A Good Chat

Nothing happened. In fact today's meeting with GR (the male PhD student) was good. Having a preconception or stereotyping is not a constructive approach. I could learn a lot. Although GR's method is a case study, his approach is the use of mixed methods which is totally different from mine. He has actually been managing his research well.

Our discussion was mainly about methodology. The primary question was: What can we begin with?

KK (me): What is methodology, anyway?
GR: Yeah, that's also my concern.
KK: Perhaps we should state exactly what methodology is. There is no consensus in the definifion of methodology.
GR: Agree. Is it an approach or should we include a theoretical perspective?

We actually could not define what methodology is!!

We already looked at theses in past years. However, none of them had a clear structure in the methodology chapter. Finding a clear definition of methodology became our homework.

Crotty (1998) defined methodology as the overall approach taken in a piece of research. He also stated that methodology is the strategy, plan of action, process or design...

If this was true, we should begin with stating either quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods as an approach. Most of theses, however, do not begin with this. Instead, they start with stating an epistemological position or a theoretical perspective.

I know that people in general start this chapter with ontology and epistemology. But this approach is inconsistent with Crotty's definition. There is one possibility that Crotty's definition is wrong or at least little adopted. I think it too much, otherwise.

Reference:
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundation of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. St Leonalds, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

A colleague or a free-rider?

A PhD student, who I met at my confirmation seminar, rang me up today. This male student is my old classmate in the Master of Management degree program. We set up a meeing on Saturday (tomorrow!). Initially, he mentioned that he wanted to have study friends as he is working full time. He also wants to get information about a PhD confirmation seminar as his turn comes soon. That is all fine for me.

However, my supervisor RD told me, "Be careful". What does this mean?

The guy has co- principle supervisors and one of them is RD. The primaly person who usually looks after him is at Nathan campus to which he belongs. According to RD, he already gave him an initial direction for his research, explained the possible methodologies, how he can design and organise his study, and how he can write up his thesis. That amazed me a lot. What RD did to the guy is completely different from what I have got from RD.

The guy concerns his methodology and his approach is a case study based on Yin (a positivistic view). He uses a survey that seems no problem. What else he wants to know, especially from me??

It is interesting. I will find out the meaning of RD's "Be careful" tomorrow.

In the meantime, I decided to attend the "Thesis Writing Group" workshop. I missed the first one because I totally forgot. A lovery staff gave me a reminder for the second chance. I am really interested in joining this group for knowing people rather than working on my thesis at this workshop. It will be held on Monday.

I am working hard on marking assignments of underdraduate students. There are more than 140 papers around me. It is really frustrating when I see bad assignments because they are totally far away from the course reqirements. How can I give them Pass??? They study little. I am having sleepless nights because of this. I really want to get rid of this task as soon as possible as I have to prepare my presentation for a conference.

Doctoral Workshop

ANZAM Doctoral Workshop will be held on 5-6 June. This is overlapping with the 1st Asia Pacific & 5th ANZAM Operations Management Symposium 2007 (6-7 June).
ANZAM Doctoral Workshop Program

Wow, it is interesting. In fact it is the first time I will participate in this kind of activities. As I am an extreme introverted person, there are many challenges in doing my research project. Hopefully I can open myself to others to share some concerns.

When I attended a PhD workshop at my university, I was a bit embarrased. I talked my journey, especially about my personal concerns. "One day, I felt myself like rubbish", I said. Many people laughed at me. Oh OK, local students never experience that feeling... they can always be confident and sure what they do. Self-disclosure did not bring any benefit.

One thing I really wonder is, why people tend to be so competitive? It is not necessary for us at all but people always talk like "Mine is better than yours". That makes me more hesitated to attend (social) activities. Why they do not take a win-win approach?

Under 100 words

ANZAM Doctoral Workshop held in Melbourne (5-6 June) asks me to describe my thesis under 100 words. OK, let's try it!

A current research is an investigation of how Australian organisations understand and apply a management concept called “5S” which stems from Japanese life wisdom for improving quality of life and work. Using a qualitative-oriented case study method, this research attempts to understand and illustrate the importance of 5S in an Australian management context. A multiple-holistic case study was designed to compare and contrast its result with the original 5S concept. The goal of this research is to construct a basic framework of 5S that Australian organisations can incorporate into their quality improvement programs. (93 words)

How does this sound? Oh, do not criticise hard on my English...

Another application form asks me to describe it under 25 words. Wow, this is much tough! OK, I will try it again...

My thesis is a qualitative case study with a multiple-holistic design to investigate how Australian organisations understand and apply a management concept called 5S. (24 words)

Does anyone make sense of this?

More about coding

Apart from ethical concerns, coding is still useful. To analyse the data collected in a more effective way, coding is necessary. If so, what and how we code the data?

I have a strong resistance against coding. It is because I strongly believe that coding is associated with grounded theory. Many scholars indicate coding techniques used in grounded theory and apply them for other qualitative methodologies. However, grounded theory comes from a theoretical assmption of symbolic interactionism. When we use those techniques in grounded theory, a methodological inconsistency would appear. Nevertheless, no one points out this inconsistency yet.

As coding systems in grounded theory is so poweful, structured, clear and therefore influential. many people just use them. However, Colazzi (1978) provides a method for data analysis in line with phenomenology which is totally different from that in grounded theory. Phenomenological data analysis takes the following steps:

1. After transcripts of interviews, read all of them as a whole;
2. Take one transcript at a time, extract significant statements out of each page or section;
3. Provide criative insight. However, try not to fomulate meanings at this stage;
4. Identify formulated meanings out of creative insight that become themes. Cluster those themes;
5. integrate all of themes and create an exhausive description;
6. Reduce the exhausive description to an unequivocal statement of identification of the fundamental structure of a phenomenon; and
7. Validate them with participants.

In summary, data reduction in phenomenology is not associated with coding. Hermaneutical-phenomenology takes similar steps but with a different scope. In contrast, ethnography and grounded theory involve coding because researchers who take these approach want to generate patterns for analyses.

In case studies, researchers are basically allowed to take any qualitative data analysis method. So, I need to decide my theoretical perspective or assumption that drives methodology. Then, I finally can make decision on whether I should code the data I will collect.

Reference:
Colaizzi, P. (1978). Psychological research as a phenomenologist views it. In R. Valle & M. King (eds), Extential Phenomenological Alternatives for Psycology (pp.48-71). New York: Oxford University Press.

Why coding is needed?

I have figured out. In general it is not ethical to use direct quotations from a story of a participant without his or her consent. I should do either: (a) to inform participants clearly that my study needs to use direct quotes; or (b) to code (paraphrase) the story and not to use direct quotes.

Now, the Ethics Committee requires me to provide a special form of informed consent because I am involved in a case study which has a high probability to deal with narratives (direct quotations from stories). Alternatively, I need to state the use of direct quotations clearly in the Information Sheet and the Informed Concent Form to obtain an agreement of participants.

Gosh! Is this why positivists always code into numbers? (a bad joke!)

Ethical Clearance Procedure

I have received a reply from the Human Ethics Committee. My application was provisionary accepted with some minor modifications being required. Now I have to provide responses on each condition.

As my research involves interviews and site observations, it has to provide some additional information to potential participants. It was no problem on the observation concent form but required to insert some extra statements on the interview concent form, such as a legal privacy statement.

The initial process usually involves basic questions to answer online. All relevant documents needs to be attached before the submission. This process had to be done before submitting a PhD Confirmation Paper. In fact I did just one day before the submission of the paper.

Now I have to check everything again from the beginning.

A PhD workshop and a conference in Melbourne, a PhD Masterpeace workshop at Nathan campus and then a pilot study. Also, a plan to trip to see the Great Barrier Reaf in July. Wow, it sounds getting busy again!

Now what?

I am getting along with my blogmate, Celeste, slowly but nicely. We are both PhD students and almost at the same stage. I have been very comfortable with writing my reflections on my study here since I knew her on the web. Although this blog is a kind of obligated activity by my supervisors, I start enjoying my writing.

Now, I reply to her comment: Do you need to resubmit, or are the comments just to help you? In other words, What will happen after the PhD confirmation seminar?

For other readers, I briefly describe the process up to the seminar:

1. Submit 8000-10000 words PhD confirmation paper to an independent assessor;
2. The assessor is assumed that he/she has read the paper until the seminar;
3. The assessor attends the seminar and evaluate the presentation;
4. The assessor provides comments immediately after the seminar;
5. The candidate (me) defends ONLY WHEN particular questions were given;
6. The assessor provides comments (including suggestions, evaluations and critiques);
7. The canditate waits for the result outside of a room; and
8. The assessor informs the candidate whether he/she was officially confirmed (pass).

After the seminar, the assesor will summarise his/her comments and provide a report to the e.g. Graduate Student Office. At the same time, supervisors SHOULD have responsibility on putting down those comments of the assessor and HOPEFULLY they will give notes to the candidate. This is not always the case, therefore, the candidature MUST record the assessor's comments for the future access.

About one month later of the seminar, the Graduate Student Office will send you the evaluation report. The candidature must respond to ALL comments indicated on the report and will have to submit it to the Office. The update report will go to the Research Dean. When the Dean approves, the candidature will be informed that "you are truly safe" (I mean, truly confirmed). In fact, almost nothing will happen.

Why is this so important then? At my university, travel and other grants are given only to CONFIRMED PhD students. Hence, it is just the matter of money, at least for me. Indeed, it is all helpful to improve quality of the research. Especially critical comments must be the most welcomed. When those are raised, you only have to say, "It is a good point. I will think about it". This is the most tricky part. It is because you will have to provide written defence once you attempted to answer and say something back at the seminar! Therefore, it is better not to say any particular thing there unless you really know about it.

Actually, my PhD seminar went well (except my presentation) in terms of having a lot of critical comments. Some scholars attended the seminar gave me lots of confusion. Thanks all. As Celeste suggested, I will seek about the term "coding". I do not think it is not necessary to use the term as it is for my research. Instead, I would have to provide an alternative or equivalent term with justification.

By the way, I am thinking to purchase a transcribing software. I have a voice recognition and an auto-transcription programs for Japanese but those do not work with English. Does anyone know the best program is?

Assesor's Comments

I have started transcribing a tape of an assessor's comments on my PhD confirmation paper and seminar. It must be a good practice for the actual transcription. Prof BM's comments were really hard, tough, but fair. In summary, his comments were (my thoughts are in brackets):

• Both my argument and approach were too soft (I agree);
• Is the topic just about "housekeeping"? (my topic is workplace management!);
• What are two frameworks used for? (qualitative research should not have a priori assumptions!);
• What are service organisations' cases used for? (I stated the purpose in my paper!);
• Are you taking a comparative approach? (No!);
• You need more cases (Why? Single case is even acceptable!); and
• How will you code the data collected? (What? Why is coding needed?).

I totally get lost. In particular, I do not understand why coding is needed. My study is a case study, not a discourse analysis. My case is a system or program, not individuals. Why, why, why? My approach is phenomenology. My analysis is pattern matching.

Do I get myself involved in the methodological disaster again???

Nicely Settled

One day after the big event, I joined a small party called "Girls' night". Today is the "Boys' day" in Japan though... it was really fun.

The friend DC invited me tonight was in my PhD confirmation seminar. We are good friends and working together for two courses under my supervisor RD. The information she got from RD before the seminar was, "The examinar previously rejected some students. He was known as one of hard markers". I did not know that at all! I was told from RD as he is very supportive. I really appreciated that no one told me the truth before the seminar.

The friend DC got a lot of information for me from my supervisor RD. According to her, the examinar really likes straight-forward expressions. I imagined how patiently he had to listened to me. In fact, all of my supervisors were a little nervous. I wondered why but now I know why they were. I also know why they did not tell me the truth. It was all about strategy to win that game. We won.

My other friends also told me, "I never imagined such tough comments". I did not think like that at all. I rather thought he was very kind and patient. "Yeah, it was not nasty at all, but really critical". That was what I wanted. I was so happy with obtaining his feedback. "Kay, you were really brave. You answered and explained well". Really? What I did? Hum... I should listen to the tape recorded but I do not want to do it for a while!

I must be in the pretty lucky environment. Supervisors know me very well. We are working as a team. They understand my introverted personality, awful public speech skill and horrible writing. They carefully choose words to give me. They push me into conferences to improve my speech skill. They are always challenging. When I have many tears (especially with methodology), they quietly listen to me then turn into loud discussions for me.

Seven years ago, when I started my bachelor program, many lecturers and tutors told me, "I do not know what you are talking about". I failed some courses. I am now study for a PhD. Indeed, I am getting confident.

PhD Confirmation Seminar

Today, I was officially confirmed as a PhD candidature. A door was opened.

I was told that potential attendees are approximitely 12 people and the research dean does not attend. That made me a bit relaxed. There were an independent assesor (examiner), three supervisors, a professor, a PhD researcher, a senior PhD student, four PhD students, and four supportive people attended.

My seminar started on time. My speech was as terrible as usual but well-designed PPT slides helped me out (I was very confident with them). As supervisors mentioned, I posed in the middle of presentation then asked audience, "Are you confortable so far?". Everyone nodded. "Then, we shall move onto the next section". Some people had a big smile.

Although my speech was awful, people were very patient with my slow pace. Everytime I emphasised a particular term, I tried to have eye contact with people who are professionals in that area. They reacted nicely. They were all supportive.

Somehow, I could finished on time. The examiner game me feedback. Many issues have been raised. However, all of them were very benefitial rather than critical. Other people gave me many suggestions rather than questions or critiques. I was really appreciated with their comments. It seemed OK.

"Please wait outside". I was waiting for about 15 minutes. A door was opened.

"Now, we are glad to announce that you have officially been confirmed as a PhD candidature".

Yeah, me!! I made it.