To transform or fit in: Not an ‘either/or’ proposition
This is a reading and writing response for Wednesday, July 11, 2018.
Topic: Membership in the Field of Educational Research
As with all paradox, there is tension that exists. Where two diametrically opposite forces, such as qualitative or quantitative research, strain to exist, there is a push/pull proposition. There is tension in the ‘between-ness’, where sometimes balance can be achieved. Wolgemuth (2006) examines the “reasons, rationales, methods, and ethics” (p. 1023) involved in conducting narrative research that is emancipatory in its design and intention. She explores the purpose of emancipatory research, specifically an inquiry of discomfort, in order to obtain “more honest and complex narratives, helping participants and individuals become more self-aware” (p. 1036). Wolgemuth (2006) contends that through the sensitive and complex process of an inquiry of discomfort, where beliefs and values are mutually and honestly critiqued and examined, transformations can occur, of not only the participants and researchers, but also the socially oppressive structures and institutions within which they participate. This fits into the idea of transformational research. This is one side of the paradox for writing about research.
Pratt (2008) positions his article as a technique to fit in, in order to becomes a recognized scholar, with metrics of publication within prestigious journals to show academic proficiency and gain academic advancement (p. 482). Pratt applies an ‘oval peg into a round hole’ metaphor that outlines strategies academic writers can use to camouflage and fit qualitative research writing into the criteria established by top tier publications. In order to further academic recognition, the publication landscape requires that qualitative researchers accommodate their research to meet the expectations for publication in top-tiered North American journals, which include six to eight specific criteria outlined by Pratt (2008), based on survey results and personal experiences. Pratt proposes three structural adaptations which include (1) “creating open theoretical frames” (p. 497); (2) “creating hands on exhibits (p. 499); and (3) “create checklists” (p. 502) in order to address tensions that exist between standards and expectations between qualitative and quantitative research. These are fitting in strategies when writing research.
I suggest that, as a novice researcher looking for a way to balance these two polar positions for conducting research, transformation or fitting in, that Greer (2011) presents a negotiated space in-between. Greer (2011) proposes that, in order to present persuasive information in written reports intended for skeptical audiences, report writers should change the assessment and reporting strategies to include the rhetorical techniques of ethos, logos and pathos. Through a case study, Greer (2011) was able to establish an understanding of how to apply ethos, to establish the writer’s authority and credibility through sharing experiences, insights and interpersonal connections; establish pathos or emotionally charged information, by capturing observations, comments, responses and anecdotal evidence; and support evidence through logos, or logical arguments using data. This can enhance the efficacy of written reports while providing research opportunities for scholars in using “an integrated approach to persuade audiences in different situations” (p. 590). It need not be an either-or proposition when writing research papers, it can be an integrated ‘between-ness’.
References
Greer, R. R. (2011). Reporting results to a skeptical audience: A case study on incorporating persuasive strategies in assessment reports. The American Review of Public Administration, 41(5), 577-591.
Pratt, M. G. (2008). Fitting oval pegs into round holes: Tensions in evaluating and publishing qualitative research in top-tier North American journals. Organizational Research Methods, 11(3), 481-509.
Wolgemuth, J. R., & Donohue, R. (2006). Toward an inquiry of discomfort: Guiding transformation in “emancipatory” narrative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(5), 1022-1039
