Reflecting on Feedback
“What leads you on
Borhani, M.T., (2017). Living with Words: This “Vale of Soul-Making”. Sameshima, P., Fidyk, A., & James, K. (2017). Poetic Inquiry: Enchantment of Place. (pp 100 – 107). Delaware, USA: Vernon Press
Wakes you in the night
What calls your name
When no one else can hear?
What follows you
That even you cannot see…
Follow that star.
There is no one’s life but your own.
Seize every fiber
Every feather and force
That weaves through all
Surrounding you.
A light, a guide.
A way”
What leads me on? What wakes me in the night? How do I seize the feedback I’ve been given and let it guide my way deeper into the research proposal process?
It’s one thing to ask for feedback, and another to take that feedback and reflect on it. Reflecting doesn’t mean just reading through it and perhaps considering it worthy of further action. It’s taking it all in – the good, the interesting (because it’s all interesting in some way), and the not so useful (even though it usefully tells you that you’ve missed the mark in terms of explaining yourself with clarity). It’s more than an ‘ah yes’ reaction or a ‘wonder why that comment was made’. It’s really thinking deeply and then acting on the suggestions in one way or another.
I was gifted with feedback, not only from my classmates in the Research Colloquium course, but also received feedback on my draft proposal for grant funding, and received feedback from critical friends in the digital spaces. When I suggested an open forum using Hypothes.is, I never imagined the deep, rich and responsive feedback I would receive. I am thankful to those who took time to read and respond. I am also reflecting on feedback I give to others – on conference proposals, on book chapter submissions I offer to review, comments I add to blog posts, and the feedback I give to my students.
Now, some time to collect these bits of feedback into relevant action for improvement. The next iteration of my research proposal needs to reflect my reflections with evident actions grounded in these insights from the feedback provided.
- make sure I clarify my understanding of the differences between ethnography, autoethonography, phenomenology, phenomenography, and how grounded theory fits
- be clear about the distinction between methodology and method
- continue to work out the justification and process for dissemination in an alternative dissertation format
- delimit the scope of the research to ensure it is manageable i.e. focus on one or two faculties of education, select specific programs or subject areas within the FoE, reconsider why only Canadian FoE
- be explicit and clear in defining the terms I am using e.g. OEPr rather than OEP; FoE rather than further education, professional development, faculty development etc.
- be consistent in philosophy, theoretical framework, and methodology and make sure methods fit into those frameworks (Grant & Osanloo 2014)
- develop an interview protocol to guide the process (Cameron, 2014)
- clearly define my participant selection process and justify with research (Cameron, 2014)
- edit carefully and consistently, watch for APA, minor typos, change of ‘voice’, overuse of commas, missed or incorrect information in Zotero references
- examine strategies for trustworthiness – read more (Guba & Lincoln, dissertations)
References
Cameron, E. (2014). Throwing their weight around: A critical examination of faculty experiences with challenging dominant obesity discourse in post-secondary education (Doctoral dissertation). Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario.
Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house”. Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2), 12–26.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research 3rd ed., (pp. 191–215). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
