voluntarily driving the getaway car.

I sent the relevant paragraphs from On the Run to four current or former prosecutors with experience in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois. Their unanimous opinion was that Goffman had committed a felony.  A former prosecutor from the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office was typical of the group.   “She’s flat out confessed to conspiring to commit murder and could be charged and convicted based on this account right now,” he said.

To her credit, although in a rather disquieting way, Goffman does not claim that she did it for science.  “I did not get into the car with Mike because I wanted to learn firsthand about violence,” she wrote.  “I got into the car because . . . I wanted Chuck’s killer to die.” Nor is she remorseful.  “Looking back, I’m glad that I learned what it feels like to want a man to die – not simply to understand the desire for vengeance in others, but to feel it in my bones,” she explained. (p. 263). That might be a revelatory passage in a memoir, or a plot point in a sequel to The Departed, but it is an alarming confession from an ethnographer. 

There is a convention of “reflexivity” among ethnographers and certain other qualitative social scientists, in which the researcher is expected to include her “perspectives, positions, values and beliefs in manuscripts and other publications.” This is considered necessary for engagement in the “processes of self-awareness and self-criticism as an intrinsic feature of the research process.”  Viewed in that context, Goffman’s reflection on her desire for “Chuck’s killer to die,” and her satisfaction with the experience, comprises a meaningful part of the whole story.  But expressing a bone-deep emotion is one thing, acting on it is quite another, and impulse control would seem to be an indispensable tool for the ethical ethnographer. 

Lay people may not appreciate the finer points of conspiracy law, but Goffman’s advisors (not to mention the Princeton IRB) must surely have cautioned her against direct entanglement in major criminality.  After 

s Humphreys’ (1970) unethical study of anonymous male

homosexual encounters suggests, ‘going native’ does not always mean that personal relationships

—

even sexual ones

—

are at their core trustworthy. Therefore, to create a safe research environment, it

is also necessary for a researcher to provide full disclosure of her aims and intent.

https://natalie354.typeform.com/to/CtGOxy