So, I was out of pocket slightly this last week, as I traveled to Seattle for the American Academy of Optometry meeting, for continuing education, and industry meetings, and even to present a little research. I had quite a few opportunities to review some new research in Optometric Education, and so my thoughts on this are what follows:
-There are some interesting things going on in higher education. The Optometric Education section held a symposium on Blended Learning, in which four presenters discussed the general theory behind blending traditional lecture with online lectures, team-based activities, and assignments. Dr. Linda Casser, who introduced the symposium, held that blended learning is a more innately constructivist method of teaching than traditional lecture or laboratory, which is predominately behaviorist. The other panelists described their experiences in implimenting Blended Learning in their classes. One professor merely recorded his lectures and had his students watch them online. Another recorded some lectures, gave other lectures in person, and engaged the class with assignments in other situations. All in all, the symposium did a good job presenting how Blended Learning can be used in Optometric Education, and what its benefits are.
-A few papers that were presented studied the effect of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives on students' prescribing practices, and attitudes. They showed that the gifts (both pure gifts and sampling) do have an effect on student and faculty behavior, and that many students feel they do not receive enough education on how to deal with reps and how to rationally prescribe.
-Interestingly, a few of the paper presentations contained statements that evidenced study problems. One person said that his findings "did not appear to have a statistically-significant difference," though he apparently did not run the statistics to check. Another seemed to express some design problems, admitting that she wanted to measure behavior, but used a survey instrument that was inappropriate for that use.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Historical Research
A quick entry today, as I find myself in the middle of a (working) vacation in the Pacific Northwest! I reviewed Leedy chapter 7 about historical research, and have found it an interesting subject. Being one who has seen the resulting publication of such research projects, it is easy to assume that the researchers merely read a lot, then come up with a theory that matches their understanding. After all, this is how we reach most of conclusions naturally--with snap judgments, based on a multitude of factors. It is a mechanism that is well-suited to help us survive in a dangerous world, but my lead to misconceptions that are inexcusable in research.
The regimented nature of historical research is, therefore, unexpected and fascinating to me. I like the idea of theorizing and understanding the true nature of events and ideas based upon analysis of the available historical data. Perhaps in having a closer look at where our profession has been, we can avoid its mistakes and repeat its successes.
The regimented nature of historical research is, therefore, unexpected and fascinating to me. I like the idea of theorizing and understanding the true nature of events and ideas based upon analysis of the available historical data. Perhaps in having a closer look at where our profession has been, we can avoid its mistakes and repeat its successes.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Stratification: qualitative research upon qualitative research
After reviewing my textbook chapters and suggested resources in this unit, I was left with a new-found understanding of qualitative research and its specific characteristics. Though many examples of the different types of qualitative research were given in the textbook chapters, I wanted to test my understanding by reviewing a non-annotated study. A review of online qualitative research links brought me here.
This study looks at two published instances in which Grounded Theory was used to analyse interviews that were given to evaluate the usefulness of instructional systems development tools. That is, the study is a multiple case-report of Grounded Theory studies. It is interesting because it presents two different methods of qualitative research together, with the first evaluating the second.
The authors of the multiple case-study spent some time defining the purposes of the two Grounded Theory studies, but since their research interest was predominantly in the use of Grounded Theory in interview analysis, no more than a cursory review is given. They do, however, devote a good amount of space to the similarities and differences between the two study cases. Grounded theory was used to evaluate group-based interviews in one, and individual interviews in the second. In the first study, the purpose of the research was hidden from the participants; in the second, it was freely revealed. Interviews were analyzed differently between studies, with the first using keyword analysis and a multiple-coding system, and the second qualitatively analyzing all sentences of the interviews and coding the results based upon a single-category system.
The researchers found that, though there were differences (described above) between the methodologies of the two studies, the use of Grounded Theory to analyse interviews was an appropriate one in both cases, supporting its use in analyzing other types of interviews.
This was a fascinating read, first, because it helped me understand Grounded Theory better; second, that it showed me how qualitative methods can be used to analyse other qualitative studies; and, third, because it illustrated a specific use of Grounded Theory (ie. interview analysis). I look forward to learning more about these methods in the future.
---------------------------
Reference
Calloway, L. J., & Knapp, C. A. (1995). Using Grounded Theory to Interpret Interviews. Paper
presented at the First AIS Americas Conference on Information Systems, Pittsburgh, PA. Retrieved
from http://csis.pace.edu/~knapp/AIS95.htm
This study looks at two published instances in which Grounded Theory was used to analyse interviews that were given to evaluate the usefulness of instructional systems development tools. That is, the study is a multiple case-report of Grounded Theory studies. It is interesting because it presents two different methods of qualitative research together, with the first evaluating the second.
The authors of the multiple case-study spent some time defining the purposes of the two Grounded Theory studies, but since their research interest was predominantly in the use of Grounded Theory in interview analysis, no more than a cursory review is given. They do, however, devote a good amount of space to the similarities and differences between the two study cases. Grounded theory was used to evaluate group-based interviews in one, and individual interviews in the second. In the first study, the purpose of the research was hidden from the participants; in the second, it was freely revealed. Interviews were analyzed differently between studies, with the first using keyword analysis and a multiple-coding system, and the second qualitatively analyzing all sentences of the interviews and coding the results based upon a single-category system.
The researchers found that, though there were differences (described above) between the methodologies of the two studies, the use of Grounded Theory to analyse interviews was an appropriate one in both cases, supporting its use in analyzing other types of interviews.
This was a fascinating read, first, because it helped me understand Grounded Theory better; second, that it showed me how qualitative methods can be used to analyse other qualitative studies; and, third, because it illustrated a specific use of Grounded Theory (ie. interview analysis). I look forward to learning more about these methods in the future.
---------------------------
Reference
Calloway, L. J., & Knapp, C. A. (1995). Using Grounded Theory to Interpret Interviews. Paper
presented at the First AIS Americas Conference on Information Systems, Pittsburgh, PA. Retrieved
from http://csis.pace.edu/~knapp/AIS95.htm
Monday, October 7, 2013
The Research Proposal
Chapter 5 of Leedy and Ormrod (2013) was familiar to me in many ways. It reminded me of the process of writing my Master's thesis; the give-and-take with my adviser; the constant revisions; sending what I thought was a perfect draft for review and receiving it back with red ink dripping from the pages.
For a moment, it made me question why I've embarked on this journey again. But the interest of the material, the desire to know more, the drive to improve, both personally and professionally; all these are the forces that drive us to go through this process.
I have a tendency towards robust, complex prose. This is something I will have to fight as I compose research proposals. As it was illustrated in the chapter, an unclear or unfocused first sentence can predispose a reviewer against your proposal; I know this is true, since it has happened to me before. When reading a student's paper, I often would see a cliche, or waste of print, as an introduction. My initial thoughts in such a situation were exactly as the chapter described: "Why are they wasting my time?", "Couldn't they have done without this?" and so on.
The emphasis on clear, flowing organization, and formatting detail was good to see. Reading a confusing or unattractive paper can make a reviewer balk as well. Ideally, we would strive to produce a research proposal that the reviewer reads easily, without distractions of form, grammar, or spelling, with all ideas supported and logically-presented, so that the reader understands our message exactly as we indented it.
Of course, such perfect communication is unobtainable, but the closer we can get to this ideal position, the more honest and clear the research proposal process can be. Though I may desire for my research to be accepted for publication or support simply out of ego, the "better angels of my nature" truly wish that the best proposals get grants, that the most important research is complete, and that the poorly thought-out or inconsequential be filtered. It is encumbent upon us, as researchers, to strive to be in that first group: so that we can write our research proposals without guile; truly attempting to represent our proposal accurately, acting with the confidence that we are backing an admirable process.
-----------------------
Works Cited
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Practical Research: Planning and Design (10th ed.). Pearson: Boston.
For a moment, it made me question why I've embarked on this journey again. But the interest of the material, the desire to know more, the drive to improve, both personally and professionally; all these are the forces that drive us to go through this process.
I have a tendency towards robust, complex prose. This is something I will have to fight as I compose research proposals. As it was illustrated in the chapter, an unclear or unfocused first sentence can predispose a reviewer against your proposal; I know this is true, since it has happened to me before. When reading a student's paper, I often would see a cliche, or waste of print, as an introduction. My initial thoughts in such a situation were exactly as the chapter described: "Why are they wasting my time?", "Couldn't they have done without this?" and so on.
The emphasis on clear, flowing organization, and formatting detail was good to see. Reading a confusing or unattractive paper can make a reviewer balk as well. Ideally, we would strive to produce a research proposal that the reviewer reads easily, without distractions of form, grammar, or spelling, with all ideas supported and logically-presented, so that the reader understands our message exactly as we indented it.
Of course, such perfect communication is unobtainable, but the closer we can get to this ideal position, the more honest and clear the research proposal process can be. Though I may desire for my research to be accepted for publication or support simply out of ego, the "better angels of my nature" truly wish that the best proposals get grants, that the most important research is complete, and that the poorly thought-out or inconsequential be filtered. It is encumbent upon us, as researchers, to strive to be in that first group: so that we can write our research proposals without guile; truly attempting to represent our proposal accurately, acting with the confidence that we are backing an admirable process.
-----------------------
Works Cited
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Practical Research: Planning and Design (10th ed.). Pearson: Boston.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)