Write a blog reflecting on what you read and what you saw in the video related to coding. How does the coding process help identify and vet new knowledge construction from qualitative research processes? How might technology distort “knowledge” communicated using social media, forums, synchronous tools, and others? What considerations should we make when using technology-mediated communication?
It was insightful to read through Aaron Cooley’s article entitled “Qualitative Research in Education: The Origins, Debates, and Politics of Creating Knowledge” (Cooley, 2013). Though I detect a hint of politically biased suppositions, ultimately Cooley identifies a key concern throughout the American education system, where “conversations as well as discourse at academic conferences often come to question the entire value of the education system” (Cooley, 2013, p. 248). There is much discussion and dissatisfaction concerning the overall effectiveness of the public-school systems and as a parent, I was dissatisfied with the outcomes of the school districts where I lived. What most parents have complained about but didn’t necessarily have a full conceptual grasp of is the “notion of the hidden curriculum” (Cooley, 2013, p. 251). As a result, many parents are choosing to put their children through homeschool and private school where they have more control of the education outcomes.
Cooley further discusses, the lack of acceptance of qualitative research within political and business entities. So, they view educational research and the associated qualitative research processes with skepticism. Hence the opinion of these groups holds that “qualitative work as noted by some critics allege, come from liberal and ideological college faculties and may be viewed as more suspect” (Cooley, 2013, p. 254). Cooley further notes that “proponents of qualitative methods should try to better educate critics in these policy circles to both the value and rigor of qualitative work” (Cooley, 2013, p. 254). In order to overcome these roadblocks, the challenge to the proponents of qualitative methods is two-fold:
- continue to develop qualitative studies that consistently provide substitutive results and findings
- develop processes that support analysis capabilities similar to those of quantitative method processes times
The old adage is ‘necessity is the mother of invention’. Current technologies have limitations to meet the demands of qualitative methods and supportive of coding analysis. With new technologies continuing to evolve, Artificial Intelligence has the potential to address these issues. Instead of making complaints about the circumstances, researchers need to develop their way through the issues.
Regarding the video discussion about coding, as a novice at this practice, it will take me an amount of time and practice to get the hang of the process. By performing multiple coding analysis activities, I will gain a better understanding of the process. Currently I’m working through a qualitative analysis project from the Spring semester. I am actively coding six interviews where I documented (field notes) the responses from six participants. The participants are active instructional designers that are designing and updating many training modules related to an aerospace production environment. The basis of the research project is to interview the participants to understand how through their instructional design activities they can know the effectiveness of the course outcomes. I hope to identify both positive outcomes and areas where they can improve their course designs. Even though this is a small scale qualitative analysis project, I hope to learn some of the essential skills in conducting non-positivist qualitative studies. This will help to build on the current body of knowledge and skill capabilities which will in turn help build trust and acceptance of the application of qualitative research in academia and business.
Cooley, A., (2013). Qualitative research in education: The origins, debates, and politics of creating knowledge. Education Studies, 49, 247-262.